Link: BBC NEWS | England | London | Councils' £139m in troubled banks.
Mark Wallace, campaign director at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Every year we hear that councils don't have enough money and need to raise taxes but it seems they have had sufficient excess tax to salt tens of millions of pounds away.
"In short, they should not have stashed this money in the first place and they simply weren't equipped to try to be clever in the markets with it."
"It's an absolute disgrace. If the councils can't get their money back, the people who took these excesses should seriously consider their positions as councillors."
I would have thought that someone who runs a Pressure Group about public money would take the trouble to learn the very basics of financial management. What this tosser is actually saying is: either Councils should spend money the minute it comes in or if they happen to have any excess cash they should keep it under the mattress. Has he not heard of reserves?
Doesn't he know that just about any organisation of any size has a Treasury Management policy or department? That often surplus cash is invested just over night, or for short periods. Indeed, at least in theory, it's no different from what individuals do, in terms of moving funds between current and interest-earning savings account. I remember the repercussions of the BCCI collapse, and the discussion about the reliability, and concern about the extent firms (and councils) could rely on the Bank of England. If I recall, councils such as Western Isles (as was) argued that they placed reliance on a list published by the BoE of deposit-accepting institutions, the BofE argued it was just a list.
But at the current time, who can seriously say councillors or council officials are guilty of maladministration by depositing with any particular financial institution - B&B, HBOS, Lehmann Brothers?
I would have expected the 'campaign director' of a legitimate organisation campaigning about public spending to have a vague knowledge about, well, public money. And it seems they number people like Patrick Minford and Kenneth Minogue amongst their supporters. It seems that they are basically associated with the Tory Party, so they ought to be a bit more careful criticising their Tory comrades. Or is financial illiteracy the norm for today's Tory Party - it's not just in ideas they're bankrupt?
Talking about bankrupt ideas, what on earth is David "Dave" Cameron's intention in declaring non-partisanship over the banking crisis? Doesn't he know that the government doesn't actually need his support to do what they have to do? Does he mean he will lay off the puerile point-scoring? Or does he mean he will fail in his duty as the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which should be about scrutinising the Government and holding it to account?
