Regrets? Just the one
One comment came to haunt the last Tory government. It was uttered by the then Chancellor Norman Lamont. Watching him was his adviser - a young politician on the rise by the name of David Cameron.
Lamont said "Je ne regrette rien"* in answer to a question at a by-election news conference - words subsequently used by the then Labour opposition to suggest that a callous Tory party did not regret the economic mess the country was in and the personal cost of it in terms of repossessions, soaring interest rates and unemployment.
Cameron believes - hopes - that Gordon Brown's pledge to end the "era of irresponsibility" is another similar gaffe. Again and again you will hear Tories claim this week that he was responsible for that irresponsibility whereas they will restore responsibility to government.
Hence, their plan to create a new Office of Budget Responsibility to stop a future government bingeing on cash and to restore powers to the Bank of England to stop the banks allowing us all to binge on money we haven't got.
* Lamont was, in fact, simply cracking a joke to try to avoid answering a skilful question posed by my colleague John Pienaar in the Newbury by-election in May 1993. Pienaar asked Lamont at a press conference whether he most regretted claiming to see "the green shoots of recovery" or "singing in his bath". He replied by quoting the Edith Piaf song "Je ne regrette rien".
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~21~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The game was up for the Conservatives, irrespective of Lamont's 'joke'.
The game is up for Labour, because of the joke Brown has become.
Complain about this comment
As nobody outside NuLab apparatchiks believe a word "Duff" Gordon says nowadays, it will make no real difference.
Nice Mr C needs to do nothing but stay clean to emerge from the next election as the biggest party as NuLab continue to do their utmost to lose it.
The only worry for Mr C will likely be what happens in Scotland, which may force him to show whether he really is a unionist and show what he's prepared to do to save it.
Complain about this comment
Very poor work Nick
The OBR policy is a policy that should be examined in a cool and collected way - not tacked on at the end of a lightweight piece with no relevance to modern politics.
Or perhaps you would prefer to go back 15 years?
Complain about this comment
Nick, You haven't seen Gordo(McCavity) by any chance have you? When the proverbial hits the fan, Gordo is never to be seen anywhere.. Courage..... Dont make me laugh....
Complain about this comment
Oh sure Cameron is really hauted by a comment from 1993.
Bet he lies awake all night thinking about it.
Either that or he laughs himself silly.
Complain about this comment
I just hope that the current crisis allows us to deploy the old adage, "cometh the hour, cometh the man". To date, Labour have been (as could have been anticipated) an unmitigated economic and political disaster for this country (nothing new there; too many people were fooled by that arch thespian Blair). Brown - the Machiavellian schemer, bereft of the skills needed to lead and inspire - has been found out. Anyone arrogant enough to think they could defy the laws of economics ("no more boom and bust") deserves to crash and burn.
So now we turn to Dave and his wonks. I'm not convinced. To date, the best Dave has come up with is "sharing the proceeds of growth" and sticking to Labour's spending plans. Terrific. Our political class is a disaster and I've yet to figure out how we, the voters, have allowed this to come about.
If the Tories don't come up with some hard-nosed, realistic and soundly-based economic ideas and policies soon then things in this country are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better.
Factor in the UK's atrocious energy infrastructure and lack of energy security (hence the panic-stricken dash for nuclear), and the end of the era of cheap energy (which will make this financial crisis look like a cakewalk) and we're in for an interesting decade.
Now, where's that "man"?
PS Either gender would do.
Complain about this comment
I'm a little concerned by this topic Nick. While on one hand you are highlighting the proposal for an Office of Budget Rsponsibility, I cannot help but wonder if the underlying subject is to remind everyone that David Cameron was an advisor to Lamont at the time of major upheaval.
The BBC is supposed to be neutral. But once again there appears to be a bias towards Labour. Is there something we have to be told?
Complain about this comment
The 'era of irresponsibility' is an excellent description of Labour's mis-management of the nations finances over the last 11 years.
Brown will certainly come to regret the remark - he has given a branding which the public will latch on to.
There are thousands of people in the UK who are still not aware of Brown's appalling record, things like the pension raids and gold sell off etc.
A repetitive branding and discussion around the 'age of irresponsibility' will help those unaware of the awful government record to get to grips with Labour's true level of failure.
Complain about this comment
Why hasn't [link=http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1063358/How-Camerons-secretive-donors-bet-collapse-Bradford-amp-Bingley.html]this[/link] been reported. Just goes to prove who Camaron and co really want to look after and it aint the man and woman on the street thats for sure. Smatterings of sleaze and their not even in power yet
Complain about this comment
#8
Surely the fact "Dave" Cameron was an advisor to Lamont at the time of major upheaval is worth taking into account when selecting the next prime minister.
I am sorry that ruins the carefully manicured image of Dave his team tries to present to the British public.
Complain about this comment
The "era of irresponsibility" is a succinct and perfect description of New Labours 11 year period in government. Is is impossible to overstate the quality and significance of this phrase.
This phrase is certainly up there with Kenneth Wolstenholme's famous phrase in the 1966 world cup final "They think it's all over - it is now!" - People could spend years trying to come up with a better phrase, but never come close.
An astonishing thing to say, surely someone in Gordon Browns staff - including himself - must have spotted the danger in this phrase? What a gift for the opposition.
I wonder what Keneth Wolstenholme himself would have said about it.
"Gordon Brown, they think it's all over - it is now!"
Complain about this comment
Brown is a dead duck but many cannot make the leap of faith into the Conservative camp and vote for them. Oh ye of little faith.....
Now, a question:
You have a PM you hate and one waiting in the wings you are not sure of. What do you do?
Answer:
Unless you want to spiral on down and crash with Gordon you have to have FAITH that David will deliver. You know that the air is all around us and that we breathe it but you cannot see it or prove it. That is FAITH!
It's going to be the hardest job in the world for David Cameron and his team to get into the driving seat after Gord. the impaler but I am sure they will steer it correctly when they do.
Have FAITH - it is the only way!
Complain about this comment
Ah... the lamentable Lamont....adding weight to the light brigade......NOT....
Storming Norman.....and his ERM..moment...
The pothole is rapidly becoming a crater
its spitting image all over again........
laugh....laugh.....laugh.......
Complain about this comment
11. Man From Milan
Ok the so is the fact that Blair and Brown were both CND activists campaigning for unilateral disarmament.
Yet when they had a chance to rid the country of Trident they didnt.
That U turn is a lot more profound, dont you think?
Complain about this comment
Odd how the BBC - alone in all of the UK's media - haven't found the space to report the news that Cameron is taking donations for his office from short sellers and tax exiles:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/28/marketturmoil.shares
instead Nick decides to focus on an imagined "gaffe".
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown is just baiting us now.
Following hot on the heels of having his wife 'spontaneously' introduce him for his conference speech and then very next breath bang on about politicians using their family to improve their image.
Now followed by this little beauty. 'End to the Age of Irresponsibility'.
He's just spitting in our face. Safe in the knowledge he's got another eighteen months swanning around the globe while the UK burns.
Complain about this comment
Brown tells the UN "This has been an era of global prosperity..."
Oh really? So, all the people we have seen suffering around the world, dying from lack of food and medicines are just a figment of our imagination? Hardly "global prosperity", is it?
Perhaps what he meant to say was "This has been an era of prosperity for the developed world". But let us not forget, part of that prosperity has been built on the cheap imports of goods, manufactured by poorly paid people (sometimes children) in the so-called 'third world'.
Brown goes on:
"And while there has been irresponsibility, we must now say clearly that the age of irresponsibility must be ended"
That's all very well, but exactly who is he blaming for all this irresponsible behavior? Surely his government must take some blame for failure to monitor and moderate poor banking practice. And what about the staggering excesses of his Government's borrowing and waste?
Brown at one time pretended to follow a policy of prudence. But as he knows his party is on the way out and won't have to pick up the bill, it's now spend spend spend - funded by massive borrowing. Scorched Earth indeed.
Complain about this comment
Am afraid I now turn the sound down when Mr Robinson appears the reports are very lightweight and spiced with suggestions and innuendo rather than facts
Complain about this comment
Their plan to create a new Office of Budget Responsibility.
Ha ha ha - So who would these experts be, and would they be elected members of parliament or outsiders?
How can this Office dictate to an elected PM or his Chancellor, or is this another gaffe from someone that lost something like 3.4 BILLION Sterling (in 15 minutes), to try and buy our own currency which no one around the world wanted in September 1992, due to our then busted economy?
Gordon Brown would be busted when we have over 62% in National Debt vis-à-vis our GDP, over 3.6 million unemployed and finding our elderly frozen to death because they would not be able to light a fire to keep warm.
Boy Dave is escaping the reality of the present GLOBAL economic storm which was last seen in 1930 when all the world nearly died of hunger, and not in 1992!
Boy Dave is showing us yet again that he is a pretentious bully, acting as if he has no dark side to his economic capabilities, to try and feed us the lies and deceit, same as he tried in 1992 when he kept coming out to tell us, that the British economy was strong, and that Sterling was getting stronger by the minute.
The Westend are recruiting actors for the play (The Gambler of 1992).
Boy Dave is still the same person full of hot air and no substance as he was in 1992. Unfortunately, some idiots like myself had voted for the Tories in 1992, only to loose everything after boy Dave dithered while gambling with our money, to get Sterling out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism.
Office of Budget Responsibility. Ha ha ha.
Next gaffe Dave!
Complain about this comment
Ah..Ha...there we have it post #16 and the gaurdian.....tells it as it is......the tories are funded by those divs and spivs........and tax exiles..........
Its all falling apart for the tories...........
Who will be the next leader (carol thatcher)
Complain about this comment
I see more newbies to this blog supporting brown... What a coincidence...
Nick
I look forward to an analysis of the language that the BBC - and particularly you - use in respect to the statements of Labour vs the Tories.
While labour 'declare' and 'say' and 'state' and 'pledge', aparantly the Tories 'claim' and 'hope'...
The bit of research I'd most like to see is the quotes the BBC use for headlines on the site -- Labour stories seem to tend to have a headline quoted from Labour supporting Labout - while Tory storys also seem to tend to have headlines quoted from Labour (but of course) critcising the Tories.
I don't know what would be worse - that the bias is deliberate; or just unconsiously institutional.
Complain about this comment
Osborne will address the conference
and call time and an end to irresponsibility.
Likely to be on these lines..........
My fellow wealthy friends............
we are going to pay someone to do the job for us..........
What Ho......old chaps and Boris..........
The tories on ice.......thin...thin...thin....
Complain about this comment
Its hard to see how Brown can defend himself. He's got half the city working for the government as advisors and so can't claim ignorance. For example one was to save money of incapacity benefit fraud. Now everybody has to be examined by a doctor even if they have had serious hospital treatment and so clearly aren't pulling a fast one.
So they save a few million.
Meanwhile the city lose hundreds of millions and banks are keeling over left right and centre.
Its like something from Kafka.
Labour are now going to try to claim credit for introducing regulation AFTER the horse bolted.
The fact that Stalin is the only one who thinks he can get away with it escapes him.
Will he be sulking on the back benches soon? World Bank - or would they have him now?
Complain about this comment
I feel slightly queasy about Dave and his minted chums getting back into power.
But as Labour are washed up, I'm resigned to Dave being returned by default because that is how the political system is currently cast.
If it turns out that his crew actually do do something/anything positive for the English people then that will be a bonus.
If Dave could ponder upon Tony Blair's words at the end when he said 'I wish I'd been more radical' and map that onto the plight of the English people, then we might actually see some tangible benefits from Government instead of the 'monkey on our backs' that it has become over the past few decades.
I do not hold out a lot of hope though, these are Tories in the woodshed.
Complain about this comment
Opening his mouth before thinking of the consequences is nothing new for Gordon,he might as well paint targets on his shoes so he doesn't miss next time he shoots himself in the foot.Surely we havn't forgotten the "help" for pensioners struggling to pay for their energy bills recently announced,a scheme that has already run for several years and qualifies for DSS grants.The man's inept,clueless,dishonest and makes Jonah seem like "Mr Lucky".He had a golden opportunity,Blair was despised and discredited when Brown took over,if he had been all he promised most would have even ignored the less than ideal circumstances.But no,he blew it,proved himself spineless with his backing down over the General Election that never was and a blatant liar when he backed away from another vote over the EU Constitution,I know former hardcore Labour voters that that particular piece of dishonesty finished with New Labour for good.As a former Labour supporter and one who considers himself a socialist I'll gladly vote Tory in the next election to do my bit to get this sleazy,self-serving shower out of power.Brown talked a good fight...the Audley Harrison of the political world.
