Sorry is the easiest word to say
As usual on Fridays, I shall leave you in the more than capable hands of my co-presenter Anita Anand.
It seems everyone wants to say sorry. From Jeremy Clarkson to the bankers, apologising is suddenly all the rage.
And the Tories think Gordon Brown should be joining them. But when should you say sorry and do we believe those apologies anyway?
We will be looking at the art of the good apology with agony aunt, Laura Marcus.
One man who thinks he definitely shouldn't apologise is the hedge fund manager Steven Bell. Many politicians feel that hedge funds worsened the financial crisis by betting against the banks and driving their shares through the floor. We'll be looking at how much if any blame the hedge funds should shoulder in this recession.
Talking of which, it seems people in Wesminster are competing to try to paint the gloomiest picture of the economic weather ahead.
First there was the Education Secretary, Ed Balls and then there was the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, declaring that our economy is heading for the rocks. Is there anything to feel optimistic about?
The Bishop of London thinks so. He has said that it might be a good thing to get off the treadmill and reconsider what we really want out of life.
Senior civil servants have certainly been enjoying life. It has been revealed that there were 1,800 examples of hospitality given to 180 officials across Whitehall last year. We will have the details.
And as always we will have a rundown of what's up and down in the political charts.
With us for the whole programme will be the Sun's Trevor Kavanagh and the Guardian's Jackie Ashley.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~30~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I'm sorry I could'nt possibly comment!
Complain about this comment
I may be a cynic, but I suspect that Ed Balls’ comment was so far away from informed opinion that it represented an act of desperation. Despite the spin which was sunsequently put out - to accompany his statement - that he was Gordon Brown’s closest economic advisor, he in recent times he clearly has found himself drifting ever further from the centre of power; not least since Peter Mandelson, a much more intelligent strategist (and of course Balls’ historical opponent), has returned to the stage. The statement probably came, therefore, from his personal desperation; and hence his willingness to damage not just the government's claims of unity but any recovery to get his face once more on the front pages. Indeed, in the febrile climate which governs the current markets, any such wild statement could have much the same impact as someone shouting ‘Fire! Fire!’ in a crowded cinema.
Let us hope that it is merely a reflection of his own bad judgment, reflecting his own weakness in a divided cabinet, and that the views of more mature experts (such as is reported in this week's Economist) are what counts.
Complain about this comment
Words mean nothing to these people, sorry is just another word.
They have failed in their job and need sacked (including Labour).
I did not agree a bail out for any, I did not agree to war, I did not agree to scrap our vote on the EU.
Complain about this comment
I get the impression that everybody's worn out today, having been talking about the irresponsible merchant bankers, depression and various Balls-ups all week...
So what can we shift to the top of the agenda for next week.
Now did I happen to see Baroness whatsername who introduced the idea of jailing parents of persistant truants backtracking just a little bit on the telly last night.
What else have politicians had to back-track on during the term of this Government. We could explore who is now entitled to say "I told you so", but more importantly perhaps what are the lessons that politicians need to learn. What are the warning signals that tell them they should they really be listening a little bit more carefully to the voices of opposition.
That's point is also very relevant in the commercial world, given the revelations that the HBOS bosses were warned about excessive risk...
Human nature, it seems, is to carry on despite all the warnings, as we don't want to be proved inadequate or wrong. But how can we identify situations when it is pure folly to carry on regardless....?
Complain about this comment
We need Supernanny to teach them what sorry means. They should be sent to the naughty step until they are "contrite", a blothering mess desperate to be shown a sign of love.
Complain about this comment
#4
Yes, it all seems to have gone a bit flat. Even the DP is now resorting to discussing non-topics such as how different people have apologised or what Livingstone did after being voted out.
Maybe the avalanche of lies, errors, U-turns, and disasters-in-general have temporarily overwhelmed everyone so that they don't know what to debate next.
It could conceivably be a cunning plan...
Complain about this comment
Why is the programme taken off because Parliament isn't sitting? Life and the incompetent handling of our fragile economy continues unabated, why shouldn't you continue to broadcast? An absence of MPs is no excuse as some days you don't use them anyway and hearing from someone with a more objective view would be beneficial.
Complain about this comment
#7
That's a good point.
A DP break during the summer recess is understandable, and possibly (but not necessarily) during part of the Christmas and Easter breaks. But there is no good reason to shut down for the one-week half term interruptions.
