BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Board Stupid

Listed below are comments made by Board Stupid between Wednesday, 28th May 2008 and Tuesday, 20th January 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Faith in banks 1:23pm on 20 Jan 2009 Would swapping the present set of incompetents for another set make any difference?

I doubt it.

Cameron and Osbourne can criticise all they like but it was their pals inthe the financial institutions who got as into this mess.

I don't trust any of our politicians to handle the situation - well - maybe one - Vince Cable seems to be the only one who knows what he is doing.
Extraordinary 3:41pm on 07 Nov 2008 #159 Expect a move on Iraq soon - Obama and Brown will do a deal that gets UK troops out of Iraq well before the next election.

All it needs is another Tory slip-up (ala Osborne) and peopel will start to think more about who they are letting in than who they are kicking out. That's not wishful thinking either - Osborne's personal ratings have gone from 70% down to miniscule 2%. If Cameron does not get rid of him he is going to be a lame duck shadow chancellor.
Extraordinary 3:28pm on 07 Nov 2008 One of the myths being peddled now is that the Tories would have done things differently. That they would not have spent money as Labour has done. That they would have regulated the banks. that they would have controlled house price inflation.

If that is so then why in the last two elections did they promise to match Labour's expenditure commitments?

If that is so then why has Cameron promised to match Darling's expenditure commitments for the next two years?

If that is so then why did the Tories promise less not more regulation for business?

If that is so why were they proposing an infaltionary (house price) abolition of stamp duty for first time buyers?

The truth is that the Tories would have followed pretty much the same economic orthodoxy as Labour.

As for the comment that the Tories would have controlled city bonuses and pay - you are having a laugh?

Or was that pure sarcasm?
Extraordinary 3:00pm on 07 Nov 2008 I think most of us got the result wrong - even those who thought it might be close. Labour increased their share by 3% and comfortably held on despite the SNP throwing everything including the kitchen sink at Labour. For the SNP it is not a disaster but it should give them pause for thought.

The reasons why they did not make the big break-through are complex but I'll try to give my thoughts on why they lost.

The SNP still try to fight elections as the opposition and, as we saw here, that is no longer the case in Scotland. The consequence of at least one policy contributed to their downfall here. The council tax freeze may be nationally a popular move but at a local level councils are finding it hard to implement. It was easy for Labour to attack the local Lib Dem/SNP coalition for charges for local services - charges I believe are a direct result of freezing the Council Tax. If they want to avoid this issue happening again then serious consideration is going to have to be given to the block grant levels that councils receive. That in itself may have implications for funding other Scottish Government priorities. Something will have to give - and it will not be the Council Tax freeze. I would expect some other SNP policy to be delayed or even abandoned altogether to keep their flagship policy intact.

Another issue is undoubtedly was independence. I have been derided here for pointing out that Labour would try to use the global financial crisis and events in countries such as Iceland for their own political benefit. Whether events in Iceland (or Hungary, Ukraine etc) have a direct correlation to Scottish independence is irrelevant (I personally don't think they do). The perception is that they do and the SNP have only themselves to blame. Salmond set himself up for a fall with his Arc of Prosperity speech. The SNP need to start making the case for Scottish independence purely in Scottish terms not on what another country has done.

That brings us to the third area - oil. The last month or so has shown that economies who rely heavily on a particular natural resource suffer due to fluctuating commodity prices. Here in Scotland some are beginning to realise the fallacy of SNP economic policy that is built on the price of oil. The SNP were fine when oil prices were at a high level but now at the low price levels we have now their argument has been undermined. The SNP need to take oil out of the argument and make the case that economic independence is possible whether or not we have oil. That means they really do need to make a reassessment of their policies for a post-independence Scotland.

The truth is that if the SNP are going to win an independence referendum they have a long way to go to convince the agnostics in the electorate. They need to make a much more subtle case that the one they have made thus far.
Who should get a Ryder Cup wildcard? 11:42pm on 28 Aug 2008 The team as it stands looks a tad inexperienced - I suspect that Faldo will pick two that have substantial Ryder Cup experience. The killer will be who is in form - on that alone Clarke is a standout.

Much that my heart wants Monty to be there the head says otherwise - I think Casey is probably the best option - Poulter is too hot and cold and others such as Pettersen don't have the necessary RC experience.
Next generation of GB cyclists already looking good for 2012 1:07pm on 19 Aug 2008 I would love to have the talents of David Brailsford and Peter Keen transferred to other sports to enusre we do even better in 2012.
When is a grouse fair game? 5:12pm on 16 Aug 2008 Amateur boxing is a joke just now - until they go back to 3 minute rounds we are going to have these chicken counter-punchers who get a lead then spend the rounds running away from their opponents.

The scoring is also a joke - I have watched many fights where a punch has missed by a a good foot yet scores yet one that clearly hits is not scored. Too many incompetent judges.
Narrowing options 09:26am on 02 Jun 2008 #3 The only way delegates are going to switch is if a real big skeleton falls out of Obama's closet.

And I mean real big, not a side issue like his pastor but a real misdemeanor. And not just based on rumour and innuendo but real facts. Obama has already survived accusations about his links to Sadaam's money-launderer Auchi - it would take something real bad to floor him now for the Democratic nomination.

As it stands I can't really see that happening not unless somebody somewhere is keeping something back.

That being said, I still think he will lose in November the when the GOP attack dogs are let loose.
Europeans love Obama 11:57am on 30 May 2008 More interesting stats from that poll:

* the 33% combined who put "neither" or "Don't know"

* the 43% who think the USA is a "force for evil" - only 27% think it is a "force for good"

* It may not be the economy stupid - more people support Obama (52%) than those who think he is the best equipped candidate to deal with the economy (42%)
Judging the Kennedy gaffe 09:36am on 28 May 2008 #20 I'd disagree with that. She would never have had to attack Obama if she had been better organised in the caucus states. When Obama wiped the floor with her in those contests he had the momentum and the writing was on the wall.

The only way an attack would have worked effectively would have been before Iowa.

Mrs Clinton's biggest problem was her complacency early on in the campaign. She thought that Super Tuesday would be enough. She failed to understand the complex make-up of many of the states' primaries and caucuses. She failed to grasp that many of those states had an in-built bias towards Obama.

In many ways she fought the right campaign at the wrong time. It was the right campaign if she were fighting in an election for the POTUS. But the strategy she adopted was completely inappropriate to gain the Democratic nomination. She had to adopt Howard Dean's 50-state strategy to win the nomination.

The main lesson for Clinton is that a run for the presidency does not begin before Iowa - it begins straight after the previous POTUS contest. Obama has been preparing and readying the way for this since Bush was elected for a second term. If Obama loses the POTUS election, and Clinton is serious about running in 2012, then she needs to start her campaign in November 2008, not in November 2011.

«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

Board Stupid