Complain about this comment
13@flamingpatricia
No really stop it. The tories have a right to voice their opinions. Without being ruthlessly parodied.
Complain about this comment
8 neil_small147
seriously? you don't sound like one of the bots - neutral does not mean 'don't say anything' - last week everything was apparently anti-labour, or from the other side it was apparently ignoring the tories
both sides will take any slight critical discussion of them as negative and one-sided, all nick is doing is questioning both sides (overall) - it's something i try to do myself, however it always results in the offended side calling you the enemy because you can't unilaterally agree with their stance, people should know better...guess that's politics
Complain about this comment
#22 You are so right about BBC bias!
I will never forget Paxman and the silly man with the Swingometer, Peter Snow, almost cheering Labour to victory in 1997! Peter Snow was so excited he could hardly contain himself.
But what can you expect when the BBC recruits almost exclusively from a left wing newspaper... The BBC is culturally left wing...
The BBC is currently excelling itself with its "Save Gordon" and "Obama for President" campaigns...
Complain about this comment
I thought we already had an Office of Budget Responsibility called HM Treasury - or isn't the Chancellor responsible for the budget any more?
Complain about this comment
"The BBC is supposed to be neutral. But once again there appears to be a bias towards Labour. Is there something we have to be told?"
Gees the BBC website is being ruined by silly buggers.
Do a bit (a teency tiny bit) and you'll realise Nick Robinson is a former President of the Oxford University Conservative Association as well as National Chair of Young Conservatives.
Bias to Labour! Really!
Complain about this comment
Dunno about anyone else, but im not really sure how more of the same will help. 18 years of Thatcherism followed by another 11 of Thatcherism Lite.
A return to Thatcherism is not what this country needs!
Complain about this comment
I think Gordon will voice only one regret - that he did not spend enough.
Complain about this comment
I do wish posters would stop knocking the blog owners for not being impartial. As reporters and commentators, they are bound by the corporation's rules on impartiality when broadcasting but the web is not a broadcast medium and they can say what they like - just like us. Argue by all means but don't accuse when they have done nothing improper.
Complain about this comment
#31
It doesn't show...
Maybe he's gone native...
Or perhaps just trying to please the boss...
Complain about this comment
The big difference between then and now is the damage Thatcherism did back then and their lack of solutions to a crisis. Today, Labour have fixed a lot of that damage and plans the Prime Minister has been sitting on for ages have their chance to roll out.
Listening to the Prime Minister discuss these issues, it's clear he has an understanding of the big picture and nuts and bolts, and the drive to shift the economy towards better quality assurance and teamwork that's fit for the long-term is classic reasoning of a man like this.
"Think different" and "It just works" are key slogans of Apple. Gordon Brown is trying to do for Britain what Steve Jobs has done for the computer industry. Who wants Vista 2 or Thatcherism 2 when a better choice is available? And, no. Cameron's Hackintosh doesn't count.
Complain about this comment
Good old Charles "E By Gum" Hawkridge.
Only this stuff and nonsense could have come from NuLabour.
"Listening to the Prime Minister discuss these issues, it's clear he has an understanding of the big picture and nuts and bolts, and the drive to shift the economy towards better quality assurance and teamwork that's fit for the long-term is classic reasoning of a man like this."
What a load of claptrap. When are you going to realise that this type of goobledygook is precisely why Labour, and especially Brown, are held in such contempt by the electorate.
It is meaningless rhetoric that could have come from Stalin's Communist Russia.
Try posting a comment in normal English that actually means something and possibly your views might be worth reading.
Complain about this comment
Derek
They're coming to take you away
Ha ha
He he
Ho ho
Complain about this comment
Threnodio
I think you're on dodgy ground there. I believe the rule is that all BBC OUTPUT (regardless of its form) is bound by its code of conduct, including impartiality. Blogs are most certainly included in that - especially since with just a click on a link we can listen to or watch Nick's Radio / TV broadcasts.
The only way you might get round it is if it were a personal blog on a personal website, but as it is I'm afraid impartiality is certainly the order of the day.
Complain about this comment
Charles,
Noticed you didn't respond to my points on the previous blog - never mind.
Some questions for you.
Do you believe that in the 70s the power of the unions was too much, too little, or about right?
Do you believe that turning huge drags on the the public purse into profitable companies was a good thing or a bad thing?
Do you believe that in 11 years in power Labour has reversed a few, quite a lot, or many previous Conservative actions?
Do you believe Gordon Brown "gets the big picture" on the 10p tax rate, or on actually being open and honest with people?
Do you believe people on low incomes, and/or pensioners want to pay tax, then have to beg the government to give them a bit back by filling in a complicated multi-page form?
Do you believe it is sensible to pay all that money to administer such a scheme, with its well-documented failures, rather than drop the scheme completely and use the money saved to simply raise the tax thresholds?
Over to you.
Complain about this comment
Why has it taken over 11 hours to clear my comment at 8.22pm last night?
There were no swear words in it. Or was there something in it which choked in your left wing craws?
Complain about this comment
I would imagine that David Cameron is intelligent enough to learn by mistakes he has made in the distant past unlike his bumbling counterpart who not only takes no responsibility for them but continues to compound them!
Complain about this comment
Yvette Cooper talking yesterday about the question of regulating the banks and why this was not tackled sooner. Her main defence was:
"Of course The Tories voted against this in Parliament!"
Brilliant argument don't you think when you consider how large a majority Labour enjoyed in The Commons throughout ths period. They just don't get it do they?
Complain about this comment
Wow, that just gave me a Zengasm.
Keep 'em coming, sweetie.
Complain about this comment
How long before a wider scale audience start to understand the BBC bias that exists towards Labour?
I don't think this 'Lamont moment' is particularly relevant at all, except to introduce David Cameron as his adviser.....15 years ago.
Yesterday's BBC article placed a big focus on how big Cameron and George Osborne's respective hotel rooms were. A pathetic attempt to hint at largesse?
Brown's era of irresponsibility is the one he presided over and encouraged - via low interest rates, loosening legislation against bankruptcies and allowing the housing market to overheat.
Worse than that - the Labour party wasted away all of the proceeds on consultants, late and over-priced projects and trying to employ as many people as possible in government non-jobs.
5-a-day adviser anyone?
Complain about this comment
Bringing up the link between Cameron and Lamont in the last times of real financial trouble, does that take Cameron out of the "novice" category?
Complain about this comment
Regardless of what has specifically happened and why...
Is noone concerned that this has all happened with out reference to parliament?
What are all those MP's needed for if Brown can tackle everything single handed?
Appologists dispute browns unelected illigitimacy, but citing the fact that people vote for their local MP.
So what use is ones local MP (whether or not you support them) - when some of the biggest un-expected spending of tax-payers money that this country has ever seen is being authorised by one (unelected, unsupported) man hidden away in a bunker somewhere?
Complain about this comment
40. Grawth
Charles is sleeping right now, but I found his notes and will try to answer for him.
Here goes:
We are very funny, human beings... We so love to define and label ourselves, even when we're being rebellious and "anti" something, we think we're doing the opposite of labeling and we're actually just labeling ourselves "opposite of that". It's so silly and what's the point really? You label yourself and every one else that meets you labels you. Every single one is an opinion and they are all different ones because every point of view is slightly different. We are simply a bunch of crazy people trying to define the undefinable. Trying to explain and understand the unexplainable. Let it go.
Don't seek the truth, cease to cherish opinions."
Hope that was all clear.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown would be busted when we have over 62% in National Debt vis-?-vis our GDP, over 3.6 million unemployed and finding our elderly frozen to death because they would not be able to light a fire to keep warm.
I think with B and B we're already at 62%. Oh that'll be winter 2009 before you can 'enjoy' those kind of 1970's nostalic moments of pensioners frozen to death that typified the last Labour government. The miners weren't given their P45's purely for fun you know. Freezing pensioners to death while the miners went on strike to defy any modernisation of the industry (and subsequent loss of 'jobs') was an annual 'price worth paying' for Arthur Scargill and his Labour supporters.
You obviously forget why the Tories were seen as an improvement compared with Labour. To be honest, so had I, but the last six or eight years has reminded me. Labour are like children playing with hand-grenades.
They simply have no idea of the dangers of what they're doing and no matter how many times you tell them to 'stop' as soon as you turn your back they're back to pulling the pins out. The only solution is to take the hand grenades off them and hope they grow up. I thought after eighteen years contemplating their navel in opposition they might have grown up. But no. Still clueless.
Do you hear that sound? That's the sound of the UK economy imploding.
Any soundbites you hear from Labour over this conference week will not be what they're doing to try and address the situation. (Nothing - they're clueless and paralysed by indecision in the face of events they can no longer control) No. It'll be all about mis-quoting the other lot. You know, take half a sentence out of a speech waaaaay out of context and then sneer in their vacuous pseudo-intellectual (I got 3 B's and a D at 'A' level you know) manner.
Meanwhile another Bank goes to the wall on their watch.
Complain about this comment
"Era of irresponsibility" is an excellent description of the Brown era. As Chancellor, Gordon Brown was deficit spending during the years of growth, a period when he could (and should) have been running a Budget surplus to pay down the national debt. Now the bust has come, the Government coffers are empty because Irresponsible Brown binged during the credit bubble, just like any citizen borrowing beyond his means.
Complain about this comment
money that this country has ever seen is being authorised by one (unelected, unsupported) man hidden away in a bunker somewhere?
If these 'rescues' actually avert total financial meltdown then he will, as in the case of the HBoS/Lloyds 'merger', claim personal responsibility for any success. If it proves to be all an expensive mistake then it will be Alastair Darlings fault, Mervyn King's fault, George Bush's fault, George Soros's fault, the bank's fault, the shareholder's fault, the 'irresponsible' borrower's fault. Everybody on the planets fault except the guy entrusted with the well-being of the UK economy this past 11 years.
It'll all be our fault. We've all let Gordon Brown down.
Another 18 months and we can all let him down again.
Complain about this comment
The age of irresponsibility perfectly describes the hubris of Gordon Brown's credit fuelled expansion, public and private.
Doubly irresposible was his decision to strap on the after burners in 2002 to ramp up public sector employment.
Perhaps if Gordon Brown has been sitting on some plans for the economy for ages he could finally reveal them to us?
Of course he hasn't been sitting on plans for ages as the only plans he has are to spend more money we haven't got.
His one last chance was his party conference and his own wife upstaged him.
Northern Rock, HBOS, Bradford and Bingley... the list of Gordon Brown's bust continues to grow by the day.
Now let's wait for the Q3 GDP number to confirm we've moved into recession...or maybe Gordon Brown will dispute the numbers and carefully restate them for us.
Gordon Bust. it has a rung to it. His reputation in tatters and his government a shambles.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
Regular readers may remember my banging on about Britain developing a Shinkansen style rail service. It looks likes the Tories have hijacked that idea. Now, if the CBI and Tories would stop retarding economic development with their negative attitudes it would actually be affordable.
Complain about this comment
Yes the bias the BBC shows is quite startling, nowhere on the good old Beeb have I seen reported the fact that the Tories are receiving funds from the very same city spivs that have been short selling our financial institutions, not only that these spivs have places in the so called Leaders Club where they have direct access to the boy Dave, via cosy dinner parties. Dispatches on C4 tonight should make good viewing
Complain about this comment
Age of irresponsibility ? Nice one from Mr Imprudence..
Actually I think you should leave Norman L alone - I prefer to think of it as a Ratners moment.. I just don't think the resolution will be as quick..
Complain about this comment
I'm still waiting for an explanation from you as to why my comment at 8.22pm last night STILL awaiting Moderation.
Complain about this comment
What a carry on ...
- New Labour reactivating the Michael Foot manifesto and nationalising the banks.
- Uber capitalist trading houses like Morgan Stanley screaming blue murder about the evils of short selling.
- Government intervention all the rage in the US of A.
- British tories moaning about a lack of regulation in financial services.
- Gordon Brown, UK chancellor for the last decade, lambasting the decade long "age of financial irresponsibilty" in the UK.
Funny.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
You really do seem to be reflecting the government's agenda. Why is it relevant to this story that David Cameron once worked for Norman Lamont? Why is it so significant that you have to illustrate it with a photo of Norman Lamont?
