It’s fun watching the bank held up by Labour as the modern template for ethical and efficient banking – The Co-Op- described as “ungovernable” by its departing CEO. It’s also a tricky one for the comrades at the BBC who are usually so KEEN to get stuck into the “banksters” The default mode seems to be report this as best they can but just ignore the VERY close links between this corrupt and failed Bank and Labour.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Thoughtful says:

    They’ve been laying into the salary of the CEO with the usual gusto, appalled at the temerity of someone earning even more than they do!
    They have given voice to all kind of lefties wanting to stick their boot in metaphorically & in reality, and discussed the level of reward to those at the top of one of the very few global industries we have left.
    They have not bothered to discuss the fact that someone has leaked this, undermining the CEO and making his position untenable.
    Nor have they bothered to discuss the potential effects on the long term future of the bank in its present form. What they have preferred to talk about is who the replacement might be, and what kind of salary he will be on. They have mentioned the £1.5 Billion loan from Barclays (?) and that should they get nervous they might force the Co-op into bankruptcy.

    They’ve pushed it all to the edge, looked over, and seeing as they’re not the actual lemming which is going to be falling, they seem intent on pushing it all over the edge, when they will have another self generated story about the failure of an ‘ethical’ bank, and how it’s everyone else’s fault


  2. phil says:


    It’s one of those stories where the bare minimum of facts is sufficient.

    BBC news staff have careers to pursue, mortgages to pay, school fees to save up for. They know when their employer requires their famous ‘analysis’ and when it doesn’t.


  3. Thoughtful says:

    Now on the Today program the CEO is described as having ‘flounced out’. I think the BBC have made their position crystal clear.


    • chrisH says:

      Isn`t that what Paul Flowers would have done?And-had the Daily Mail said this…the whole lib-lab luvvie cohort would have had Ben Summerskill, Peter Tatchell and the rest of `em up to shoot the “homophoney Mail”?
      But when the BBC says it…educating, informing and entertaining us all as ever….
      Paedofillies trotting around the ring yet again….and Flowers bloom resurgent in the shit….


  4. john in cheshire says:

    I wish that those good men with the power to do so would initiate an investigation into what role freemasonry has played and is playing in the tribulations besetting our country.It is unlikely to be a subject the bbc would show any interest in covering, unfortunately.


    • Arthur Penney says:

      As a freemason, I strongly object to half-baked ideas being put forward without any proof.

      The general person on this site may be slightly right of centre but it does not mean that we are conspiracy theorists – leave that to the left.


      • Old Goat says:

        I’m not sure I agree with that – ex-colleagues of mine who were “on the square” seemed to lead a charmed life…


        • John Wood says:

          Maybe they were just upright and free men of mature age, sound judgement and strict principles.

          Grand Lodge is always interested in the reporting of people who seek to use freemasonry to advance their own position in life, being well aware of the negative publicity this may have.

          You may like to look up how much freemasons have given in charitable donations.

          “Nationwide in 2012,
          £5.1 million was approved in financial grants to help individuals in need, assisting over 2,000 people. Over 100
          charities received a share of £1.7 million, 239 hospices received a total of £600,000 and 22 air rescue charities received a share of £192,000 – meaning a grand total of £7,757,758 was donated in 2012”

          Admittedly the majority of this was to ‘poor and distressed freemasons’ but over £2 million was to other causes.

          (In 2001 $1,000,000 was donated to help the after effects of the WTC attacks)


      • john in cheshire says:

        It’s interesting that you don’t equate freemasonry with socialism/communism. My understanding is that freemasonry is anti-Christian; for certain the Catholic church has a jaundiced view of freemasonry.


        • JMarsh says:

          What on earth does christianity have to do with left/right? National socialism has historically had close ties to christianity and a great swathe of right-wing Objectivists and Libertarians are staunch atheists.


    • Thoughtful says:

      Never mind the role Freemasonry is playing, have you not heard of the liberal left version “Common Purpose” whose members appear to be assisting each other into some very lucrative public sector positions. Even when they fail and have to leave, they pop up again working for different agencies in even more lucrative positions !


      • GCooper says:

        I’m so glad someone has posted this. Rather than the mote that is modern Freemasonry, we should be examining the beam that is Common Purpose’s deeply corrupting crony-socialist influence in this country.


  5. Dioclese says:

    I thought it was illegal in the UK for a company to trade when it was ‘knowingly insolvent’? A 1.5 billion black hole would seem to fulfil that criteria, wouldn’t it?


  6. S.Trubble says:

    That governance looks a blast……….”.fook off lad meets new York Hedge Funders”.
    Also alleged up here in not so bonny Scotland that Celtic F.C are up to their necks in cheap Co_op loans…………
    Popcorn…..bucket size please!


  7. nofanofpoliticians says:

    It has been quite interesting to compare the treatment in reporting terms (by the BBC in particular) of Sutherland and Stephen Hester when he led RBS.

