[Politics] Ethical Investment

[davywavy]

The latest buzz term in investment is ethical investing. I first encountered this as a concept about fifteen years ago whilst talking to someone about their investment portfolio and having them tell me about how they wouldn't put thier money into things that they disagreed with, like weapons manufacturers and so forth. However, as time has gone on ethical investment has gone from being a personal decision like that was to being big business - I doubt any major financial institution now doesn't offer ethical investment opportunities, from Green Funds to full-on Ethical investment right through to the slightly off-centre Blue fund for US Democrats.

You might have seen the news the other day regarding the ongoing fallout of the recent 'cash for peerages' scandal-ette which is that whilst the Conservative Party appears to have had a bumper few months and cleared it's outstanding cashflow shortage though donations, the Labour Party is still some £12m in debt. As the Guardian noted on December 17th, "More than £20m in debt, if Labour were a company, the party would now be calling in the receivers."
Whilst an interesting question would be what the constitional implications are if the ruling party of the day were to declare bankruptcy, this won't happen - Labour will fight back out of it's financial black hole through a mix of donations and loans. The difference is that now loans must be declared and charged at commercial rates, and with the recent hike in interest rates, commercial rates are about 7.5%.

And it's this that gave me my latest cracking wheeze. With commercial interest rates of 7.5%, a £10,000 loan over a 5-year term will carry about £50-60 per month in interest as well as payments to reduce capital. With this in mind, I'll be setting up a fund whose investment strategy will be to lend money to the Labour party because, when you think about it, there's no more ethical investment you can make. Every £10,000 lent to Labour will take nigh £3-4000 out of their coffers which otherwise they would waste on haircuts for Cherie, pies for Prescott and fighting elections - none of which I think are things anyone would really want to encourage them to do.
Thus the more money I lend to Labour, the higher my return and the less money the Labour party has to actually spend. Indeed, if I lend the party enough money it will actually put them out of business altogether, and I doubt anyone can think of a more decent, ethical way of spending your money than the destruction of the Labour Party.

I'm planning on calling this the Bankrupt The Labour Party Mutual Benefical and Friendly Society and shall be seeking investors.
The BTLPMB&S. It's good for the planet, it's good for the country, and it's good for you. Who's in?

Comments

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Oh, for sure, but as you say, Labour have done a bang-up job of screwing up education and healthcare, as well as general welfare. Not that the Tories would have been better, but then I've never voted for either of those two parties, so I guess that's something.

[(Anonymous)]

Great how the Nulabour ruling class realise this & either arrange to win the postcode lottery, securing good education for their kids, or go the whole hog & pay for it.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Well, they can't have anything less than the best for their kids, can they? *wry grin*

[(Anonymous)]

Great how the Nulabour ruling class realise this & either arrange to win the postcode lottery, securing good education for their kids, or go the whole hog & pay for it.
About 10 years ago I met one of Boatengs aides on a train, & gave him an earful about how comprehensive education excludes the able poor from good education, and he confided to me that Labour knew this, but Comprehensive education is a sacred cow, and it's better to sacrifce the future welfare of thousands rather than admit they were wrong.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

That's terrifying, but there is another way; invest more (and differently) in primary and secondary education. We could use the £20bn we're planning to spend on Trident replacement, for example.

If you raised the standard of Comprehensive education then everyone wins...

[(Anonymous)]

I agree fully. Our education system is a shambles, and we are as such failing to invest adequately in the future of our nation. As you say, just spending money isn't going to fix this - costly solutions aren't inherently better than low cost ones (which is why I have a casio watch - £9.99 and it works fine, whereas the mug I know with a Breitling has taken it back 7 times in 1 year, even though it cost 700 times more than mine)- I think fundamantally we need to get people to value education more, by creating an early understanding that education = prospects.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

It also has a concurrent tendency to create an engaged citizenship. Depending on your point of view, this is either very good or very bad...

[(Anonymous)]

Obviously I think it's good. Equally clearly, Bliar just sees us as a bunch of peons to dress up in khaki & march off th get blown to bits in the name of Bush's Nu World Order, and hence teaching us to think & question is not on his agenda.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

There's an incorrect assumption that spending money automatically solves all problems. Brown merrily trumpets that he's increased education spending from 4.6 to 5.7% of GDP, but name me a single teacher who thinks that their job has got easier or that they feel that the kids are learning more as a result of the practise.
I know you're an enthusiast for the throwing good money after bad economic forms, but I think looking at what has changed in the education system to result in declining standards and then changing them is probably more economically effective than simply chucking money at problems in the hope that they'll go away, when history demonstrates they didn't go away last time money was thrown at them.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

I did say "invest more (and differently) in primary and secondary education." For example, we need to employ more teachers and TAs and fewer managers...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Given that the only solid education idea I can remember you ever advocating was that of compulsorarily taking children away from their parents and raising them as wards of the state, you'll understand that I wouldn't trust you to oversee this process...

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Were we talking about kibbutzism or something? I totally don't remember saying that. And I suspect that I'm being taken out of context.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

This was back in 2002-3. If I can find the post/dates I'll refer to them.
We weren't talking about kibbutzes - you genuinely did suggest that in order for children to be properly educated, they should be taken from their folks and raised by the state...

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Wow. I guess I'll take your word for it.

I was a lot angrier back then. I suspect this may have something to do with such a ridiculous idea.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, I set about writing a satirical post about it at the time but realised that not even I could make it funny. However, the document will have creation dates attached to it so a bit of detective work would allow me to track when I wrote that and indicate a general time for the original conversation on your LJ.

[(Anonymous)]

Did you catch Mittal stumping up £2m for the Nulabour black hole? Think that'll be a big enough wedge between them & the TUC?

[(Anonymous)]

Well, quite. There's a much clearer link between an empowered (remember that one, a sure sign of a sick organisation is that it needs a word to describe what it should be doing, instead of just doing it) workforce and success, than an overpaid one.
It's a characteristic of the human animal to always want more stuff, but people doing worthwhile jobs & seeing results are usually happier than those doing crappy ones but getting paid with a shovel, after the initial thrill of lots of money has gone.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, quite. There's a much clearer link between an empowered (remember that one, a sure sign of a sick organisation is that it needs a word to describe what it should be doing, instead of just doing it) workforce and success, than an overpaid one.
It's a characteristic of the human animal to always want more stuff, but people doing worthwhile jobs & seeing results are usually happier than those doing crappy ones but getting paid with a shovel, after the initial thrill of lots of money has gone.
If I were a teacher, or doctor, or any other professional, whom the government had chosen to place at the beck & call of some halfwith manager with a pass degree from some D -list self declared 'university', I don't think a hefty pay rise would overcome the indignation of being made the beeyatch of the human equivalent of Barney the Dinosaur and their latest innovative ideas on how I should do my job.