It is not.
This is obviously because the BBC is reflecting Labour's tired 'same old Tories' slander. It's just not good enough. The most significant story is that Gordon Brown has descibed the era which Labour claims has been dominated by his 'towering intellect' as an age of irresponsibility.
I'll believe that you are unbiased if you focus on Gordon Brown's discredited rhetoric and illustrate it with one of the well-known photographs of Mr. Brown picking his nose in Parliament. THAT would be balance.
If you don't, by bye Licence Fee.
Complain about this comment
#52 RobinJD,
You (and other posters) seem quite angry that the Government will not call an election as:
a) Gordon Brown has not been 'elected' Prime Minister
b) The Government are unpopular
c) The Government were not voted in by a majority of the population in 2005 (or 2001 or 1997), and its number of Parliamentary seats are not representative of the popular will.
However, you forget that:
a) we have never had an 'elected' Prime Minister - that is how our constitution works. We elect constituency MPs who have affiliations to parties or are independent. They then vote in Parliament to choose who the PM will be. It will be quite a radical reform of the constitution (or 'constitutional vandalism' as this is know when the present Government implement constitutional change).
b) Government's have been unpopular before, and not called an election. Indeed, the previous Government was often unpopular, rising back from the dead on numerous occasions to win an election in a few year. There is no constitutional requirement to call an election when unpopular. This would be another radical change.
c) This is how our system works. It is a long, long time since a Government was voted in by the majority of the population. Again, constitutional change will be required to make Parliament more representative of the popular will.
I look forward to the Conservative's bringing forward plans to:
a) Introduce constitutional reform to ensure all future Prime Minister's are directly elected by a majority of the entire population, not the current constituency-based system we currently have
b) Introduce a statutory requirement for an election to be called after some 'unpopularity' trigger (e.g. when opinion polls show the PM to be unpopular in, for example, 6 successive months)
c) Introduce proportional representation in Parliament
This should solve all your current problems with an unpopular, "unelected" Prime Minister being in power, and make Parliament more representative of the popular will.
Do you agree?
If not, will you stop belly-aching?
Complain about this comment
Same old Labour, same old tax and spend and end up bankrupt. Do they never learn?
I suppose if you choose Oxbridge rejects like Harriet Harmann for your deputy leder ten this is what you get.
Baroness Vedera advising Gordon Brown over the weekend had everyone on a conference call to get a rescue package together. (she of the "those grannies" remarks about Railtrack shareholders)
So what did she achieve? Nothing at all except a derisory offer from Lloyds and Santander being paid to take away the deposits and branch network of Bradford and Bingley. Great Result. Go the Baroness... I can see why you got your peerage now. Paying people to take away assets... what a brilliant business proposal. Will you pay be to buy something please?
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
Wasn't leaving the ERM the best thing that happened to the UK?
Up until then Gordon Brown, Shadow Chancellor was going on about getting into the Euro. Just as well the Tories got out of the ERM when they did, and Gordon Brown changed his tune.
The real charge now is that we have had a "decade of irresponsibility" led by Gordon Brown and NuLabour. As always he was in charge of running the UK but is once again failing to claim responsibility for the ensuing mess while he was "officer of the watch".
He should be court martialed and given an dishonourable discharge.
Clearly one who would never feature in a book on "Courage" even if he wrote it himself (which if Private Eye is to be believed he didn't).
Complain about this comment
It is amusing to see how Nu Labour supporters are constantly trying to remind us of David Cameron's minor role as a 26 year old advisor to Norman Lamont back in 1992 - for which he had very little real responsibility (at the time he really was a 'novice').
Funnily enough, these Labour drones are not keen to lay any responsibility whatsoever at the door of 57 year old Gordon Brown or 55 year old Alistair Darling - the former Chancellor for 10 of the past 11 years, and the latter also in the Treasury since 1997.
So where does the buck stop?
Complain about this comment
53. Charles_E_Hardwidge
See the infinite monkey theorem works.
Complain about this comment
After the Austrian election, can some one say how BNP is going to perform in the next election. I think they might be laughing as there is a good chance that they are going to win parliamentary seats.
I cannot understand as why Labour ruined this country and not taking actions to reverse it. If Brown cannot help this country he should call an election now.
I did believe in Labour, I assumed its for the working people never imaged only people it will look after are people who does want to work or the super rich.
Complain about this comment
Robin @ 60
... "Oxbridge rejects like Harriet Harman" ...
You saying that she applied and failed for Oxford and/or Cambridge before going to York?
Complain about this comment
I think, you'll find a lot of economic failure is down to poor management an short-term shareholders. The Prime Minister seems to be focusing on polishing off those rough edges from the economy no that he has momentum on his side. This strikes me as better than a slash and burn approach driven by spite.
On a personal level, I'm not anti-business, anti-markets, or anti-wealth creation. Doing anything well is hard, and a small but very corrosive minority can royally screw things up. Plus, dominant cultures are very hard to change. The Prime Minister seems to have a similar understanding. If you understood this more, perhaps, you'd bitch less.
It kinda struck me the other day: with your small private income, and railing against some minority cause nobody gives a hoot for, you're like a right wing equivalent of Peter Tatchell. Now, I think, he gives himself a hard time and you're not making it easy for yourself. Maybe you should give yourself a break and calm down.
Complain about this comment
Labour inherited a national debt of 43.6% of GDP from the Tories in 1997 (about the same level as now).
The wealth of the good times has been well invested in Schools , Hospitals and Police. I'm glad we had a government with the foresight to fix all these things whilst we had the money.
If Brown has any regret it should be that he didn't reverse the Tory changes to banking rules that made their irresponsible behaviour possible, so the era-of-irresponsibility was started by the Conservatives here and the Republicans in USA.
Complain about this comment
c) Introduce proportional representation in Parliament
Already done. It was in the Labour manifesto in 1997.
An effective House of Commons
We believe the House of Commons is in need of modernisation and we will ask the House to establish a special Select Committee to review its procedures...
We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons.
We've had a referendum and we rejected it.
Or something.
I must admit I don't recall any referendum but we must have had one. I can't believe Labour started so early with the broken referendum promises. I'm sure Paddy Ashdown, member of the first cabinet of all the talents, would have had something to say about them breaking their manifesto commitment. Unless he was distracted by some other matter.
Still, I'm sure Labour wouldn't have deliberately engineered Paddy's distraction to cover up the fact that they'd deliberately led all those tactical voting Lib Dems up the river and then reneged on a copper-bottomed manifesto promise. Would they?
As early as 1997 they were behaving like this. And I missed it? Shame on me.
Oh well, at least I've woken up. What's frightful is that there are still 25% of the voting population prepared to walk somnabulently into a polling booth and still vote Labour.
We should pity them.
Complain about this comment
I thought it was the fund managers and stock market speculators who were "bingeing on cash" in the sense they were taking it out of one plc in quantities to artificially boost the value of another plc simultaneously selling the shares in the boosted value of the one and tipping off their pals in the business and the press about what they were doing to the other.
People still believe financial myths. One is that all people can be individual share holders. We are all shareholders in the sense our money is managed by the bank we choose to lodge it in or the pension fund we may be dependent on.
But for the average person to rely on their shares to boost their income? They would be better off investing it in home improvements, putting it in National Savings and or, if they would like a bit of a flutter, Premium Bonds.
But the recent problems with cash flow remind me of the stampede to float major buildings societies in the 1990s. It became increasingly difficult to find a building society which was not going public. Many people were happy with their few hundred pounds of cash at the time and never considered the new plc would now have to provide dividends to its shareholders, as well as interest to its savers and keen rates for its mortgagees.
Those who were alloted shares in the new plcs, looked bemused at the tiny dividends (less tax) which came through from their allotted shares. Probably these dividends cost more to administrate and send than they were worth.
Another financial myth is that money always makes more money.Because of this financial services started using the word "product". This suggested there was something physical to be gained from buying an insurance policy, investing in savings, or buying shares in a company's fortunes. In fact a bit of paper would be issued, which, in the light of recent events could turn out, in certain circumstances, to be worthless. I suggest the term "product" is misused in selling the majority of financial services.
Low interest rates on borrowing are a boost to the selling of financial "products" to those on average and modest incomes. But they also mean that vast sums could be borrowed cheaply on short term loans for the practice of artificially boosting the fortunes of some companies whilst (on paper) depleting the resources of others.
I leave readers of this news log to judge which party's politics have, over the past two decades, most contributed to, and encouraged the various financial myths and practices which, in my view, have contributed to the current squeeze on lending and the apparent failure of some of our High Street lenders to be able to balance their investments, lending and borrowing.
Complain about this comment
# 61
Minor historical point ... the Tories did not 'get out' of the ERM.
They were ejected.
Only days before, John Major had bleated 'its a colds, cold world outside the ERM'.
I think that was the precise moment when I realised that they (Major, Lamont) simply did not have the faintest idea what they were doing.
Complain about this comment
Oh Dear
Complain about this comment
53 charles..
Sounds like a positive idea. I almost fell off my chair with suprise. But the the high speed link we already have, the west coast mainline cost billions lining the pockets of Railtrack shareholders and still doesn't work the pendolinos can still only do 125 mph. a high speed railway will surely cost considerably more than a runway. I wouldn't hold your breath.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown may be on the ropes right now but never count him out! He has never been irresponsible. On the contrary he has shown his steely mettle. He has the proven experience, grit and the determination to come out of the grim situation and the resolve to give the kiss of life to the British economy. The Opposition is trying their very best to place banana skins on his political path. Of course the worldwide recession is not helping. World bankers and their political masters are groping despite their excellent credentials, trying to steady the markets and restore investor confidence. Gordon should out of this contagion of world-wide financial collapse bruised but not written off. He has the brains and financial acumen!
Complain about this comment
- Gordon Brown, UK chancellor for the last decade, lambasting the decade long "age of financial irresponsibilty" in the UK.
Funny.
Funny. In a 'blitz spirit', black humour kind of way.
I think the Chinese have an expression 'Paper tiger' meaning somebody with a lot of 'front' that projects themselves as powerful but dissolves in the wind and rain.
Likewise we have the concept of a 'paper general'. Typically some sinecured field-marshal-type from the Austro-Hungarian era moving imaginary armies around an imaginary battlefield and commanding his hapless minions to 'attack here' and 'reinforce there' when his forces were either non-existent to begin with, failed to show on the battlefield or have just been wiped out.
Gordon Brown is the 'Paper chancellor' or the 'paper PM'. Issuing meaningless directives to clueless incompetents to 'spend here' or 'spend there' and nobody dare tell him there is nothing left to spend or there was never any money in the first place.
Gordon Brown. Paper chancellor. Paper PM.
Somebody tell him.
Complain about this comment
#65
yep. She's an Oxbridge reject.
now the government is claiming it has 'sold' the deposits of Bradford and Bingley to Santander along with the employees and bracnh network.
It hasn't 'sold' anything. It has paid 18bn in deposits that Bradford and Bingley don't have because they lent it out two and a half times over. So we, the taxpayer are paying for Santander to assume the deposits of Bradford and Bingley while the government goes on risk for all the dodgy buy to regret mortgages. (50bn pounds worth)
If this is the best the great Baroness Vedera could come up with we are truly in for a very rocky ride.
And you can forget the golden rules... just like the Emperor's new clothes.... they never existed in the first place.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
#68
It wasn't done was it?
Regardless of Labour back-tracking on their PR commitment (which they very short-sightedly did), surely you would hope Cameron and the Conservatives would fix this 'dreadful situation' you (and others) say we are in at the moment re an "unelected" PM, an unpopular Government not being forced to have an election and an unrepresentative Parliament?
I thought you would be unhappy if the Government-in-waiting was not proposing mechnisms to fix these problems with our constitution you identify.
Or maybe they're only problems at the moment? A (hypothetical) unpopular future Conservative Government, governing on a 36% mandate, with an unelected leader would not be a problem.
Complain about this comment
#62 I've picked up on that old trick many times, usually by one offender on here. As I said, if Cameron had the ability to turn the ship of State to join the ERM - and then out of it - as a 20-odd research assistant then he has better powers of persuasion than Paul McKenna.
In fact we were already in the ERM when Cameron joined Lamont. And Lamont didn't make the decision to join either, he was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury responsible for spending decisions, although ironically, Labour was a dedicated advocate of the ERM and the late Labour leader, John Smith, reportedly belied it would restrain the unions from making large wage demands.
