‘Moore’s’ the pity (again!)

Charles Moore, with his usual op-ed Saturday piece in the Daily Telegraph, completely misses the analogy twixt running a company and running UK plc.

As the shareholders of WPP have decided that Martin Sorrell, the CEO, has grown ‘fat’ and want to ‘trim him down to size’. so the shareholders in UK plc wish to ‘trim down to size’ their CEO and the “Board of Management”. Just as Sorrell has ‘grown too big’ so has the CEO of UK plc, the slight difference being that the CEO of UK plc does not have to put his money where his mouth is – he puts our money where his mouth is and consequently is most definitely viewed as “arrogant”. While with UK plc the debate is not wholly concerned with ‘Executive’ pay, although that does play a large part, where UK plc is concerned the ‘whole debate’ most definitely is concerned about ownership – and the people of UK plc are without question the “owners”. The various CEOs of UK plc may have brought the country some success but that has been more by luck than expertise, bearing in mind very very few of them have had expertise in the areas for which they have been responsible – and that that success has been bought on the efforts of the workers, aka the shareholders of UK plc.

Within the political elite, from whom is chosen the CEO and Board of Management of UK plc, emerges a ‘clague’ who have no intention of respecting the wishes of their shareholders; and no commercial company – for that is what, in effect, the UK is – who is in business to generate profits for said shareholders can succeed without the express consent of those shareholders. Where UK plc is concerned, the problem arises in that under the ‘rules’, aka representative democracy, that the CEO and Board of Management impose on the shareholders that is not the way in which ‘public companies’ are supposed to be constituted.

Is it not time that the shareholders of UK plc imposed their ‘rights’ as shareholders, thus demanding the introduction of direct democracy and ‘referism’ – failing which, if the CEO and Board of Management refuse to resign, actually voted them out of office?

Just a thought…………..




4 Responses

  1. Ian says:

    I’m surprised that senior management at UK plc aren’t yet awarded “golden hellos” on taking office, like the new boss of state lossmaker Lloyds.

  2. Andy Baxter says:

    Interesting analogy I’ve used many times myself in labouring points to friends and colleagues; alas ordinary shareholders in companies have the luxury of voting with i.e removing (selling) their hard earned, capital and/or voting at general meetings (although they have limited influence on the agenda of such)

    We as shareholders in UK Plc have our hard earned capital taken from us (taxation, direct and indirect) without any ability to withhold it under pain of coercion and force under the ‘rules’ i.e. the legislation that the Board decide. And we have limited choice, if any on the replacements of the board every five years!

    The only power we have left now is the power to withhold our consent; for despite what TPTB believe that they have a ‘divine right’ to order our lives along with, sadly many of the younger police (and I’ve had many a conversation with these neuro linguistically programmed younger police) constables who utterly believe that our ‘consent’ is ‘automatic’ and ‘collective’ (both words have been used with me!)OUR CONSENT or lack of it is the most powerful weapon we possess.

    With the more intelligent constables I’ve had some limited success in reasoning with them; that we are;

    Governed by consent; for if not as I’ve argued then we are suppressed, there is no other condition if our consent is taken as automatic.

    Also that we are;

    Policed by consent; many younger police have no understanding of the history and heritage of their ‘attestation’ and what it actually means. They are programmed and have become servants of The State and to enforce the power of the State not Servants of The LAW as their oath dictates.

    And lastly and I use this all the time; “I AM policed by consent, consent is not an order it is a QUESTION and I am free to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, for if not then I am living in tyranny.”

    Our consent or lack of it in sufficient numbers is the key to regime change!

  3. david says:

    Fair comment!

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012