There would still be plenty to talk about - and there are always journalists and other media reporters around to invite as guests (probably better value than many politicians).
In fact, it's puzzling why Parliament sees fit to have these school breaks. It doesn't apply in industry, where the wheels have to keep turning. And 'events' still occur, even when there are no MPs to debate them.
What do DP presenters and producers, etc do during these 'holidays'? Presumably they've got other irons in fire, and don't automatically treat them as enforced vacations. So it might not be a great hardship to keep the DP going and keep the fans happy.
Complain about this comment
OK.
Lets talk about this.
Has anybody noticed the double-whammy for savers with indexed-linked savings certificates.
Because the all-items RPI is now running at 0.9%, any certificates maturing now don't increase very much. Hardly worth having them.
So savers aren't just being clobbered by the low-interest rates. They are being clobbered by low RPI too....
Perhaps I should be in favour of Mervbn King printing lots of money now, so that we get Zimbabwe style hyper-inflation.....
Complain about this comment
Re: various above.
Politicians don't disapper from our TV screens during a Parliamentary recess. They're still there, to be seen and heard on every new programme, the issues don't go away.
So I'd be in favour of the DP show being on for the whole year.
Wheel the likes of me in to have a good natured probing chat with them if you want to. I'd find it very nerve-wracking, but I'd do it...
Complain about this comment
Re:9
The all-items RPI has been artificially distorted by the panic measures that have seen Bank of England Base rates fall from 5% to 0.5% in a few months.
At 0.9%, the all-items RPI really doesn't reflect what I see when I buy my groceries or when my energy bill arrives. That index has been temporarily distorted by the instability in the economy, by the exceptional falls in the Base Rate that were taken for political reasons ...
So if Darling wants to compensate savers who have lost out, one way he could do that would be to redress the impact of the emergency base-rate changes on holders of indexed-linked certificates...
Complain about this comment
Still thinking about the all-items RPI.
I don't suppose the Base Rates will go back up again anything like as quickly as they've come down.
So the effects of the current distortion in the all-items RPI are not likely to be rectified when the economy eventually sorts itself out...
There's a really good case for compensating holders of index-linked certs in these exceptional circumstances...
Complain about this comment
Although I agree wholeheartedly with the Tory sentiment that our glorious leader should apologise, I really couldn't stomach yet another dose of insincere blather from him - of course no-one with an IQ in excess of 1 would give it credence.
I think it can only be a question of "give them enough rope" for this current crop of avaricious Bankers and indolent, incompetent, ineffectual Politicians.
When the PM has the brass face to say in Parliament that this is no time for a "novice" he has obviously cannot , or will not, see what a sad mess he is making of peoples lives ( obviously this doesn't apply to his chums in the City ) -- presumably he considers himself to be an expert and we all know what we think of "experts" ! perhaps a "novice" is what is needed who can actually see the wood for the trees !
Complain about this comment
Headline on the Southampton Daily Echo today claims there are five times more people unemployed than there are vacancies....
...and things are expected to get worse !
Complain about this comment
When Brown said it was no time for a novice, maybe someone should have asked him to define 'novice'. As he and Darling and others are describing the current recession as unforeseen and unprecedented, obviously anyone caught in the headlights and having to try and deal with it is a novice. No one in politics has any experience of coping with a problem of this nature.
However, as Brown frequently reminds everyone, the Tories were the last lot to find themselves in an economical downturn in the early 1990s, so maybe any of them from that era (Clarke, Howard, Redwood, etc - and even Cameron who Brown keeps mentioning) are the only ones who could not be said to be novices.
As usual, he didn't think it through.
Complain about this comment
The PM shouldn't applogise for following the ethos on which he was elected. Labour would never have been elected on a policy of forcing the banks to lend sensibly. All those complaining now would have been moaning about the Nanny State deciding what is sensible lending rather than the banks themselves.
We are not a Risk Adverse Society as some argue. We are a Risk Blind Society. We see the little box saying "are you aware investments may go down as well as up", and tick it without thought if that is what it takes to get a loan, or mortgage , or buy shares.
Complain about this comment
Regarding the 'ethos on which he (the PM) was elected', it might be instructive to compare (a) the levels of available mortgages, in relation to salary, in 1996 and, say, 2006/7, and (b) the average levels of credit card debt for the same years.