No matter. It's a bit like the abolition of Winter deaths and boom and bust. (They've both been eradicated. Right?) Great stories for the doorstep.
Complain about this comment
"Do a bit (a teency tiny bit) and you'll realise Nick Robinson is a former President of the Oxford University Conservative Association as well as National Chair of Young Conservatives.
Bias to Labour! Really!"
So when he was younger he was a Conservative? Doesn't mean he is now. If everyone voted for the same way all their lives why would we have elections every 5 years or so?
If MPs can "cross the floor" then is it even slightly possible that a journalist could change their political viewpoint from what it was in University?
When Nick Robinson was at University the Labour Party were much different then they were now - part of the reason they got into power in 1997 was because they moved to the centre ground (the other part was because the Tories were unpopular).
So just because he was a Conservative then doesn't mean he is now.
Complain about this comment
67. ConManDave
Dave
Are you labouring under the impression that all these new schools and hospital have been paid for out of taxation from the last decade
If so you are quite wrong.
Have you heard of PFI.
Complain about this comment
oh balhamu - once again you defend Brown with the fact that the UK doesn't elect a leader, it elects a party
very true - however it also elects a party based on its manifesto, that manifesto promised us tony blair for a 'full third term'
Complain about this comment
#68
Yes, that's breathtaking, isn't it? After three banks go bust in the space of twelve months 25% of the population are still prepared to vote labour.
It's all very well arguing about tory reforms but I don't remember a tory chancellor suggesting that banks lent out 50 times their equity bases. perhaps those who claim this was a tory idea would like to point out to us the relevant instruction form Lawson, Lamont, Major or Clark.
Meanwhile perhaps the newlabour apologists could explain why the Tripartite system, having been set up to great acclaim, then wasn't supervised itself by that great over lord, Gordon Brown,? Indeed, rather than reign in the lending appetite of the banks he chose to emulate them and went on a feeding frenzy of government debt himself... and no, he didn't fix the roof, he bought himself a big plasma Tv and his n hers 4x4s... meanwhile not building a single ariport, high speed rail link, power station, motorway or bridge.
Not a penny on the infrastrucure of this country and now he sells British Energy to the French....
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 67. LOL
In point of fact, the "wealth " from the good times being invested in schools etc. is rubbish. They been built using PFI. A scheme created by the Tories in their later years before losing power in 1997.
And wasn't it Labour who created the Financial Services Authority? Thereby demolishing years of built up specialist knowledge in financial industry sector amongst the Investment Managment Regulatory Authority, the Securities and Futures Authority etc? Well, blow me down it was!
And who was it who took away banking supervision from the Bank of England. Well, blow me down, it was new Labour!
And this idea about using money wisely and sound financioal management. This is the biggest piece of false imagery since David Copperfield walked through the Great Wall of China.
Labour has even exceeded the losses made on Black Wednesday in just bad administration over the tax credits system (by the way, the direct loss was GBP800m, plus GBP3billion of "opportunity cost", whatever that is meant to mean; I guess it just makes the loss look bigger).
Complain about this comment
36. At 01:58am on 29 Sep 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
""Think different" and "It just works" are key slogans of Apple. Gordon Brown is trying to do for Britain what Steve Jobs has done for the computer industry."
So, using hype and spin to make up for mediocre hardware, giving away products for free to journalists to ensure positive reviews, using proprietary software/components in ways which ensure centralised control and no alternative options and finally ending up with a very small market share composed of mainly of fanatics who refuse to acknowledge reality.
That's probably the only accurate thing I've heard you say about Labour and Brown - and you did it by accident.
Complain about this comment
19 old sitka spruce, what a odd title.
"Am afraid I now turn the sound down when Mr Robinson appears the reports are very lightweight and spiced with suggestions and innuendo rather than facts"
So are we to gather that any facts about labour are to be turned down and not listened too,because there"very lightweight and spiced with suggestions and innuendo rather than facts" but you turn the sound up when the heavyweight Tory facts are being discussed.Your remark is perhaps reflected in your title very lightweight timber.
Complain about this comment
Never apologise, never explain....
Complain about this comment
64 alphaGlen
one advantage of not using a proportionally representative system is that while the BNP can gain a number of votes across the country they are very unlikely to dominate a constituency - notice how they got more votes in 05 than many of the minor parties who got seats - plaid cymru, respect, SDLabour - because those parties have a local base
the BNP are a minority group, they, like the greens and ukip (who both got more votes), cannot win seats because they are handicapped by the first past the post system, they can get into councils and the assembly but for the time being it's very unlikely they'll get a seat in the commons - not that I advocate keeping it that way to just keep racists out, but at least one advantage is that you can rest assured that they won't get into the commons any time soon
Complain about this comment
70. JohnConstable
The UK Treasury estimated the cost of Black Wednesday at £3.4 billion.
Didnt Browns single decision to sell of our gold when the price was at an all time low cost us about the same.
Complain about this comment
# 73
We cannot say whether Gordon Brown is up to the PM's job or not.
None of us on this forum, I would imagine, are even remotely qualified to pontificate on this.
Those few who are qualified to express a view, are those who have actually done the job of PM or Leader of the Opposition.
So I take notice when William Hague volunteered the view that this job is not 'just a step up' but rather a different league altogether, requiring a totally different set of skills.
Particularly in team-working.
Brown seems to be failing very badly in this area, as some posited would be the case if he ever got the top job.
Complain about this comment
#73 "Gordon Brown may be on the ropes right now but never count him out! He has never been irresponsible." Oh purleeese! Gordon Brown wrecked our personal pensions, he sold off our gold reserves at rock bottom prices and he borrowed money to spend when it was highly irresponsible so to do! The public finances are in a horrible mess and the blame for that can be laid squarely at Brown's door - he was a binge spender with the public's money.
Complain about this comment
I remember that. If I recall correctly, a loophole in a bill governing building societies was exploited. To be fair to parliament it had been thoroughly scrutinised and MP's did fight to close it. Problem is, the judges found against them in spite of the spirit of the act.
I drew up a list of 10 things I wanted a government to do after the last election and sent a few blasts in their general direction. A friend said I'd be lucky to get one. As it turned out, I got 9 out of 10. A grand project along the lines of a shinkansen or SST-2 was the last one though, I suppose, next generation broadband internet counts. Of course, the Railtrack mentality exists in the ISPs, so that's a bigger grind than it need be.
The government sponsored a feasibility study but the costs of doing it properly are enormous. A big sticking point is business development and planning. Business is still too risk averse and grannies won't appreciate a straight line being drawn through their back garden. I think, the recent initiative to focus business on new opportunities and the new planning legislation will help. But, the CBI and Tories are acting as a brake. Win, lose, or draw, they're going to have to review that.
It's not ruled in or out but the big prize for me is a next generation supersonic transport that can support both military and civilian roles. The advantage above Trident is a strategic nuclear bomber would help cool the arms race and draw in former adversaries as partners. Photo-recon helps everyone know what everyone else is up to. This reduces fear. Plus, closer economic and cultural ties help develop understanding and mutual dependency. It looks like a win-win to me.
Complain about this comment
At 8:51pm on 28 Sep 2008, markanash wrote:
"Our political class is a disaster and I've yet to figure out how we, the voters, have allowed this to come about."
Indeed they are.
To a large extent, with the excepton of a few in the Conservative party, none of these people who we elect to govern us have held down a responsible position in the private sector and have no experience whatsoever of life outside the cocoon of politics. In short, they have not held down a proper job.
It should be made a condition of becoming an MP that before submitting to the electorate to become a candidate for Parliament they should have spent at the very least 5 years in employment, outside the eductaion system, and have gained experience of what it takes to exist in the real world generating your own upkeep rather than relying on the resources of the state.
Far too many incumbents have progressed from school, through university to researcher, and thence to parliament without any outside experience at all.
Without this type of experience they are unable to bring realistic judgement to their decisions.
Complain about this comment
With this new Office, as with MP's expenses, the Conservatives, like all political parties, seem obsessed with setting up new and sometimes almost identical oversight committees and commissioners rather than simply taking personal and governmental responsibility themselves.
Complain about this comment
49 U9461192 What we find now is that U has compassion. not for dead or sick kids but for frozen pensioners.
It would be interesting to know how many pensioner have frozen to death in the last eleven years if any, since its against the law to cut of power supplies to pensioners, and perhaps we could also find out how many pensioners froze to death under the Tory years.
Complain about this comment
#59 balhamu
A good post, although you make one factual error.
No British government has ever been elected "by the majority of the [adult] population" - not even Baldwin's National Government of 1935 which received over 53% of the votes cast. Oddly, I think that was the closest we've come to a sitting PM losing his seat at a general election: Ramsay MacDonald resigned as PM in June and lost his seat in the November election.
You might also have pointed out that PR was long a policy of the Labour Party and that electoral reform was yet another of Bliar's '97 promises he ratted on.
However, it is clear that the "peculiar institution" of the non-existent British Constitution is now clung to as a security blanket by both the NuLab and BluLab wings of the Tory Party. Can anyone explain why each prefers to spend a decade or so "in the wilderness" to retain the hope of getting Buggins' turn in government next time?
Strangely, electoral reform now might be the one thing which could save NuLab from at least a decade "in the wilderness", but so long as "Duff" Gordon remains at the helm, there's no chance of that.
#68 U9461192
Too true
Complain about this comment
'Office of Budget Responsibility' - this is a joke suggestions by Cameron. What is the Treasury there for if not for deciding fiscal priorities? Who will make up this OBR and what powers of veto will they have over government spending?
The Tories love to talk about how Labour has left 'nothing for a rainy day'. Presumably this means they would not have invested the many billions in the NHS that New Labour were forced to do after years of chronic udner-funding under major and thatcher. Of New Labour's spedning over the past ten years, what exactly would Dave not have done, that's the question.
Complain about this comment
Lamont was out of his league from day one, yet for soem odd reason it was felt a dour Scot knew how to add up.
That is where the only comparison could possibly lay.
The Scot has shown a level of arrogance disdain for the working population and the taxpayer by slowly thinking he could skin us alive forever.
We can only hope the noose is set and Labour including teh recently retired Prime Minister, as a whole get strung up and left out to rot for generations to come.
Complain about this comment
There are a couple of people above trying their best to bring to light the 'shocking' revelation that the Tory party have been taking donations from short-sellers.
I do not see any problem in this for two reasons:
1. If Labour are allowed to sell influence to the trade unions, why should the Tory party not be allowed to raise funds however they please.
2. Short-selling was not an illegal activity and has been allowed to flourish under the (mis)management of the Labour Party - they can hardly grumble about a system they allowed just because it benefits another party.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile three of the four main banks still (sort of) standing are down 10 -15% so far today. Even with another umpty billion printed by the Fed.
The government is going to own all the outstanding loans and mortgages at this rate. RBS looks to be next for a 'rescue/merger' probably with HSBC organised only after self-proclaimed personal intervention by Gordon Brown no doubt. HSBC has been held in reserve for a good reason.
It can only be for Barclays or RBS. Looks like the market smells blood from RBS though. Perhaps buying ABN at the height of the boom for cash wasn't such a good plan after all.
Meanwhile the chancellor and the PM demonstrate their grasp of economics by taking all the ludicrously over-borrowed BTL mortgages onto the public accounts (well they won't of course - they'll be hidden in an SIV somewhere) and hand all the branches and deposits to a Spanish Bank. Why didn't they hand them to me? At least I live here.
Complain about this comment
#76 balhamu
I think you'll find it was intentional irony.
Complain about this comment
The BBC have some intelligent interviewers.
Jeremy Paxman is not one of them.
He interviewed each of the party leaders, prior to a general election.
When he interviewed Tony Blair, he just continually shouted questions at him.
The result was that Tony Blair did not get a chance to answer the questions. He just smiled and obtained a sympathy vote due to Paxman's stupid attitude.
Also when George Galloway won a seat in Parliament, he was asked, in a sneering manner by Paxman, how he felt having ousted a labour MP.
The BBC certainly need to learn how to report news impartially and without putting their personal spin or emotion into the reporting.
Complain about this comment
Regardless of Labour back-tracking on their PR commitment
Ahhhh. Another irregular Labour verb.