    Arguably, Hester’s job was the tougher and yet he also came in for greater criticism. He also restructured the bank and cut the size of the balance sheet. In other words, he delivered.

    I think he was also paid less (although I could be wrong on that point) and yet the BBC in particular gave him a much harder time.


  8. Peter Grimes says:

    Sutherland’s major and only problem is that he has turned his back on the ‘bruvvers’ after recognising and declaring the truth, that the shambles which is the Coke-Op and its bank is, literally, ungovernable in its present structure.
    ZaNuLaB and the truth are like ice and fire!


  9. starfish says:

    The CO-OP’s governance structure is famously unwieldy and lacks the agility to take forward a truly commercial vision

    Needless to say it is wonderfully democratic with a whole range of hopelessly unqualified people having their say and being able to block any change – or frustrate it in the unlikely event that change is agreed

    So it fits the soft-left ethos of the CO-OP while being completelyineffectual -hence the string of poor decisions both in business and personnel terms. Now describing the ceo who has obviously decided that the game is not worth the candle as ‘flouncing out’ simply confirms that he is correct

    Still when the whole business goes down the tube at least it will have held true to its socialist ideals

    Some comfort for the people put on the dole by the idiots in the management structure


    • johnnythefish says:

      Spot on – their Byzantine structure looks like it will thwart any newcomer who doesn’t buy into the socialist ‘ethos’.


  10. starfish says:


    Compare and contrast with John Lewis (thankfully Labour activist free)


    • Peter Grimes says:

      And an example of a REAL workers’ co-operative!


    • Umbongo says:

      John Lewis is run as a “normal” profit-seeking company despite having councils of this and committees of that. In effect, the main difference between John Lewis and Tesco is that the ownership of JL is restricted to its employees and the employees can appoint 5 (out of 12) people to the board. This structure has not avoided redundancies in the past but it obviously does make for fairly smooth industrial relations.
      But – and this is the difference to the Co-op – JL is dedicated to making a profit for the good of its shareholders (who happen to be its employees as well). JL only “does good” by being commercially successful and that success is ensured – indirectly but not exclusively – by its ownership structure. OTOH, it seems to me that the Co-op is there to make a political point, to give lend money to Labour and provide the wherewithal to gain access to drugs and catamites for ex-Chairmen when required. I’m not surprised Sutherland withdrew. Apart from the cash, he’s on a loser here.


      • starfish says:

        ” Apart from the cash, he’s on a loser here.”

        Yes, and failure on this scale does not look good on one’s CV!


        • Peter Grimes says:

          Doing the honourable thing, and when £3.7 million is at stake his behaviour was honourable, is again not a ZaNuLaB trait.
          Future employers will recognise that he spoke the truth, and credit him for that. Only the Left will demur.


      • johnnythefish says:

        ‘This structure has not avoided redundancies in the past but it obviously does make for fairly smooth industrial relations.’

        I believe they have taken out a complete layer of middle management in the most cackhanded and insensitive way imaginable. Staff relations in JL have deteriorated – all the wonderful stuff you hear about them is how things used to be, not as they are now (N Clegg please note).


  11. JimS says:

    Sutherland Brothers and Quiver:

    And I thought you were going to ask why the BBC never plays the first and best version of Sailing ever since they gave Rod Stewart a free hit with their programme about life on Ark Royal!


  12. uncle bup says:

    It’s a leftie wet-dream that all companies will be worker-owned, after all look at John Lewis they say.

    John Lewis is where it is because of the quality of the management – got eff all to do with the corporate structure.


  13. Max Roberts says:

    Sorry, but looking at what the outgoing CEO seems to have proposed: selling off the profitable bits to keep the zombie core twitching for a little but longer, is so 1990s and so uncreative, I could sell off all the profit generating assets and charge 1/100th of his salary, any takers?

    The problem with that strategy is that after you have sold off everything, the zombie core is still just as dead as it was before. He’s not saving the bank, he is just boosting the share price enough to make sure that he looks good, and then can move on to heis next gold-plated ceo-shipness.


  14. Rob says:

    The Co-Op is essentially a Labour Party slush fund, and that is why they cannot allow daylight in on it. They fund the “Co-Operative Party”, and they fund individual Labour MPs. They also extend soft loans to Labour. The structure also provides jobs for the boys for Labour apparatchiks, of which the most egregious example was the Reverend Flowers.

    The good thing about the Co-Op is that it gives the lie to the idea that Leftists are somehow purer than the Nasty Party, and are motivated by compassion for their fellow men. In reality they are as self serving and corrupt as any group of politically motivated zealots. The Co-Op was their piggy bank for decades, but socialism eventually destroys everything it touches. The fact that the Co-Op nomenklatura refuse to admit the reality of this is nothing which need concern us. Commercial reality will have to be faced eventually. The only people to feel sorry for are those who are unfortunate enough to work for a compassionate socialistic co-operative, as opposed to the poor slaves who toil for capitalist oppressors such as Tesco or Sainsbury’s.