If they are broadly comparable, the PM carries no blame regarding those two measures, as the ethos has not changed. But if there is a significant difference, the accusations of 'economic success built on encouraging debt' might carry some weight.
Anyone for checking?
Complain about this comment
It's clear that mortgages providers have fueled house inflation. The lending ratio to salery (for first time buyers) has steadily risen since Thatcher deregulated the banks. Prior to this mess, we, the electorate, would never have elected a party which had a policy of regulating this through the law!
If we had elected a party with such a policy would they have stayed in power for long as house prices fell due to restrictions placed on first time buyers?
Complain about this comment
Regulation should have been by the lenders themselves - prudence! If there were signs of things getting out of hand, the government and Bank of England could have dampened the situation via interest rates, etc, and maybe outspoken views with hints of possible legislation.
There was no need for house prices to fall - they just needed to be stabilised enough to avoid reckless growth. This was more or less how it worked before 1997 or thereabouts.
Complain about this comment
I would agree with Mike-Jays view, particularly no 19.
What successive Governments had introduced though was a dangerous culture.
Not just in terms of lending/borrowing and spending/partying but if anybody spoke out about it they were invariably shouted down....
And this culture started with Maggie in 1979.
Remember the Yuppies of the 1980's....
So from where I'm sitting, Tories set the ball rolling and Labour allowed it to get well and truly out of hand...
But at the end of the day, the lenders didn't have to lend if the risk was too great and the borrowers didn't have to borrow if they couldn't afford to repay the debt...
Complain about this comment
We need a more mature house pricing stategy.
In any other area of retail you expect to find cheaper, and more expensive versions appearing. Price inflation differs in each market segment. We can't expect First Time buyers to have multipliers above 3.5. That means the kind of housing first timer buyers buy should increase in value only at the rate of First Time buyer wages inflation. If the mega-rich want to out bid each other for property in Chelsea and Kensington then property inflation there will be much higher!
Complain about this comment
I've bought and sold 5 houses since 1957 - 2 in N. Manchester and 3 in W. Midlands. Over that period, like for like, prices seem to have roughly doubled (or slightly more) every 10 years.
But this is only an average. There was a sudden surge in the early 1970s - just at a time when I was trying to move - and there's obviously been another surge in the last 10 years.
The top end of the market is of no interest to most of us, but my impression is that the real price inflation difficulties are lower down, say the bottom 50%. I remember being horrified by the 'gazumping' that went on at various times.
Hopefully, the current recession will bring about price corrections and a touch of sanity to sellers and lenders.
Complain about this comment
Further to my ealier comments (#22), the actual 10 year factors for overall average house prices since 1957, according to a typical website, are as follows:
1957 - 1967 1.89
1967 - 1977 3.42
1977 - 1987 3.37
1987 - 1997 1.39
1997 - 2007 2.98
So the increases are more varied than I suggested, the biggest jumps being between 1967 and 1987, and between 1997 and 2007.
It is interesting that the increase was only 39% between 1987 and 1997.
Complain about this comment
Those figures look like the ratio of average salery to average house price. The key issue is that only first time buyers have to find new cash. Their ratios have increased dramatically, and it's their borrowing which fund the inflation.
Complain about this comment
I've just had a fabulous letter from Lloyds/TSB offering me a personal loan of up to £17000.
I've been unemployed for the last 12 months....
And we all wonder how Lloyds/TSB managed to lose £10bn.
One has really got to marvel at the gross incompetence of the Banking system....
Complain about this comment
#24
They're not the ratios between house prices and salaries - salaries don't come into it. They are the ratios of the average house price at the end of the 10 year period divided by the average price at the beginning of the period. So they show how steeply prices have risen in each of the 10 years listed.
Of course, you will get somewhat different answers depending on where you start and finish, but they give a fairly useful overall picture.
One thing that emerges is that total blame for house price inflation cannot be laid at Thatcher's door. The problems started before she came to power, and there was lower price inflation after she left, up to 1997.
Complain about this comment
#25
Yes, and I noticed they had an advert on television last night saying how good they were.
Complain about this comment
When you return from your own personal journeys of self fulfilment can we have a look at this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/4623525/Failure-to-save-East-Europe-will-lead-to-worldwide-meltdown.html
Could it be the tsunami that destroys everything?
With no wall could this cause a flood of migration from East to West?
Complain about this comment
#26
It's meaningless without comparing wage inflation at the same time. In the 70's wages rose way above inflation for many. In that ten years many only got wage rises inline with RPI, which was a lot less than house inflation.