I borrow
you borrow
He/She borrows
We borrow
They borrow
Labour sustainably invests
I squander
You squander
He/She squanders
We Squander
They squander
Labour 'invests in infrastructure'
I lie
You lie
He/she lies
We lie
They lie
Labour backtrack
I am responsible
You are responsible
He/She is responsible
We are responsible
They are responsible
The Tories/banks/yanks/irresponsible voters are to blame.
You really do have a language all your own there at Labour HQ don't you.
Complain about this comment
The UK Treasury estimated the cost of Black Wednesday at ?3.4 billion.
Pah. A mere rounding error for Gordon Brown.
For Gordon Brown the first Wednesday of every month is 'Black Wednesday'. Because every month since 1997 that's how much our national debt has increased by.
For the Tories 'Black wednesday' was a big deal. For Gordon Brown and his legions of numpties it's a way of life.
Complain about this comment
Plans to abolish prescription charges in Northern Ireland have been announced by NI Health Minister Michael McGimpsey.
The cost of a prescription in NI will be reduced to £3 per prescription in January 2009 and will be free of charge by April 2010.
The charges were abolished in Wales on 1 April 2007 and are due to be abolished in Scotland.
This leaves England as the only country in the UK to retain the charges.
This is outrageous!
How can the government justify England being the only country in the UK to pay for prescriptions. The Idea of the Union is that the costs are shared between us.
Last week Brown said he was going to be fair to everyone, where is the fairness in this.
He said he was going to end irresposibility. This is irresponsible as it will galvanise the English part of the Union to want to leave and incite hatred amongst the peoples of the UK
Complain about this comment
#80
I defend no-one.
Just noting that several contibutors on this blog disagree with our current constitution, and what the changes will need to be to deal with your concerns.
I did not say you were wrong in thinking that the current "unelected" PM and unpopular, unrepresentative Government should be forced to a general election.
I was merely saying that this would require constitutional change to implement.
If you don't support said constitutional change, why do you keep bleating about it?
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile the Tories are reduced to squandering more money we don't have building railways as a way of mopping up thousands of unskilled workers shortly coming to a dole queue near you.
15bn quid for a few hundred miles of track?
15bn quid? For what? A few big yellow digging machines, several thousand blokes leaning on their shovels with reflective jackets and their arse hanging out of their pant and some tracks? 15bn quid?
Oh no. This is just Labour 'investing in infrastructure' all over again. Never mind the outcome. Look how much I spent.
Complain about this comment
59 Balhamu As much as I respect you trying your wasting your time I have tried to convey the same message myself, in fact only a few days ago to Flaming Patricia and only recieved sheer ignorance for my trouble.
I am afraid that not with such elegance as yourself. after explaining as you have how it works.
I put it this way.
"Do you think he just walked into the debating chamber and said "OK you guys I've decided that I'm going to be Prime Minister, and I dont want no arguments and the other what is it 364 members all mumbled to one another "well I guess if he says he is then he must be" it's like a scene from the "Life of Brian".
The lady then told me that she couldn't understand my grammer who speaks like that she asked, half the population I replied. Well I dont want to speak to you anymore.
Well that told me a lot about this characters background, typically Tory
I think your logical reply will just be replied by some stupid Tory soundbite.
On another subject can you smell the fear
creeping into the Tory boggs.
Complain about this comment
#78
I don't think any of the posters making links between Nick Robinson and the Conservatives are trying to suggest he has any bias that way, more that any bias he is likely to have would go the other way.
Imagine if Nick Robinson used to be the President of the Young Socialists during his university days. That would make a cut-and-dry case that he definitely is biased would it not?
I think the BBC should employ Richard Littlejohn as political editor. That would make sure there is no bias. Because his views are neutral - not left-wing, not right-wing. He just says what good, honest, hard-working families in this great country belief, not the views of namby-pamby, politically correct, socially liberal, left-wing grants-for-terrorists, couldn't-make-it-up numpty's.
Even better, sell the BBC to Rupert Murdoch, or the Mail Group. That would end all bias completely.
Complain about this comment
#94. I'm sorry to say you are wrong. Winter deaths are still a plague.
Look at the National Pensioners Convention website.
There were 22,300 excess Winter deaths of older people last year and over 260,000 since 1997.
One of your buddies on here, Onlywayup, constantly refers to people freezing to death under the Tories. Well, it's still happening after a decade of "boom".
Complain about this comment
# 88
The Brown gold sale keeps coming up but I do not know the ins-and-outs of it.
AFAIK, the principle behind this sale orginated in the Treasury (warning bells immediately clang as these people, alledgedly the finest brains in the country, are usually at the bottom of every fiscal foulup since the 1930's).
Anyway, the principle seems to have broadly been 'diversification of assets', that is, flog some gold and buy say euros with the proceeds.
The actual sale was very badly handled, so the taxpayer did not get a good price for the gold.
I have no idea what the proceeds were actually spent on.
Complain about this comment
#100
I know that.
He did dodge the question of whether he would like to see the necessary constitutional reform or not.
I said he was quite right that Labour said they would look at PR in 1997, and didn't come forward with any proposals.
Anyway, what about the first two constitutional reforms necessary if we want the current system of "unelected" PMs and unpopular governments to end?
* Directly elected Prime Ministers (I guess we would also want to seperate the Executive and the Legislature in this world - let the PM pick his Government who do not sit as MPs; the MPs scrutinise the Government)
* Unpopularity triggers (e.g. 6 months poor opinion poll ratings) that would trigger a new election of the PM (and Government)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
105 balhamu
from reading your posts you assume those who complain about the unrepresentative constitution are tories - who would never change it of course, i am not a bleeding tory and i do agree with constitutional change
fact is a party were elected on false premises, they know that because they originally wanted an election back in 2007, but then the opinion polls went down and it was scrapped so as to retain power - there's no integrity there, not that i expect integrity from any side, but people have a right to demand an election
Complain about this comment
84. MonkeyBot5000 wrote:
36. At 01:58am on 29 Sep 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
""Think different" and "It just works" are key slogans of Apple. Gordon Brown is trying to do for Britain what Steve Jobs has done for the computer industry."
So, using hype and spin to make up for mediocre hardware, giving away products for free to journalists to ensure positive reviews, using proprietary software/components in ways which ensure centralised control and no alternative options and finally ending up with a very small market share composed of mainly of fanatics who refuse to acknowledge reality.
That's probably the only accurate thing I've heard you say about Labour and Brown - and you did it by accident.
---
that's one of the best things i've read on here, well done sir
now could we make that into a succinct, catchy phrase
Complain about this comment
On another subject can you smell the fear
creeping into the Tory boggs.
I tell you how frightened I am. The only reason I can get to sleep is because I finally convinced myself that Gordon Brown won't totally trash the currency. The economy is destroyed but he'll have to maintain some semblence of confidence in the currency. And do you know what little straw I cling to to convince myself of this.
Because in order to continue to order the police and the army to police the rioters and food looters he'll have to have something to pay them with.
That's why.
Fear? If you only knew how bad things really are out there.
Complain about this comment
argh, karen brady is talking at the tory conference
"ooh look at me, i'm a young, female managing director of a big football club, i'm brilliant" - or you got in with the dodgy chairman of a football club
"i'm an entrepreneur!"
Complain about this comment
Basically, Brown is finished.
He is pushing short term solutions with no thought for long term consequences. It is this course of action which is destined to leave our economy and our country in a huge mess.
This, of course, should be no surprise. It is this policy of short term thinking that has left us in this mess in the first place. If Brown had had the foresight to put a bit of money aside whilst times were good, at least now we would have some money in the kitty to help us as we struggle.
Ultimately, all his dithering, mistakes and ploys will end up leaving a huge deficit for the incoming Tory Government.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#87 tarquin
So how many seats have the BNP won in the proportionally elected Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish assemblies? Exactly ZERO.
And so what if they did win the odd seat in the House of Cards at Westmidden? A few loony MPs would make no more difference than they do in democratically elected assemblies in the rest of the EU. Most likely, their increased public exposure would show them up for the buffoons they are.
Far more importantly, would be giving the UK (or what remains of if Scotland repeals the Act of Union) a democratically accountable government for the very first time and would prevent liars like Bliar seizing 100% of the power from the votes of a quarter of the electorate.
Complain about this comment
Well Nick, we seem to have in Gordon Brown the genuine 'Sub-Prime Minister' don't you think?
Complain about this comment
#113
They generally are - sorry if you are not Tarquin.
p.35 of [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] if you are interested in the reasons why the promise of a referendum on PR was not kept to.
'People have a right to demand an election' - they don't in our current constitution.
It sounds like such a right would be a recipe for instability and even more short-termist thinking from Government's of any persuasion as they would be unable to make any unpopular (but necessary) decisions).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm not really sure about fear creeping into Tory boggs. I would hope they keep their lavatories free from anything that might want to creep into them!
Complain about this comment
Did anyone see the lamentable display last night by George Osbourne? I dont usually laugh at politicians, because I think that from which ever party they are from most of them truly believe what their saying, of coarse there are exceptions.
The stage was set in the manner of the Jeremy Kyle show, the chairs almost identical, but white for purity.
Jeremy Oops! George was standing in front of a cheering audience and announcing his first guests.
On the they came of course randomly selected and not at all coached, they were each asked by George [what their gripe was with labour] sorry what problems they were encountering in life, after a little more cheering and clapping off they went only to be followed by another three.
Same questions similar answers, more cheering off they went, same again.
This had now completely taken on the form of Jeremy Kyle.
The only differences being there were no lie detector tests or DNA tests to see if any of them were lying ******** people,and Jeremy isn't constantly grinning innately at his guests thats were George fell down on the job and Jeremy triumphed.
Jeremy always gets the truth and the paternity George failed to do that.
Beware Jeremy he may, as Gordon suggested have a lot to learn but maybe he will one day have enough nous to become a TV show host. something like watch with mother would do nicely.
Complain about this comment
#102 U9461192
LOL and sad but true
Complain about this comment
123grawth Well spotted. I'm afraid it was a
freudian slip thinking of Tory blogs and Tory boggs but then perhaps not so bad really their both full of c**p anyway.
Complain about this comment
#113
They generally are - sorry if you are not Tarquin.
'People have a right to demand an election' - they don't in our current constitution.
It sounds like such a right would be a recipe for instability and even more short-termist thinking from Government's of any persuasion as they would be unable to make any unpopular (but necessary) decisions.
[earlier posts blocked because the moderators didn't like the links - may end up as a repeat post]
Complain about this comment
Robin @ 75
Ah, I didn't realise that. That's interesting. How do you know that, as a matter of interest?
News to me, that's for sure. I'm a fan of HH but, given she's quite a well born (har)person, the fact that you're now telling me she was rejected by Oxford and/or Cambridge maybe indicates a less than world class intellect ... that's Harriet I mean, not you Robin!
So now I'm going to need to have a bit of a think about whether I remain a fan or whether I switch allegiance to, say, Tessa Jowell.
Hey, wait a minute, Tessa's okay isn't she? ... don't want any more nasty surprises, thank you very much!
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
#107 grandantidote
Not quite sure I understand your post. Despite being a Tory, the lady in question does seem to misunderstand the "peculiar institution" of the non-existent British Constitution, which you now seem to support, but that's hardly unusual.
Seeing from posts passim that you're an old Labour supporter, can you perhaps explain why they ditched their commitment to PR and the electoral reform referendum? What's your personal take on the current system?
Complain about this comment
124# grandantidote
One word - Desperation.
112# grandantidote
I was the one who referred your comment at 112#. It is the first time I have taken this path.
I find your response to a previous blog grossly deplorable not in what you said but in what you called them. You have hit a new low and I believe you owe that poster an apology.
I believe the derogatory remark you used does not help you and further more does not help the cause you support.
Complain about this comment
"I don't think any of the posters making links between Nick Robinson and the Conservatives are trying to suggest he has any bias that way, more that any bias he is likely to have would go the other way.
Imagine if Nick Robinson used to be the President of the Young Socialists during his university days. That would make a cut-and-dry case that he definitely is biased would it not?"
The original comment I quoted was basically shooting down an accusation that Nick Robinson was biased against the Conservatives by highlighting his past links to the party - as if that would somehow mean that Nick will always be a Conservative voter.
Of course it maybe hard for some Labour supporters to understand that you can change the party you support (it isn't like football teams - you don't have to support the one your parents did)
It doesn't matter what party Nick Robinson supported at University - it could be the Monster Raving Looneys, the important thing is that he doesn't put his own political bias into reports.
