BBC Blog Network

User Profile

stanblogger

Listed below are comments made by stanblogger between Monday, 16th November 2009 and Wednesday, 25th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Prime Minister's Questions: Schools 5:13pm on 25 Nov 2009 Is it not inevitable that when public funds are given to private organisations to run schools and other facilities, some of the money will end up financing activities which many of us consider undesirable?

David Cameron, judging by the speech he made recently promoting the benefits of what he called "social entrepreneurship", would do even more of this if he became Prime Minister.
The People's Politician 4:09pm on 25 Nov 2009 One of the main reasons that politicians appear not to be influenced by voters is that they are too much influenced by lobbyists, who arrange attractive trips for them, or those who make large donations to their election expenses and central party funds, or own a newspaper which can influence voters opinions.

Personally I am surprised that so few people are concerned about this. They seem to believe that provided MPs declare their interests, then it is OK. But surely MPs and Ministers would not be human if they did not tend to avoid upsetting any of these special interests.

The idea that these excesses should be banned and that the taxpayer should fund political parties on a basis which reflects their popular support, is a non-starter, even though the relatively small cost would return very good value for money.
Why did Bank of England keep shtoom? 12:22pm on 25 Nov 2009 It is claimed that although they had liquidity problems, HBOS and RBS were still solvent at the time. IF this were the case it is difficult to see why the loans were concealed, since, as you say, against the background of other banks refusing to lend to them, the fact that the BOE was doing so, was reassuring.

Perhaps the truth is that HBOS and RBS were not solvent at the time. The other banks which refused to lend to them presumably thought so. If this were the case, it would not be surprising that the BOE should wish to conceal the fact that it was lending, essentially taxpayers money, to insolvent private banks.
Introducing green cuts 11:12am on 24 Nov 2009 Most genuine schemes for reducing emissions initially involve extra expenditure but produce savings in the future. These range from grandiose schemes for tidal power generation to simple home/office insulation and roof top solar panels. They fit perfectly with current economic needs. Expenditure and creating extra jobs now, and savings later.

So why come up with this silly idea? The Tories must think we are all stupid.
Spot the difference 4:02pm on 23 Nov 2009 It is frightening that both of the men who might lead the next government are vying with each other to promise deficit reduction.

Is it not obvious, that most of the things that they say they will do will cause even more unemployment? For example, stopping civil service pay rises and postponing pensions will reduce demand, and make things even tougher for businesses.

Both leaders are guilty of responding to what they imagine are the needs of the monetary system rather than the needs of the real economy. There will only be a threat to Sterling if the recovery in the UK moves ahead of the rest of the world and sucks in excessive imports. At the moment the UK is in fact lagging behind the euro and dollar zones. This indicates that more fiscal stimulus is needed not less.

The deficit will automatically decrease as recovery gets underway. One day, it might become necessary to return to the pre-crunch monetary rules, but that day is not even on the horizon.
Britain lands key EU foreign policy post 4:32pm on 20 Nov 2009 "So Britain has got one of the top two EU jobs, and arguably the more important one."

Nick, you sound like a sports commentator talking about the gold medals "Britain" has won.

I do not know much about the Baroness, but being a protegee of Tony Blair and being thought of as having won the job for Britain does not recommend her to me.

It is important that the EU should develop its own foreign policy based on the needs of its own people and not necessarily follow the lead of the US on every issue.

Will she face outwards and promote EU interests to the rest of the world or will she face inwards and promote US interests in Europe, such as providing more troops for US military adventures?
If you thought it was all over... 3:17pm on 19 Nov 2009 It is a pity, if as you say, some EU leaders do not want "a European figurehead better known, better connected and more charismatic than they were". Surely the point should be to have someone like that, who can knock heads together and can act in the interest of the people of the whole EU, not just the interests of their own nation.

Perhaps one day we will have a president directly elected by all citizens of the EU, who will therefore have the power to do for the EU, what Obama can do for the US.
Not the Queen's Speech 9:47pm on 18 Nov 2009 What is wrong with the "government's over-riding priority is to win a fourth term in office"? Isn't democracy supposed to be about the will of the people overriding the interests and ambitions of the elite?

We should have more frequent elections and reform the electoral system so that there were many fewer safe seats. The political memory of the electorate is supposed to be only about 18 months, so the period between elections should be less than that, say 1 year, as the Chartists proposed a century and a half ago.

Governments which did not keep their promises, or, for example, got entangled in unpopular wars, would then be quickly thrown out. The will of the people might really prevail.
Afghanistan ifs and maybes 12:50pm on 17 Nov 2009 At least our leaders now seem to have realised that most members of the public are not so stupid as to believe the various excuses for the war that the government have put out.

They would be wise to get out as quickly as possible. It will be humiliating, but since the Taliban know exactly what they are fighting for, while we do not, the longer it is put off, the worse it will be. Whoever wins next year's election should do so immediately.

As in Vietnam, it is unlikely that the corrupt regime will last long, once NATO military support has been withdrawn, but short of having the CIA organise a coupe against Karsai, this is now unavoidable.
Plotters, quitters and fighters 4:44pm on 16 Nov 2009 The only chance Labour have is to use the tactics which are traditional in British politics - make the electorate so scared of what their opponents would do that they vote for the devil they know.

The only things that really matter for voters in the soggy centre of British politics are things which effect their pockets. Social clumsiness and poor letter writing probably do not matter to much in the polling booth.

The Tories have made a tactical mistake by talking up the need for cuts. Labour must make it very clear that under Labour the cuts would not fall on lower and middle income groups. The Chancellor could discover that in order to catch up with the recoveries in Europe and the US, he needs to match the fiscal stimuli that they have applied and actually cut lower and middle income taxes dramatically. To pay for this, unfortunately the new 50% rate on high incomes will not be enough, he will need to have an even higher rate for very high incomes, say 60%, on incomes over, say £200k, whether earned at home or abroad.

The Tories will have to oppose this on behalf of their very wealthy supporters, and will not be able to explain how they could match labour increases for most people, allowing Labour to label them as the rich man's party.

«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

stanblogger