In what has been described by the media today as ‘a blistering attack’ on Jeremy Corbyn (the media tries each and every day to reafiirm its addiction to clichés) Prime Minister David Cameron told the Conservative Conference that the Opposition Leader is a “security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating” sort of chap. And furthermore, he added, “Thousands of words have been written about the new Labour leader. But you only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a ‘tragedy’.”
There is but one problem with the PM’s assertion: it is shamelessly taken out of context. This is what Corbyn actually said in the immediate aftermath of bin Laden’s assassination:
“This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram”.
Jeremy Corbyn was doing no more than expressing regret at the disappearance in the West of a Rule of Law…a loss many decent people share. And in doing so, he was condemning violence – not encouraging it. But such is the nature of David Cameron: over and over again, he has shown himself to be a dissembler, a censor, an outright liar to Parliament, and an enthusiastic defender of those who mislead.
There are few service industries who set out to mislead and defraud more than the investment fund sector. So it is entirely appropriate that – as if to highlight what the Prime Minister is really about – this morning Daniel Godfrey, reforming Chairman of the Investment Association (IA), was ousted by those members who ‘don’t like his style’. The arguments of fund groups like M&G, Aberdeen Asset Management, Neptune and Schroders coalesced around two objections so dysfunctionally psycho, they read like a Private Eye satire:
- Despite the collective £10million a year members pay in fees to the trade body, ‘he did not set an agenda based on their priorities’. Or put another way, we’re stumping up ten million quid for this organisation, and all we’re getting is some twat insisting we behave ourselves.
- The fund groups were particularly irked by a ‘Statement of Principles’ drawn up by Godfrey signing them up to put clients first.
The first one above is pretty rich in a £5.5trillion industry: ‘we paid to be members, and thus we own you’. But Isn’t that second one the ultimate doozie? Their rationale for the objection was that it would ‘involve far too much bureaucracy’. Yes indeed, honest dealings cost a pretty penny.
One wonders if the Mission Statement ‘going forward’ for the Godfree-free IA might be something like, ‘To ensure that self-regulation prioritises and enables our desire to put the customer last, and the shareholder second only to our desire for as much bonus wonga coming our way as possible’.
Major hat-tip to SW to alerting me to this prime example of why Mr Cameron appears somewhat rattled by the rise and rise of Mr Corbyn.