Personally I feel that there is no need to mention that David Cameron was present when Lamont made his comments. Advisers are there to advise - and does anyone who isn't a Labour die-hard really believe that Lamont would decide anything based solely on the say-so of a junior Advisor. For all we know Cameron's advice could have been sound but ignored. More likely his involvement was little more then a gopher.
Complain about this comment
"Anyway, the principle seems to have broadly been 'diversification of assets', that is, flog some gold and buy say euros with the proceeds.
The actual sale was very badly handled, so the taxpayer did not get a good price for the gold.
I have no idea what the proceeds were actually spent on."
The impression I got was that 'diversification of assets' was the spin and the reason for buying Euros was to increase the value of the currency which had dropped in value badly against the dollar.
Probably a bit of truth in both.
Complain about this comment
EXCELLENT SPEECH BY GEORGE OSBOURNE
I watched the speech and thought it covered all of the points that worry me about the state of the UK economy, worries brought on by Messrs Brown's and Darling's era of irresponsibility.
I don't know about "mend the roof while the sun shines," the "terrible two" seem to have taken the roof off by not saving to help neutralise the current problems beuing experienced by people like my elderly and widowed mother who is being very careful with the heating and spending less on food.
A ridge tile has broken on her roof and she is very worried aboutr where she will get the money to pay for the repair. Don't worry grandantidote, I'm getting it sorted.
We are a family that has never spent what we don't have, we HAVE saved for a "rainy day" and for our pensions, and now we see this being eroded by a profligate government.
Brown the best man for the job - ho, ho.
Complain about this comment
#126. That's a bit much. Whatever people say on here, there is a line which really shouldn't be crossed. We all get a bit of entertainment out of each other on here, and normally you're pretty good at giving back what you receive. There's no need to get down so low now.
Complain about this comment
U @ 115
Goodness me, that sounds truly frightening. Not to mention acopalyptic. And even a little bit lurbid. I can see why U are so angry about this Labour Government, and about Gordon Brown, if U feel like that!
For all our sakes, I do hope U have it all wrong. I'm not saying U do, of course ... all I'm saying is that it's going to be mega relief all round if it does turn out that U are no more than a blinkered fanatic.
Complain about this comment
#111 alhamu
"I know that."
OK and s/he did dodge the question, but your own posts have similar tendencies.
"Anyway, what about the first two constitutional reforms necessary if we want the current system of "unelected" PMs and unpopular governments to end?"
The first necessary constitutional reform is to have one at all, preferably based on the will of the people. A constitutional convention would be a good start. My own preference would be for a confederal republic.
I would find it very hard to cast a vote for any party which did not promise electoral reform but as I have said on these blogs before in a particular constituency I might feel tactically compelled to vote BluLab Tory as a lesser evil than the authoritarian and centralist NuLab Tories.
Complain about this comment
127 Balhamu I see that we have another opponent to free speech on here,
I have recently had posts refered by flamepatricia by U94 and ppl there seems to be a surfeit of them on here of late. I wonder why If they feel that strongly about a post they dont come out and say "I did that because"
is it just that they lack that sort of courage?.
Complain about this comment
129# Brownedov
As usual I agree.
I wonder if those NuLabour disciples on this blog can comment on Labours beliefs, stretching back many decades, about reform of the second chamber.
Why, even after their strong commitment to this in 1997 has there has been no change?
The only change has been that NuLabour have used it as a cash cow to raise party funds.
Complain about this comment
I find your response to a previous blog grossly deplorable not in what you said but in what you called them. You have hit a new low and I believe you owe that poster an apology.
I'll not hold my breath.
It was just a typical Nu-Lab tactic. The idea is to get me to respond in kind then he'd run off to the moderators. Please Sir, please Sir, ban the nasty Tory bully Sir.
Indeed I note a couple of my more recent posts have now been referred in 'tit-for-tat' moderation. Will I get an apology now somebody else has 'fessed up to reporting his abuse?
Not a chance.
Anyway, as I've already flagged up many times, the way to overcome such chaff is to simply keep posting the truth.
And the truth is the UK economy is shot. This government is responsible.
That's it. It really is that simple.
Complain about this comment
What on earth is happening to all the BTP sympathisers on here? ... normally send in some quite well written stuff but today it seems like it's all gone a bit Bradford and Bingley, if you know what I mean. C'mon guys.
Complain about this comment
#131
I think people tend to shift to the Conservative party as they age, rather than the other way round.
That aside, it would be quite a change for a President of a Conservative association at university to do an about-turn to be a Labour party cheerleader (I guess NR went to uni during the early-to-mid 1980s and so is in tune with the way Thatcher was thinking then). Maybe you're right though.
I think the truth is there is no bias. At least viewed through an objective lens. Of course, the BBC is biased to the left compared with, say, the leader of objective thought, Richard Littlejohn. Install him as political editor now!
Complain about this comment
What we know about Cameron's involvement with Lamont at the time of the Black Wednesday affair was that he was an adviser to the then Chancellor. What we do not know - and probably never will - is what advice he gave and whether Lamont acted on it.
Senior ministers are ultimately responsible for their own decisions - a responsibility usually shared with the cabinet via the collective responsibility mechanism. What they most certainly do not do is accept advice from junior team members then pass the buck downwards if the advice turns out to be bad.
To work on the assumption that, all that time ago, Cameron was responsible for Black Wednesday is politicking of the worst kind - irresponsible, unfounded and worthy of the gutter.
Complain about this comment
137# grandantidote
If you see what you called a poster as courageous then I do truly feel sorry for you.
You still owe that poster an apology!
Complain about this comment
#137
I don't think anyone would have referred me - it had a web address on it, which is why I guess it didn't make the cut.
My point was that you cannot moan about the current constitution (which means that the PM is not "elected" expect by those in his/her constituency, can continue to govern if unpopular, and that Parliament is unrepresentative of vote percentages), without wanting it changed.
Saying that Gordon Brown is somehow an illegitimate PM is to say our constitution is wrong, and massive reforms are needed. Reforms I hope that Cameron is going to introduce when he is elected in 2010.
Complain about this comment
Well the one thing you can say about the B and B affair, Brown is still going for Bust.
Santander get the boom and we the public get the bust, we have even nationalised it.
Must be a first - Nationalise Bust. even for NuLabour.
Complain about this comment
Roll @ 143
Oooo, have things got spicy? What did he call him? ... a BTP supporter, or something even worse?
Complain about this comment
Goodness me, that sounds truly frightening. Not to mention acopalyptic. And even a little bit lurbid. I can see why U are so angry about this Labour Government, and about Gordon Brown, if U feel like that!
I don't understand why most people don't feel like that. Banks falling over left, right and centre. Central banks and governments on both sides of the atlantic not got a clue how to 'fix' it. Every solution, even for our teeny banks like Northern Rock and B and B seeming to involves tax-payers on the hook for tens of billions of toxic loans made against massively over-valued property which is screaming one-way price-wise.
The 'asset' bases of all the other banks (except possibly HSBC) made up of not quite so much UK garbage but just as much US garbage. And, with the way UK residential and commercial property is headed that's only a matter of time too. So HBoS, Lloyds, Barclays and RBS which borrowed 60bn last year to buy a bank they could have picked up for 1bn this year all in a stuka dive. RBS down Another 20% so far today.
When the US government says they have 'contingency' plans in place if this bailout isn't approved what, exactly, do you think they're talking about?
On one hand, they're saying 'Here's the only viable option to keep the financial system afloat, we're going to vote 700bn in funds.'
ANd on the other they're saying:
But don't if that doesn't work we've got 'contingency' plans.
Seriously. What do you think they're getting at?
The financial system might implode. All your assets, your pension, your cash, your (mortgaged) home snapped up by God knows who or just disappeared into the ether as the computers get turned off.
This isn't about 'sticking it' to a few wide-boys on fat bonuses. Or the injustice of them 'getting away' with it. This is about confidence in the entire financial system.
And when we need confident, credible leaders that we can trust and convince us they have a handle on the gravity of all this. We have Brown (It wasnae me) and Bush (It's Miller Time!!!).
RBS to be 'saved' by HSBC. I'm sure they were being kept in reserve for this.
Complain about this comment
124. grandantidote
Sir you seem to be a little rattled today, that picture of Sarah Palin in a swim suit that I sent you seems to have gotten your juices flowing.
Take a nap, but dont take the picture with you this time.
Complain about this comment
I think Derek Draper's blog attack is now active; it looks like he's starting on sky but moving onto the bbc now/soon.
watch your backs, people; this will be so bad as to amount to a denial of service attack, and the blogs will be flooded with "new" blog members who by weird coincidence all spout the same pro-labour lines without any individual content.
Complain about this comment
#138 Roll_On_2010
"Why, even after their strong commitment to this in 1997 has there has been no change?
The only change has been that NuLabour have used it as a cash cow to raise party funds."
Well Bliar would hardly have done it "on principle", would he?
He obviously wanted to end the built-in old Tory majority by getting rid of the hereditaries for political reasons, but once he had done that nothing would have made him lose his grip on "a nice little earner", would it?
I don't think Bliar sprang many surprises after '97. The real surprise was that the electorate still believed him in 2001 & 2005.
Complain about this comment
Just been for a walk around my bit of Stalagtite 2008 and, oh joy is me, I saw a public sector droid fall off his bike. Nearly got mashed up by the panzer coming up behind.
bwaah wah wah wa wa wa wa
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#144 balhamu
Links to HTML aren't usually a problem, but PDF can be.
Your identical posts at #121 and #122 (I reported the latter as accidental SPAM) were delayed because of the "[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]" in it. The mods are often rather iffy about linking to PDF, which I suspect you did by referring to P.35 of the document.
If there isn't an ordinary HTML page on the same site which links to it, you can usually construct a search string for Google which brings it up as the first hit.
Do try again, please, as the document sounds interesting.
Complain about this comment
91 CEH you must have been a very Odd Kid.
The problem with the internet is the reluctance to lay optical fibre cable to replace the copper wire unused frequency multiplexing system BT and most others operate. Im sure you understand what I mean.
You don't want to build a SST strategic nuclear bomber, you want to build a strategic flower petal and incense bomber. SST is unlikely to happen with the current fuel crisis anyway
Complain about this comment
Speaking as someome who sat next to Simon Fuller (whatever happened to him?) at a Young Conservative conference, I wouldn't dismiss it. Things change. People change. Sometimes, perspectives can be a bit complicated. As the Tao wisely comments: "It depends".
Complain about this comment
Mr U,
I don't understand your 'private sector good, public sector bad' view of things.
Are schools in the private sector productive, and schools in the public sector unproductive?
Are private hospitals productive and NHS hospitals unproductive?
Would the London Underground become productive if it were privatised?
Did all the parts of the public sector that were privatised in the 1980s (e.g. production of local government services) magically become productive and add value the day after they were privatised?
Of course some parts of the public sector are inefficient - the same is true of many parts of the private sector, especially in large organisations. Bureaucracy and management come at a price.
And the public sector, I'm sure, fulfils some tasks that politically you see as wasteful (e.g. health and safety, human rights, redistribution, insurance against illness, low income or unemployment). Doesn't mean it is waste though.
Complain about this comment
"That aside, it would be quite a change for a President of a Conservative association at university to do an about-turn to be a Labour party cheerleader (I guess NR went to uni during the early-to-mid 1980s and so is in tune with the way Thatcher was thinking then). Maybe you're right though."
You have to look at the Labour party in the early to mid-1980s and compare it to the party today. New Labour moved towards the right to take the centre ground. Someone who was on the left wing of the Conservative party could move easily into New Labour.
We are not talking about a shift from BNP to Respect here. And after 11 years or working together (Nick to get stories, New Labour to get good press) there is a possability that he might have a sub-conscious bias.
Complain about this comment
U @ 147
Yes, frightening alright, no question. More banks will fail and stock markets have a long way yet to fall ... we then have a major economic slump coming our way.
So the way you put it there @ 147 is okay by me. We have a mega crisis of capitalism and we do indeed need much better leadership than we are seeing either here or over there.
Leaving aside trivial matters of writing style, the main thing I take issue with you on is your constantly pushing Brown as being the main cause of the current crisis when it's obvious (to me, anyway) that he isn't.