Complain about this comment
#29
I agree, if you could limit life just to house prices and wages. But wage rises are determined independently of house prices.
I was simply looking at how house prices have varied over the years. There is no rational way of relating the two factors. If one outstrips the other, there's not much you can say about it.
Complain about this comment
So RPI is now 0.1% and Bank interest rates are at 0.5%. Both are predicted to go even lower...
That means I get no interest on any savings kept in a Bank account.
I get no interest on index-linked savings with NS&I
Preserved pension rights, which are indexed linked, also seem set to decline in value.
I cleared my mortgage years ago, I've been careful to pay off my credit card every month and I've not taken out personal loans to buy cars or holidays, so I'm not very impressed with the way things have gone. All I can do is batten-down the hatches and hope I have a heart-attack before the money runs out.
There's not much chance of finding a job at the moment. Even without the problem of there being five times as many applicants as there are vacancies, there's age discrimination and cheap foreign labour to contend with.
We've even got people shooting themselves on park-benches down here in Southampton, committing suicide because they've lost of lot of money in the current crisis. Who says the D word isn't appropriate...
I really don't think the Government know what they are doing and I've got serious doubts about the Bank of England too...
Despite Mike-Jay's earlier protestation about House Price inflation not being attributable to the Tories, who was it that encouraged greater home ownership, even to the point of selling off Council Houses. Yup, it was Maggie. She also encouraged wider share-ownership, as I recall, which has also turned around to bite a lot of people...
Sorry, but both the main parties are accountable for the mess we're currently in. It's taken 30 years to come to fruition. Labour only followed the direction that Tories had trailblazed. Labour had to do that because they were desperate to be elected. Tories set the ball rolling, Labour have allowed things to go to extremes and get really out of hand...
It is probably time the nation let the Lib Dems have a go actually. Vince Cable certainly talks a lot of sense, even if I don't agree with him about interest rates.
The biggest reservation I've got with Lib Dems is that I've seen what they've done when in charge of my local authority. I don't think they're any better than Labour or Tories really. They're from the same sort of mould...
Complain about this comment
So is it some kind of conspiracy?
Robert, Nick, and Andrew all AWOL in the same week?
Have these guys become so important that they don't have fully functioning deputies?
Certainly a great amount of stuff in the in tray, but presumably new stuff will emerge next week
Complain about this comment
#31
I agree with the first half of this, especially about jobs, age discrimination, interest rates, and government confusion.
But I have to disagree about housing. House ownership steadily grew after WW2 and, as I've shown, severe house price inflation was with us in the 1960s and 1970s, well before Thatcher.
What I don't understand is why selling off council houses should fuel a boom in house prices. As far as I can see, the main cause is down to supply and demand - there are simply not enough houses available and the population is constantly increasing.
You would think that Labour would have tackled the problem of affordable housing/council housing right from the start, in 1997, but they performed worse than the Tories on this.
As for the Lib-Dems, they produce some good ideas from time to time, but they're too wobbly to trust. Their best idea is abolishing Council Tax, but replacing it with a local income tax is not the way forward. It should simply be incorporated into the income tax system and distributed to local authorities on a per capita basis, with reserves for exceptional contingencies.
Complain about this comment
It's human to find a justifiation for what is percieved as a good thing. When house prices rise it's all down to poor supply. The money side of the equation is ignored. If first time buyers can't get the money it dosn't matter how limited the supply is. prices are limited by the supply of money. Equally if buyers have access to more money then prices rise.
I remeber Thatcher saying that arbitrary limits on borrowing when wrong. If people thought thay could afford more than 3.5 their salery than they should be able to borrow it "to get a better property". The reality was that Estate Agents just increased prices to match! So now people have to borrow a fortune to get a hovel!
Complain about this comment
Because people were encouraged to buy Council Houses, they needed loans. They subsequently tended to take out other loans, perhaps to move to a better house or to release capital that was locked-up in the property because they'd bought it really cheap from the Council. They bought cars, holidays and boob-jobs on the proceeds of those loans and got used to the lifestyle which wasn't really appropriate to their long-term financial prospects. It was an electoral trick. "Vote for us, we'll make you feel good."
With more people active in the housing market, house prices went up. That's supply and demand. Equity release became a habit. Tory and Labour won multiple terms...
