Cormac Hollingsworth details how shareholders of big business can be the left's greatest ally when it comes to promoting responsible capitalism
The shareholder revolt against Bob Diamond’s £20 million bonus is so important for those who really believe a change is needed in our system. If we’re serious about a new responsible we need to start supporting and showing solidarity to the people who own the companies we’d like to change.
Those who’d rather sit in an igloo and watch the market collapse, as if that would cathartic (£) might scoff, but that option is irresponsible, impoverishing millions around the world including here in the UK.
The global market system is worth saving. It’s taken the most people out of poverty ever in history in the last ten years: one hundred million people. And the power of the state is unquestioned: its coordinated intervention globally in 2009 stopped a free-fall in global employment, output and stock prices.
The problem is, politicians lack the legitimacy to intervene in a sliding global economy because they’ve been unable to change the behavior of the bankers. But executive pay is an issue for shareholder.
Many shareholders, as owners who benefit from the success of the private sector have learnt the lesson that the collapse of the private sector since 2007 was partly their responsibility, and they’re not prepared to sit back and let poor management continue.
In the vote against Murdoch’s directorship, Standard Life stood forward in the belief that it’s duty to its pensioners was for BSkyB to be better run without Murdoch.
Aviva has been a leading light in the UN’s organisation of $30 trillion of investor power, the UN’s Principles of Responsible Investment. Paul Abberley CEO of Aviva Investors has been crystal clear about the new responsibility of shareholders to make sure our economy provides jobs, inclusive growth, and stability.
With $30 trillion behind them, the left has many allies for a responsible investment. And yet they are silent.
But to support is obvious. Those wanting global taxation must see that one of the biggest supporters of the lobby against it, the Institute of International Finance, is Barclays. That funding is signed off by the CEO.
The Tories would rather have a fight about nine hundred thousand pounds than see themselves exposed as craven supporters of the IIF-lobbied bankers’ status quo. They’d like you not to know that the City is actually split, and if we don’t support the shareholders who are looking for a new owner-driven market economy, we might as well all start building igloos, because the liquidation will be horrible.
It’s time for progressives to stand with Barclays shareholders.
See also:
• The government has the power to stop Hester’s bonus, they just don’t want to – Ben Fox, January 27th 2012
• How bankers’ bonuses are contributing to the new credit crunch – Cormac Hollingsworth, December 6th 2011
• Expecting Tories to regulate bonuses is like Turkeys voting for Christmas – Rachel Reeves MP, January 12th 2011
• Top Lib Dem: Bankers’ bonuses are “moment of truth for coalition” – Will Straw, January 12th 2011
• Bankers’ bonuses under fire as Barclays chief faces Parliament – Claire French, January 11th 2011
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
24 Responses to “We must stand with shareholders that want a better economy”
Darren Sharma
We must stand with shareholders that want a better economy, writes @cormacholly:: http://t.co/N8OjnNmA
Blarg1987
But on the flip side how many people’s lives are less well off then they would be if there was less bonuses at the top and moral capitalism was used?
WOuld fuel prices be as high as their would be no speculation on oil
Would food prices be so high as their would be no speculation on food
Would we have the ficiancial crisis and the tax payer have to bail out the banks as banks would be morally more responsible.
Would the people at woolworths be in employement as the debt recovery company asset stripped the company to line their pockets when management had proposed a buy out covering all the money owed?
I admit I can keep going but you see the point I am making Capatalism on average has also cost peoples lives and standards of living.
I accept no system is perfect but a combination of capitalism / socilism is the best mix but over there we are more capatalist.
Blarg1987
That is true and the conservatives asset stripped the state and sat on the board of directors Norman tebbit and BT come to mind, but untill more people vote for new policies that will inspsire new people to join politics the same old 40% of people will dictate the overlal policies we have.
BevR
RT @leftfootfwd: We must stand with shareholders that want a better economy http://t.co/DYcCz8FE
Anonymous
I think the sale of BT was one of the better decisions. Carved out from the Post Office, freeing up BT meant you could get a telephone line when you wanted one, not when they permitted it. Different phones. Mobile phones. All post privatisation.
A good reason for doing more deregulation.