Course, you have every right to do that in order to indulge your dislike of the guy, and to promote your political beliefs (hardline BTP unless I'm very much mistaken) but I don't think it helps people gain a proper understanding of what's going on.
Complain about this comment
#153
It was a Parliament research paper 07/02 "The Governance of Britain Green Paper", with p35 giving some history of what the Government did in implementing (or not) its 1997 commitment on a PR referendum.
Lord Jenkins was commissioned by the Government to review the means for electing members to Parliament. Officially, the Government is adopting a wait-and-see approach, looking at what happens in Scotland and Wales. They also have doubts as to whether minority/coaltion Government can work. Unofficially, they decided after their 1997 landslide that they did not need to bother with a reform that would require coalition Government. Disappointing really.
Just easier to link the document than give the history!
Complain about this comment
The Tory statement Cameron is most likely to remember with a frisson of embarrassment is surely that '[unemployment] is a price well worth paying' for lower inflation. Politicians are, at the best of times, not really fully conversant with the niceties of economics, and gaffes like that are common.
Complain about this comment
148 carrots No I am afraid the wife found it and glued one of hers over the top but I dont mind my wife is still the beautiful girl I married thirty years ago, as for being rattled the only thing I am rattled about is that I cant remember what this supposed ofensive post was sent to and what it said, but then the two people complaining are two of the most insensitive posters on here so what rattled their cage I haven't a clue.
Complain about this comment
You're trying too hard. Seriously, for every 10 Tory posts that make them look bad one like this undoes that. Behind the grandstanding, I doubt most are Tories or have much interest in politics anyway. I get the impression they're just here for the crack. Game forums and USENET is full of it.
I was just reading a piece of "crap" by John Cruddas. He makes some good points but is a bit dogmatic himself and rails too hard at the "enemy". Just thinking of die hards reciting union history and being deeply partisan makes my eyes glaze over as much as equivalent behaviour in other parties.
Sometimes, just letting go and being happy can be enough. At least, that's what I've found. Life's too short and if you fuel the monster you just end up in the nuthouse like Saddam or Mugabe. If things are going down the shitter or you're getting wound up taking a break can refresh things.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I wonder if Santander will pick up the tab on this, or is that part of the nationalisation? Through experience I suspect the later!
Complain about this comment
So the way you put it there @ 147 is okay by me. We have a mega crisis of capitalism and we do indeed need much better leadership than we are seeing either here or over there.
Leaving aside trivial matters of writing style, the main thing I take issue with you on is your constantly pushing Brown as being the main cause of the current crisis when it's obvious (to me, anyway) that he isn't.
Okay. I'll take all this at face value.
The reason I blame Brown is because he is the one responsible for the UK economy. He could have choked this insane lending binge at birth Either through giving the FSA more powers or the BoE a remit that wasn't purely rigged to keep interest rates low and deliberately inflate house prices with the concomitant 'feel-good' blow-out he knew would result from his mid-1980's history.
He could have borrowed less himself and kept in check a spending binge from one million newly minted government jobs on generous salaries. He could have kept pay-rises in check on the nurses and doctors and every other public service worker he awarded a 30% increase for zero, zip, zilch increase in productivity. All their massive pay increases just went into driving up property prices and more borrowed money to reward themselves with a little Caribbean holiday and a new Audi TT because their 'house' went up last year.
There is no greater culprit for the UK's 'Age of Irresponsibility' than the irresponsible squatter at number 10.
Stand up Gordon Brown. Take a bow. Let's all see you. The man who wrecked the UK's economy.
This is a disaster and it is Gordon Brown's fault.
Complain about this comment
162 charles I dont think I have ever had reason to rein you in for want of a better expression but my remark/post was a off the cuff remark made to someone making a perhaps more genteel off the cuff remark /post about the same substance and you in this post and many other use a language that I wouldn't use on here and you while remonstrating with me just have.
Complain about this comment
So we're all agreed then, are we?
- it's a crisis of capitalism!
- Brown is no way free of blame but he's NOT the main cause.
- the main causes are reckless lending by bankers, crazy Wall Street financial engineering, collusion of ratings agencies, collapse of US sub prime and real estate, and now confidence generally.
- plus way too much cheap credit, stupidly low interest rates (courtesy of the "Poodle of Wall Street" Mr Alan Greenspan) and loads of irresponsible borrowing ... by the public and, yes, by Brown too.
Great.
Complain about this comment
99 U94 you ask,
Why didn't they hand them to me? At least I live here.
Because they wouldn.t give it to a nice fellow like you,
You Tory guys are always advising us to read robert preston , well he said that GB and AD had done a very shrewd and clever job this morning on news 24.
There you are moderaters not a word out of place!
Complain about this comment
#157
Quite a slim one though?
I think, as I said, that if NR was the head of the Young Socialists/Young Communists at uni we would never hear the end of it from certain contributors to this blog (the ones who are disappointed that objective and following the editorial line of the Mail do not mean the same thing).
Myself, I don't see there is any bias.
re this article - rightly or wrongly, the 'je ne regrette rien' line came to define the Conservative view of the economy (along with the 'unemployment is a price well worth paying' line or Peter Lilly's 'little black book' of scroungers). Nick Robinson was highlighting the 'age of irresponsibility' line, and noting it could be seen in the same way. I don't see how this is biased towards Labour.
Complain about this comment
Another fair and balanced piece from Mr Robinson. Why is it that Osborne's criticism of Brown get's published, but no criticism of Osborne's idea?
Complain about this comment
#159 balhamu
OK Thanks - got it, and pp35&36 do indeed confirm the details of the broken promises.
You could have said Google " [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] and it would be pretty well guaranteed to be first on the list.
For anyone else interested, to get the Green Paper proper, [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] here, and to Google for the research paper, click [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
U @ 165
... "He could have kept pay-rises in check on the nurses and doctors and every other public service worker he awarded a 30% increase for zero, zip, zilch increase in productivity. All their massive pay increases just went into driving up property prices and more borrowed money to reward themselves with a little Caribbean holiday and a new Audi TT because their 'house' went up last year" ...
No, sorry, as per usual you've gone over the hills and far away.
One more time, here goes ...
I accept that GB bears a great deal of responsibility for the state of the UK economy. He is the PM after all and, more pertinently, he was chancellor for the last decade. So yes, he is not free of blame. In fact, I'd say he ought to be thinking about stepping down in favour of somebody less tainted.
Right, that's my agreeing bit okay? Now please don't go cutting and pasting just that part into your reply, then saying well done to me for seeing the light, and finally tagging on one of your hissies about something else entirely.
Well okay, do that if you have to but I'm hoping you won't.
I don't want that much, see ... all I want to make me a happy bunny (you do want to make me happy, don't you?) is for you to do the same as I've just done.
Which is what? ...
Which is that I can agree with a point of yours when it is self evidently true (please see para above that starts with "I accept that GB bears ...) and so I'd just like for you to do likewise ... i.e. agree with a point of mine when it is also self evidently true.
And the point of mine that I'm talking about is that this current financial crisis has its origins primarily (not exclusively, mind, but primarily) in the US sub prime mortgage market.
There, that's all. You can C and P that last bit and agree with it, can't you? C'mon, you know you can.
(And please don't worry about losing face or any of that rubbish because not being dogmatic never loses anything)
Complain about this comment
Course, you have every right to do that in order to indulge your dislike of the guy, and to promote your political beliefs (hardline BTP unless I'm very much mistaken) but I don't think it helps people gain a proper understanding of what's going on.
What's going on is very simple. We, in the UK, have just indulged in an orgy of borrowing. Government borrowing, private borrowing, commercial borrowing, you name it, we've borrowed for it.
Now we've woken up. At least the banks have. The government and a lot of private individuals are still annoyed that they can't just keep up their borrowed lifestyle of the past decade. But the banks have definitely woken up.
Hold on! How are these people going to pay all this money back? And when?
Gordon Brown never gave it a thought. Millions of British people never gave it a thought. All surfing along on the illusion of perpetually increasing house-prices. Gordon pyramid borrowing against his fictional escalating GDP. The GDP itself just flattered by Joe Public's borrowing and 'consumption'. A double-helix of inter-twined government and private borrowing.
Gordon Brown borrows money, spends 30bn a year on nurses pay and construction workers and building products. They all get richer and bid up the price of houses. In the wider economy everybodies house 'goes up' in value. They all borrow more money to celebrate and go on holiday/buy a car. Gordon's GDP increases as a result of all this borrowed money being splurged. Gordon borrows more money (that 40% target just moved away because his GDP increased)......
The last decade has been a self-inflating bubble of debt. Now the banks want their money back.
It's that simple.
And guess what? A whole bundle of people (and the government) have no way of paying that money back. A whole bunch of those 'assets' secured on property are worthless/only worth 50% of the loan.
So now the banks are stuffed. They've all been paying 'pass the parcel' with increasingly rubbish assets until one day they all woke up simultaneously to what absolute pieces of ordure they were passing around.
The fact is that all the UK banks have masses of this rubbish sitting on their books. Some of it US originated. Some of it home grown. But it's all there on all the UK banks balance sheets just defying some disaffected board executive or risk assessor or NED or analyst or investigative journalist to break ranks and bring the whole house of cards down. The UK bank bosses with the conivance of the treasury/government are just brassing this out and hoping to do so for the next two or three years while they frantically rebuild their asset base.
Hence why one minute B and B is 'well capitalised' and the next its out of business. Same for HBoS. One minute it's got massive capital reserves, good lines of credit blah blah the next it's 'merging with Lloyds.
Gordon knows it. Darling knows it. Paulson knows it. Peston knows it. I know it. I think you know it. All this 700bn USD is doing is buying time while those 'in the know' position themselves to hoover up everybodies assets at fire-sale prices.
The Americans can blame Greenspan and Bush.
We have Gordon Brown.
If he'd kept the lid on this borrowing then British banks wouldn't have been tempted to get involved with a carousel of crap loans as 'assets' to justify lending even more to would-be BTL Emporers on rubbish economic plans or extend 'liar-loan' mortgages to anybody who could find their way to a dodgy broker.
The last decade of 'no boom' was simply an artificial boom built on borrowed money poured into a housing bubble.
Without this housing bubble our money might have been much better invested. Could it have been 'invested' any worse? The entire country bidding up the price of houses by 200% in a decade. All those future earnings committed to a roof over our heads. Money we won't be able to invest in our pensions, a new business, the kids schooling, the kids university fees...
This is an absolute catastrophe. And the culprit is Gordon Brown.
Complain about this comment
164 Roll on your having a busy afternoon aren't you, so by your experience you suspect the later/latter do you, perhaps you should enlarge on that statement, I dont mind waiting I'm a very patient man some things take a long time but go on illuminate me, we will share many posts I'm sure, if you want to tell me later, after all we both support free speech dont we, despite our differences.
Complain about this comment
Grandantidote,
two things - first, yes my earlier post was a bit of genteel fun poking, you're absolutely right.
second - on the Bradford Bingley issue. I haven't read Preston, but as I understand the government has managed to keep most of the bad debt mostly away from the tax payer (in the long term, not the short term) through the FSA compensation package.
The unintended (and perhaps unforeseen) consequence of that though is that it has contributed to more financial sharess crashing through the floor as the banks woke up to the fact that they were liable for around 15 billion over the next few years, just to help out with Santander taking over the juicy bits of Bradford Bingley.
So, the taxpayer may be protected, but it may cause more banks more trouble, which could lead to further bailouts which may otherwise have not been necessary!
In this case, I'm not sure which way would have been best - take the unpopularity of another hit on the public purse, or risk further bank collapses by protecting the public purse.
Complain about this comment
Charles
On a previous (or maybe this) blog (I lose track of your gibberish sometimes) you claimed it was a scientific fact that the Tories hadn't changed.
Now you say its perfectly possible for NR to have been a conservative before, and not be one now because "things change, people change".
Now, are you demonstrating your dogmatic hatred of the conservative party here - surely agin everything your posts claim you believe - or are you just making it up as you go along.
P.S. Any chance you could answer any of the direct questions I have addressed to you over the past couple of blogs? No? Thought not.
Complain about this comment
134 Terry no2 dont fret terry do you really think that I am the first on here to use the word c**p just take a look through the blogs if you have time you will find much worse than that on here, yes as you say I can hold my own and I have a long memory to defend myself with thank God what is it
"Vengeance is mine "
Complain about this comment
175 Grawth Well my old chum the only answer to that is wait and see.
Thanks for your clarification they all seem to be on a whiter than white buzz today, it wasn't those chairs of Osbourns was it.