Sooner or later, many people found that they couldn't afford to pay back the loans, for one reason or another. They'd bitten-off more than they could chew...
That process, OK Mike I'll concede it's a sub-system in the bigger picture of the global economy, has certainly added fuel to the problems with excessive borrowing/lending and excessive house-prices.
What had really happened was that we'd become a consumer-driven economy. Such an economy is inherently unsustainable and it couldn't go on for ever. We're really paying the price for killing our industrial & manufacturing base a few decades ago (Tories again). Why else do the IMF think it is going to hit the UK hardest ?
Whatever your view of the causes of the problem, it seems to me that the current solution is "crippling Peter to pay Paul".
Complain about this comment
What should have been done in a situation like this was;
1. Whatever else you do, make sure you don't damage the part of the economy that is OK (i.e. the Peters).
2. Help the Pauls.
The Government has completely failed on point 1. The Peters are being crippled.
The Government has, to its credit, been trying to help the Pauls, but has been using the wrong weapons. Interest rates are really not the answer. The problem was lack of credit not the cost of credit. Cutting interest rates was a panic measure.
I'm sure there were other ways of helping people stay in their homes and keep business running that didn't involve slashing interest rates. There must be ways of restructuring peoples (and Woolworths)debt to make it payable over a much longer term, for example. Putting Woolies and other business into administration was also a panic measure that is making the crisis worse.
One suggestion is that the Government could buy up individual households mortgages, for example, taking it off the Commerical Banks hands and putting it into the hands of a state bank.
Householders would still have the debt that they were foolish to take on, but their relationship would now be directly with the Government who could guarantee not to make them homeless and look for ways of easing their financial problems, particularly if they become unemployed.
Perhaps for example, the State could own a share of the mortgaged property, reducing the debt and allowing the rest of it to to be paid off over a longer term. A bit like the easy-start key-worker schemes that help people get on the housing ladder. In this instance, it would be applied retrospectively.
The problem we now have, of course, is that the whole world has gone down the path of low interest rates. It is very difficult to backtrack from that situation now that the monumental error has been made...
Instead of the Tories trying to deny past mistakes, it would be much better if they said yes, things have gone wrong and we're partly to blame. It's not what Maggie intended, honest. SORRY!. What the Conservatives will do in future is....
I'd buy that line from Tories, if they were big enough Politicians to do it. Honestly I would...!
Complain about this comment
The British government has apologised to the Irish people for the Potato famine. Quite right too, and long over due.
The British government has not apologised to the Scottish people for the Highland Clearances. It’s long over due and I bet they never will.
TDBs
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re: 37 and above
Perhaps the Conservative party should "Lance the Boil of Thatcherism", by apologising for the things that they did in the 80's and 90's which seem to have contributed to the problems which are coming home to roost now...
As I have said, Labour are guilty of letting Tories policies go to extremes, so they need to apologise too.
Neither of the two main parties are innocent.
Complain about this comment
Surprised 38 was referred to the moderators. It was only an observation about the programme/blog. I can't see how that one broke the house rules !
Complain about this comment
#35
I don't think it's that simple.
You seem to imply that the credit crunch has largely been caused by people who bought council houses in the 1980s, and that easy credit was available since then, pushing up house prices. But that's an unbalanced view, and there are facts that deny that opinion.
For a start, the US sub-prime housing problem - similar to ours - cannot be related to selling off council houses. Also, the unsustainable loans that eventually burst the credit bubble are a feature of the last decade, not the last thirty years - Brown making capital out of society heading for disaster.
And, as I indicated earlier, the available data shows quite a modest growth in house prices between 1987 and 1997 (39% in 10 years). How do you explain that?
Where I do agree is in the betrayal of manufacturing industry, and the Tories certainly carry much of that blame.
Complain about this comment
Back to inflation.
We've mentioned the distortion in RPI caused by slashing interest rates.
I also hear that the price of second-hand cars and camera's/electronics has had an effect.
How often do we buy buy a second-hand car or a new camera ? Those factors are largely irrelevant to the inflation that we experience.
Surely the RPI should reflect the cost of living, i.e. the things we buy everyday. Like tins of beans, bread, milk, gas and electricty...
Inflation figures need to better distinguish between the essentials/unavoidables and the luxury/desireable items...
Complain about this comment
Re: 41
I see your argument Mike. Yes. House prices have increased a lot more over the last decade. No argument about that.
I'm not trying to portray selling of Council House's as the whole problem. Just one contributory factor. As I said in my post 35, it's one sub-system in the wider global economy.
I don't think it's fair for all of the blame to be pinned on Labour. Both main parties have had three terms. The problem goes back even further than 1997.
Tories actively encouraged wider home-ownership, partly by encouraging Council Houses to be sold off. That's fed into the supply and demand equation. It has also got more people used to the idea/culture of borrowing money and of equity release. The saw the Yuppies doing well in the City and wanted a piece of the action.
Labour is clearly responsible for lack of regulation post 1997 and for fuelling the housing boom, but the Tories created the underlying culture.
I'm sure we'll find it in an old Tory manifesto somewhere, if we take it off the shelf and blow the dust off...
Complain about this comment
Now we have Mandy in a four letter word tirade
Will that behaviour be investigated? Or just normal practice.
and against someone who may have quite a large investment in the UK
Should we replace all his outlets with tea shops?
Complain about this comment
Re:44
I think we can let him off if he says sorry !
Complain about this comment
@45
Well he didn't, but a spokesman did disassociate themselves from the wording
Complain about this comment
Re: 46
Actually, the chap from Starbucks probably wasn't that far from the truth. From where I'm sitting, the UK economy does seem to be spiralling downwards, but I can understand the Business Secretary's annoyance, given the purpose of his visit...
Isn't the world of diplomacy wonderful...?
Perhaps we should send a gunboat to Boston....
Complain about this comment
Moving on to the second-homes row.
I would say that MP's second homes should be in the capital, i.e. near Westminster which is their place of work.
I think it's the rules that are wrong, in this instance. Certainly not clear enough, from what I've heard on the telly...
Complain about this comment
Why can't we just settle the 2nd homes debate by insisting that the constituency has the house in London for MPs that need them. That way the MPs can't get capital gains from something that is ostensibly part of their job.
The MP can then rent the home from the constituency if he needs it and claim back that amount.
Complain about this comment
dead simple - build them a hostel next to Westminster with all the things they need to do their job and while they are actually in London that is where they stay.
if they don't want to live in the hostel fine just don't ask me to pay for them . they get paid plenty as it is.
being an mp should be seen as a privilege not a money making exercise!!!
sid
Complain about this comment
£2,000,000,000,000
That's another fine mess you've gotten us into, Labour !
Complain about this comment
You or I get caught fiddling, we are down the road.
Cabinet Minister gets caught fiddling, they have sought advice and are within the rules.
Umph?
Imagine some poor drug addict chump from a sink estate on the Medway or poor old Mrs McKay living in a run down estate in Dundee coming up with that excuse.
Perhaps MPs expenses shpuld be means tested?
TDBs
Complain about this comment
Re:52 "Fiddling..."
The national debt is two trillion quid, despite the UK's 35 year windfall from North Sea Oil...
What do we tend to say about African and South American countries where that sort of thing happens... ?
Complain about this comment
Now we are to see the reports of the reviews into the ID scheme
How much will be blocked?
Surely abandoning this project will bail out a couple of banks?
Complain about this comment
I've no objection to having an ID card, whatsoever.
My concern is what the Government and/or its contractors, might do with the data it collects...
Complain about this comment
Re:52 & 53"Fiddling..."
Spot on.
Only difference here is that the elites suggest they become MPs out of duty and patriotism, they could make more in the private sector.
Umph - again :-)
TDBs
Complain about this comment
@55
very interesting viewpoints. They would seem to be mutually incompatible
As far as I'm aware they aren't capable of doing what the government wants them for, so therefore why do they keep calling for them?
As to TDB's maybe we should just say that MP's can not serve beyond 4 parliaments which means they'd have to have something else to do before or after.
Complain about this comment
Re: 57
I see what you mean, well spotted, but you know what I mean.
I'm really quite happy to carry an ID card, the physical act of carrying an ID card doesn't cause me a problem.
But I suspect it will only be a matter of time before the DP show is reporting that ID-card data has been lost by an incompetent Government contractor or there is a rumpus in the Commons because Home Secretary has allowed (or wants to allow) ID card data to be used to do X, Y or Z...
Complain about this comment
In Andrew's original posting, that we've all been working from during the Parliamentary half-term (how appropriate an analogy is that, given the playground antics during PMQ's), Andrew refers to the Bishop of London saying we should get off the treadmill and reconsider what we really want out of life...
Being unemployed certainly does give the opportunity to do that...
I've been able to spend a lot more time with my survivng parent in her old age - which is obviously a good thing to do.
I have also been able to help out with some child-minding. My 2yr old neice in particular has clearly benefitted from having an Uncle who's had time to play with her.
I've been able to get out and about for some really long walks with the dogs, do a lot more in the garden and I feel that I've "lived" in the house instead of returning to it after work for some grub and a kip. I'm fitter, healthier and a lot more relaxed.
I've also been able to challenge our politicial Lords and Masters a lot more, by blogging, but I doubt you'll feel that is a good thing...
What is clear, is that none of those things would have happened to the extent that they have, if I'd still been working 45 hours a week for the same bad/exploitative employer and paying a third of what I earn in Tax and NI for the Government to waste on its pet projects. Projects like banning fox-hunting, banning DIY electrics, banning smoking, introducing HIPS and bombing Afghanistan. Things which do very little to help me in the everyday world in which I live...
The Bishop of London does have a point...
Complain about this comment
Douglas Alexander has now joined the clamour for unity behind Brown, so that makes two openly calling for something which Brown said was "not happening"
So because of this New Labour speak are we to believe that our government is falling apart along with the country?
Complain about this comment
On question time it was mentioned that Nick couldn't comment on the present Home Secretaries residency because "she followed the rules"
Isn't that statement mutually incompatible with the hounding of Osbourne?
So now it has been referred can we can a quick précis? Then maybe a few comments about the other person on the yacht and their involvement in aluminium tariffs? Maybe you could also combine with Mr Peston and ask about certain mortgage applications?
Could I also ask the BBC to post the parameters which its commentators have to abide by? Once you know what can and can't be said you can have a much greater understanding, but it might also lay to ground the ability of the BBC journalists to fully investigate.
I have to admit I'm becoming quite impressed with Peter on Drive who seems to be attempting to get politicians to actually answer questions rather than squirm around the subject and label the opposition.
How many times did Paxman ask a certain question of a former Tory minister? Can he repeat that with New Labour or is it simply implied that it is an open goal?
Complain about this comment
Re: 60 & 61
Yes, I noticed those calls for unity filling a few seconds on the TV news yesterday...
You bring up aluminium tariffs.
Peter Mandelson has rather impressed me since his return actually. Yes I know, I can't believe I'm saying it either, but if I'm being fair I've got to say that he has. I rather look forward to Mandy being interviewed...
He's a skilled politician, very sure-footed in interviews and he has seemed to give a reasonable answer whenever I've seen him on the Telly. Well, more-often than not. He's certainly been the most effective of the Labour politicians over the last few months.
Darling creeps in for a mention as not too bad, apart from the VAT cut which was stupid and, oh yes, for encouraging Merv with his destructive base-rate cuts ...
PM for PM, anybody ?
Complain about this comment
The DP show likes its trivia. So how about Fantasy Coalition Government. It would help politicians measure public opinion..
I'd have Cameron for PM. He's the best of the three party leaders.
Darling could stay as Chancellor, on a trial basis until the first reshuffle. With Vince Cable and George Osborne both senior figures in the team. All three are credible Chancellors really. Darling was just unlucky to be in post when the crisis hit.
Mandelson would be foreign secretary, obviously, as he likes Americans...
...
Complain about this comment
Labour, or as they are called in Scotland, Scottish regional labour, are in process of imploding. SNP have out foxed them by seeking consensus, proposing sensible policies and not picking as many fights as they could have. To date, people are content with the Nationalists. Long may this continue and further progress towards Scottish self determination.
In England the Brown / Blair change was effectively their end. A brief rise in the polls between August and November last year has disipated.
Irrespective of which country you live in, nu lab goose is cooked. What we are seeing is the labour fat cats lining their pockets before they are booted out. Just like any discredited tin pot regime be it in Africa or Latin America.
Scottish people know what the SNP stands for, English people with an interest in politics know what the SNP stand for.
General question to anyone out there, what does labour stand for, what principals do they cherish what apirations do they have?
TDBs
Complain about this comment
Re:64
The National Anthem I would hope, but as the Prime Ministers "British jobs for British workers" claim has been shown to be TDB's without the TD...
You're right actually. I've more idea what SNP stand for. I haven't a clue what Labour stand for.
Apart perhaps, for being desperate to be in power and retain it at all costs...
Like the Venezualan Dictator...
Complain about this comment
Changing subject again.
Jack Straw was absolutely right to change Jade Goody's husbands curfew arrangements so that he could be with her on their wedding night.
I am quick to highlight the bad decisions. It is only fair to talk about the good ones too !
Complain about this comment
New Labour stand for Free Market Economics used to fund Public Services. I just we would ditch this idea of "principles". I want pragmatism.
Thatcher stood for all kinds "principles", and couldn't reconcile their incompatibilites. She stood for "sound money", and then kept letting lose inflation becuase she also believed in "tax cut's". Millions of pensioners lost the value of their savings without ever benefiting from the tax cuts which fueled the inflation.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid I don't share you're appetite for Mandy for PM. He's had to resign twice from different posts before
Looking good isn't as important as substance, and he managed to put a hole in his appearance by the four letter attack on the Starbucks boss
I do think, however, that the next government should be a coalition, so that we can get unanimity on the reform, but also equal responsibility. For that alone Vince Cable should be Chancellor...maybe we might even get democracy.
Complain about this comment
New Labour stand for Free Market Economics used to fund Public Services. I just we would ditch this idea of "principles".
Are these before or after the expulsion of militant tendancy. This government has borrowed to fund public services
Take an example...the NHS...The vast influx of funds brought in many europeans to fill the posts. When the Universities finally turned out more doctors, there were no posts left...and then we got all the stories of cushy salaries and poorly negotiated contracts. All funded from borrowing.
Brown has managed to create many money go round schemes which haven't enriched the country or the individual.
Complain about this comment
69#
The re-organisation of the health service largely took place under the Tories. Didn't we all buy into the idea that hospital professionals knew what they where doing and should be freed from whitehall interfearence? Same with Teachers, and Bankers!
Complain about this comment
Re:67 I broadly agree with you about principles. I think the "market forces" principle was behind the decision to let Leehman Brothers collapse, which triggerred the even greater financial crisis. The "free market" principle would also seem to have contibuted to the lack of regulation where it really mattered, and to the excessive Bankers Bonuses...
At the same time. Government can't operate effectively without certain principles. It would be a good principle to allow the Commons to routinely be allowed a free vote. At the moment that seems to be the exception rathet than the rule. It should be the other way round...
Complain about this comment
Re: 68
A coalition Government would also suit me next time around. Hard to see it happening, because of the way our electoral system works, but you never know. A coalition Government would be really good for Britain. Politicians would be forced to work together for a change...
You're right about Mandelson's prior resignations meaning he's not the best candidate for PM.
But it is still fair for me to say that I've been impressed since he returned.
Complain about this comment
RE:69, 70
I despair about the NHS....
Complain about this comment
To follow on from 61
Now we have an investigation into the Tory donor and full comments, even though there are expressions of "we followed the rules"
I'm confused?
Complain about this comment
I believe it was this government who introduced the new contracts for the NHS.
The Tories had tried to introduce a market and hence competition for places which would quickly see the incompetents replaced by new blood, but under Labour they don't want competition.
Now we have the higher echelons paid vastly more for doing less than they did before. Is that because whoever negotiated the contracts didn't know what they were doing?
Complain about this comment
Re: 75
Beats me. I think the NHS is a complete mess.
The NHS is something else that frankly both Tory and Labour are collectively responsible for messing up over the last 30 years, it is not just the economy...
Cleggy is innocent though. As the Lib Dems haven't been in power it is difficult to blame them for too much, even if they haven't impressed me too much at local authority level, so far...
Perhaps there are benefits of being in opposition, long-term. Good job, good salary, good pension, second home, loads of expenses whilst somebody else gets the blame for everything that goes wrong in the world...
Complain about this comment
Better get an early night then,
DP is back tomorrow and I'm wondering how they're going to shoehorn everything into 30 minutes
Complain about this comment
Re: 77 Yes. I thought we'd done quite well actually, to keep the DP show on the road...
Speaking of which. I see the Cabinet is meeting in Southampton today. I wonder if GB will pop in to see me.
If he lets me know he's coming, I'll pop down the road for some doughnuts to accompany his cup of tea...!
Complain about this comment
Please can we have Prime Minister's Answers on Wednesdays? That way....we might get some....
Complain about this comment
Anita:
Re: SORRY
Sorry is a nice way to admit to everyone that 'you' or your organisation did something that was wrong...
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS