BBC Blog Network

User Profile

BeebLeeMoore

Listed below are comments made by BeebLeeMoore between Monday, 17th August 2009 and Monday, 7th December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Will biffing bankers also biff Britain? 12:01pm on 07 Dec 2009 What a splendid seam of bile we have struck today ! If the discussion was about "Jews" rather than "bankers" it would certainly open a few deluded eyes. Strange as it may seem, bankers are not all identical and interchangeable. Some will have worked in banks that didn't go belly up, some will have worked in banks that did. Some who worked at the former may have behaved stupidly, some who may have worked at the latter may have performed splendidly. And so on, ad infinitum. Collective guilt is no doubt fun for the accusers, but to the dispassionate observer it gets a bit ugly after a while.

And people who think that banking does not create wealth are welcome to contemplate a society without them.
Banks face windfall tax 7:14pm on 06 Dec 2009 Imposing a special extra tax on bankers, with the justification that the money has arguably come indirectly from the government, is an absolutely brilliant idea. Presumably there's no question of principle involved in singling out one group of taxpayers for extra punishment, no human rights angle, no timid bleating about the rule of law ? For it points the way to the solution of the UK's biggest financial problem - not a few dodgy banks, where the ultimate taxpayer costs will be well under a couple of hundred billion at most, but the gargantuan bill for public sector pensions, already well over a trillion and heading north from there every day. Slap a 75% tax on public sector pensions and the UK's fiscal train wreck is neatly avoided. Seems fair enough, after all public employees get their money unarguably and directly from the government, so they would seem to be even more bang to rights than the bankers. Quangos like the BBC that get their money from taxpayers would be covered by the same rule, obviously. OK Robert ?
Why's Gordon smiling? 5:18pm on 02 Dec 2009 As Diabloandco implies, presumably Gordon is enjoying himself because he has such an amazingly favourable press. To the extent that on a day that he answers one of Cameron's questions with a flat out lie - that Spain is a member of the G20 - the BBC correspondent completely ignores it, and instead refers to "factual errors" made by the Conservatives last week ! Who wouldn't look cheerful with that kind of reporting ?

I note in passing that the sidebar says "Gordon Brown denies Conservative claims that the UK is the only major global economy still in recession" and the same phrase was used on the radio news. But that is not what the Conservatives claimed, they claimed that the UK was the only country in the G7 or the G20 still in recession. Which it is. And Brown did not deny that the UK was the only major global economy still in recession, he denied that the UK was the only G20 economy still in recession, claiming that Spain is a member of the G20. Which it isn't.

Breathtaking chutzpah ? Not if the Nick Robinson isn't going to pull you up on it.
Has he got a Legg to stand on? 12:50pm on 13 Oct 2009 Without getting into the argument about whether Legg's rules are in fact retrospective, I would hope that most fairminded people would as a general matter reject retrospective rules outright. A number of people here have reiterated the unfairness of retrospective rules and noted that we wouldn't much like tax rules being applied retrospectively.

In that context, it is worth noting that one of the very few people who cannot complain about retrospective rules, without considerable risk of being called a hypocrite, is Gordon Brown himself. For it is Gordon Brown who announced in his 2004 Pre Budget Report, that henceforth he would dispense with the previous convention that new tax anti avoidance laws should be prospective only, and that in various areas they would henceforth be retrospective.

Perhaps those MPs now complaining about retrospective rules could be invited by the pundits, including Nick Robinson, to tell us whether they spoke out against this retrospective principle in the Commons in 2004, when Gordon Brown announced it. I don't recall a beep from any of them. But that was a proposal applying retrospective rules to ordinary folk, not MPs, so perhaps it doesn't count as unjust ?
Klaus opting out 01:41am on 10 Oct 2009 Presumably nobody's willing to entertain the possibility that Mr Klaus is simply playing a weak hand as well as he can. He doesn't like the Lisbon treaty, and he particularly doesn't like the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Since other countries have got an opt out from that, his demands won't look unreasonable to Joe Public. And playing his only card now is perfect timing, because he's the sole roadblock to the EU getting the Lisbon treaty in under the wire before the Brits are allowed to vote on it. I predict that the EU and the BBC and the Guardian, and every Europhile publication in good standing, and Uncle Tom Cobley, and all, will say that his demands are outrageous and cannot be entertained. Then after a month or so, they'll entertain them and offer him the same deal as they offered the Irish, and then he'll sign. Not wacky, not unpredictable, just a good poker player.
Benefit cuts consensus? 12:35pm on 05 Oct 2009 Nick Robinson : Listen very hard. What do you notice? Labour are not condemning Tory proposals to take £25 a week off people on incapacity benefit who are deemed "fit for work"

BBC main story on the "TORY CUTS !" : Labour rejected the Conservative approach to incapacity benefit claimants as "callous". "This is unfair on the genuinely sick who should not suffer a £25 a week cut in benefit," employment minister Jim Knight said "Our plans are to get people off benefit and into work. The Tories don't seem to care about getting people into jobs, they just want to cut their benefit."

Shurely shome mishtake - Ed
Unparliamentary or un-American? 10:21pm on 14 Sep 2009 Some commenters here :

Illinoisan (97) : Many people disliked George Bush, when he was President, yet no one ever interrupted his speeches, because everyone had class

and

saintDominick (111) : Wilson's outburst during a presidential address to Congress and the American people was an aberration and an embarrassment. Had something like this happened during a speech delivered by Presidents Reagan or Bush this South Carolinian would have been picking cotton by now

seem to be living in a parallel universe, where if you go to youtube and search for

“democrats boo bush during 2005 sotu”

you don’t find Democrats booing (and heckling) Bush during the 2005 State of the Union.

In this universe, however, that is what you will find.
Unparliamentary or un-American? 4:27pm on 14 Sep 2009 RomeStu No.19 :

Extremists on both sides cause many people (yourself included)to miss the point...The protests against Bush were against an ineffective, ill-thought-out war which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and cost the US taxpayer dearly to no real effect.The protests against Obama are against finding the best way to allow the poorest people in the US to receive effective, affordable healthcare.Please take a moment to objectively assess this idea.

Thanks. You make my point most eloquently - for you it's not that Joe Wilson was wrong to heckle per se, but simply that he was heckling on the wrong side of the issue. Mr Mardell was commenting on the unparliamentary or unAmerican style of Joe Wilson's heckle, and whether or not it fits within the American political tradition. Mr Mardell's comments have nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with the particular policy that is being argued about. You distinguish the propriety of attacks on President Bush from the propriety of attacks on President Obama solely by reference to whether you approve or disapprove of the content of their policies, not by reference to whether you approve of the style of the attacks on each of them. But rest assured you are not alone. For you will find no blogs on here discussing the propriety of discourteous attacks on President Bush while he was in office.
Unparliamentary or un-American? 11:10am on 14 Sep 2009 This is pretty funny. Everything that is now happening to Obama - being heckled by congressmen while addressing Congress, being depicted as Hitler by nuttier opponents, being accused of tyranny and so on - happened to Bush in spades. Only now, apparently, is it newsworthy. Go figure.

Whoops - one small difference. Angry protests against and hyperbolic accusations of Bush were legitimate demonstrations of popular opposition. Angry protests against and hyperbolic accusations of Obama are stirring up hate, racist, and incitements to assassination.
Steely Ennis has golden glow 08:42am on 17 Aug 2009 Ridiculous idea to have Eva Longoria play her. Jess is waaay hotter.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

BeebLeeMoore