Complain about this comment
And the point of mine that I'm talking about is that this current financial crisis has its origins primarily (not exclusively, mind, but primarily) in the US sub prime mortgage market.
I'm very reluctant to let Gordon Brown off the hook on this. I can see an argument could be made for the trigger for the 'bust' originating in the US but I'm concerned that this may be mis-interpreted as there being no 'boom' in the UK housing market and this government being completely non culpable. Because that's the story so many of their apologists are putting about.
'Global crisis blah...blah'
Whereas this government engineered a boom that was inevitably doomed to bust no matter where the trigger came from. In their conceit they thought they'd covered everything.
Interest rates rigged. Check. Employment rigged. Check. Pump primed with heaps of borrowed money. Check. Banks unregulated. Check. Blind eye turned to all those TV exposes of made-up 'self-cert' loans. Check. They thought they had everything covered.
So, if you want me to say that the trigger originated in the US then okay, the trigger, the 'wake-up' call came from the US. In all likelihood if the US banks hadn't called 'time' on their dud loans our banks would still be lending even more money on even more over-valued property.
But the UK boom was homegrown and the bust was inevitable. Unless you believe that house prices could simply have risen at 10 -15% per year ad infinitum with wages and inflation 'under control'.
The ying to the yang of Gordon's 'it wasnae me' defence is that absent the US sub-prime issues British banks would have simply kept on lending more and more to increasingly unsuitable people on increasingly over-valued property while the UK government just looked the other way and pretended that was normal and that would be just peachy.
Maybe we should thank the yanks for giving us the heads up before it really got out of control. Because our regulators, treasury and government clearly weren't going to say or do anything as we all got ever more 'irresponsibly' in debt.
Fear of defaulting US sub-prime was the trigger that bust the UK's housing bubble. But the UK housing bubble was all Gordon Brown's.
How's that?
Complain about this comment
U at 173
That is an excellent post. Not being sarcastic, I mean it. Tarnished (but only slightly) by the typo right at the end ... you've put "Gordon Brown" as the main culprit instead of "Alan Greenspan", can U see?
Don't worry about redoing it though because we definitely get the gist.
Complain about this comment
So we're all agreed then, are we?
No.
- it's a crisis of capitalism!
- Brown is no way free of blame but he's NOT the main cause.
See. I disagree. In the UK Brown is the main cause.
He got up year after year, sneering in the Tories faces, giving it 'no more boom and bust' when for the last five years it's been obvious that house prices were out of control.
And then when you look at how that situation developed you have to come to the conclusion that he not only ignored it (indisputable - did he really think house prices going up 10% a year was a sustainable state of affairs) but that he actually engineered it. Or at least engineered its continuance. Eddie George is on record as admitting interest rates were tweaked down late 2005 for no other reason than to keep house pries 'affordable'. Nice one Sir Eddie. Wonder where he got that big idea from?
So much for the independent BoE.
Then, when you stop and think about what effect 300bn quid borrowed and flooded into the economy would do along with one million extra minted government jobs you begin to see that the kindest thing that could be said about Gordon Browns housing bubble is that it was a by-product of pure negligence.
Really, what did he think was going to happen with all this easy money just washing around the system.
He either totally failed to recognise a housing bubble despite Labour's 1997 manifesto promising there would be no such thing so you think, you know, he'd be on the look-out for the tell-tale signs. Or he let one rip because the faux. prosperity and artificial leg-up it gave his GDP made him look good. And that's what it's all about.
Now we have a bust and it's everybodies fault except for Brown. Everybody else is 'irresponsible'.
The banks. The yanks. The voters. We all let Gordon Brown down.
Complain about this comment
U @ 179
I agree with the gist of that. So cheers and beers all round.
Can't see it, myself, as some worked out government master plan, I'd say they just went along with it all. Cock up over Conspiracy, every time, in my book and no less true in this case.
Those super low interest rates coming out of Wall Street (thank you, Mr G!) for so long are at the root of this. Anyway, it's a right royal mess, isn't it?
You want the BTP and I want the SWP so let's see where it all leads. All to play for, politically, for the first time in a long time. Exciting.
Complain about this comment
I can but hope that I see some of you NuLabour numpties in Trafalgar Square at 1:30pm on 4th October.
I will be there!
Complain about this comment
U @ 181
It's just that I don't agree that the bubble in UK house prices (damaging and reprehensible though that has been) is the main cause of the problem.
I see the excesses in the US as bearing most of the blame for where we are right now.
Complain about this comment
184 sagamix wrote:
"I see the excesses in the US as bearing most of the blame for where we are right now."
Yes. And UK banks happily 'invested' in this pyramid scheme whilst the UK's tripartite regulatory framework - as set up by Brown - was both incompetent and negligent in its duties.
Complain about this comment
182# sagamix
BTP ? Unison ?
Complain about this comment
Max @ 185
I'm afraid so.
Roll @ 183 and @ 186
What's going down @ TSQ then?
(and what is a numpty, please?)
BTP is the British Tory Party, of course!
Complain about this comment
I do a fair amount of reading Scottish blogs and occasionally join in.
numpty - Noun. A fool, idiot. Also spelt numbty and numptie. [Orig. Scottish] Slang!
I will be at this event!
Complain about this comment
I was an Trade Unionist and Labour activist for almost 40 years. That stopped in 2003.
BTP I have never heard that expression before. Are you newish to politics?
Complain about this comment
Neither the Converatives nor Labour come out of the Credit Crunch well - the sound of politicans on both sides of the Atlantic rushing to bolt the stable door after the horse has bolted is truly pathetic. Norman Lamont's disaster on the other hand was purely of his own making but I feel the Labour Party reminding us of Black Wednesday is much like how John Major used to remind us of "Labour in 1979". It rings hollow if that is your best arguement. As for knocking people for their inexperience of government that was the same impotent attack the Major government used to use against Blair
Complain about this comment
Roll-on-2010
A trade union activist,
well, Brother...roll...have you done a 360% turn
Complain about this comment
179:
Well said! I think that's a fair summing up of my own opinion. Blaming The World Credit Crisis for all our current problems is a convenient get out. Yes the bad mortgage lending in The US was indeed the trigger for the crash as you say but we were also culpable by encouraging the same kind of reckless lending and borrowing over here. Somebody, anybody should have had the foresight to see this coming. Now it's really too late to rescue the situation because the horse has well and trully bolted. Somebody will have to pay and it looks as if it's going to be us, the poor downtrodden taxpayer. Government Ministers and bankers wih their enormous salaries, bonuses and perks will be well cushioned from any serious hardship.
Complain about this comment
Roll @ 189
Yes, I'm pretty new I suppose you could say.
BTP I made up but I'm sticking with it because I like how it sounds ... it sounds a bit dangerous, doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
I personally dislike the term'Tory' as much as much as I do 'NuLabour'. They are both designed to be derogatory. The titles Conservative and Labour Party remove any hint of disrespect. Strangely The BBC are now also using the term 'Tory' but that doesn't surprise me at all.
It reminds me of those Manchester United fans who hate it when their club is referred to as 'ManU'. It is meant to be a put down and raises hackles whenever it is used.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
195 grandy:
I've not even had the chance to read your words of wisdom. The BBC must be removing your posts before they've even been aired. What's going on? Are you being a naughty boy?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
193:
British Tory Party:
Tory - tô're, English political party. The term was originally applied to outlaws in Ireland and was adopted as a derogatory name for supporters of the duke of York (later James II) at the time (c.1679–1680) when the 1st earl of Shaftesbury was proposing the duke's exclusion from the succession because of his adherence to Roman Catholicism.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
196 Miss waldorf, as you will notice my posts are being referred to moderater by the self confessed rollon2010 read 112 now 168 thats the first one he/she refered now the moderaters are falling for it, he has now become a serial referrer and is unable to stop himself. he asks for a apology I give him one, moderated he asks if there will be any labour numties[ he explains that numties are idiots] at Trafalger on the 4th of oct. I say Ill meet him/her there and what will he/her be wearing, moderated, I really dont know why the moderaters are falling for this but they are, so be quick to read this, or it will be gone. we do love people who believe in free speech dont we.
Complain about this comment
U 9461192 Althought you and I are at different end of the spectrum when it comes to politics and have very little respect for one and other, but I had thought that you like myself despite our differences were men of the world,I also thought that we both believed in free speech, and yet you have a camp follower that considers that he/she is allowed to censor your posts by referring to moderaters.
I find this hard to comprehend, the comment that I made to you that appears to have stuck in his/her craw is an expression that I'm sure that you have heard and perhaps used as I have before its not a particularly bad expression no worse than bone head and certainly not meant in any way to be more offensive than bone head.
You obviously can see that this person is in denial and is determined not to let me post.
There are occassions when we might feel that we might refer, Infact I with you a week ago but we dont, if by our refusal to put referrers in their place they think they are justified in this behavour.
Then If thats true then we might as well all pack it in.
In view of this persons behavour I am beginning to think well if no one cares what hes doing then perhaps I should start referring then where will it end, the point being do you support referrers or not it was my post to you no one else I 'm sure that you dont need a chaparone do you?. He /She is pretty quick so you may not be allowed to read this he/she may censor it before you have a chance. Does anyone think thats right.
Complain about this comment
I've found the Tory boys in here tend to throw more lies in the hope something will stick, and pepper their comment with derogatory references like this. This is just more of the same hyper-competitive road to nowhere behaviour.
When conversation ends up being more about behaviour than comment it's clear the bottom has fallen out of the market. It's the same deal with the global recession, as folks are talking more about regulation than getting off their asses and building the future.
Sean O'Grady reflects my earlier view that calming down and ignoring the attention bubble, and focusing on the future may be a better move. Both politicians and the media might try calming down and finding something else to talk about. It would make a pleasant change.
Complain about this comment
109Terry I am sorry that I haven't been able to get back to this earlier but as you might have noticed I have had one or two problems. anyway to get back to pensioners freezing to death.
First to clear up any misunderstandings I am a pensioner on state pension living the same sort of life as a couple of million others.You say
"There were 22,300 excess Winter deaths of older people last year and over 260,000 since 1997."
You say excess are you implying that there were 22.300 more deaths than usual last year and are you also implying that these extra 22,300 froze to death or even to be fair even 1 tenth of them, that would be strange because the winter last year was one of the mildest for a few decades.
Lets face it you must know as I do that old people die more frequently in the winter thats fact nothing to do with freezing to death, its as much a fact that most old people die between the hours of two and five in the morning its the pattern of life.
Now how many of those 22,300 froze to death,none I suspect, and if they did it was almost certainly by their own neglect. there is a law I believe brought in by the Tories after the scandal of many deaths in the eighties and nineties that power cannot be turned of to pensioners, correct me if I'm wrong,.
Pensioners today are given fuel allowance of £250 for over 65s and £400 for over eighties as opposed to the paltry ten pounds given to them by the Tories but only then if the temperature was below freezing for one coninuous week, not six days, or three and four days, but a full seven days.
When GB introduced the winter fuel allowance it was vehemently opposed by the Tories and I believe Libdems, the tories stated that they would remove it when they returned to power.
Another thing that old people and asthma patients have the advantage of is influenza jabs and also over 75s pnumonia jabs. If people fail to take advantage of these benefits then who's to blame, you know the answer to that dont you ?
I take advantage of all these benefits, I worked for them and I am now entitled to them. but that doesn't alter the fact that if you have never done a days work in your life you will still be as well looked after.
There is as I say no way that you can freeze to death in this country unless its because your too proud or perhaps silly to use the facilities presented to you.
the only advice I can give to those struggling and I will almost certainly get criticised for giving it , and it is, dont when you recieve your winter fuel allowance go out and use it to buy Xmas presents for the grandchildren thats not what its for, dont drink outside the home and not too much inside, dont for goodness sake smoke, it costs a fortune and only helps you into your grave , and finally dont eat out if you fancy a steak buy it from your butcher it will cost you about a quarter of what you buy out and that includes your mushrooms and onions, if you want to eat out get your kids to take you out for a meal afterall you gave them enough meals.
One of your buddies on here, Onlywayup, constantly refers to people freezing to death under the Tories. Well, it's still happening after a decade of "boom".
Show me the figures my friend.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS