BBC Blog Network

User Profile

wotmenah

Listed below are comments made by wotmenah between Tuesday, 7th October 2008 and Sunday, 11th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Ferdinand must sharpen up 5:23pm on 11 Oct 2009 Lets us not forget that the world Cup is still some time away and we do have a very good up and coming centre-half learning his trade at the heart of a defence which doesn't often give much away.

Why do I mean?

The 21 year old who left Man U because he couldn't see any chance of taking Rio's place in the Man U team, namely, Ryan Shawcross.
Honesty: The new battleground 11:48am on 01 Jul 2009 Why don't you get oto the real story Nick,

This is a convenient smoke screen to turn attention away from the fact that away from Parliament, Peter Mandelson "let slip" that the Governement are postponing this autumn's spending review until after the next election.

In other words, they can't produce a spending plan which will be financially sound and consistent with their public utterances, and so they have decided to abdicate their responsibility to manage the countries finances.

The reason is apparently that uncertainty about the future economy makes planning difficult at this time. Doh!!

Perhaps someone should tell PM that all autumn reviews are based on predictions in an uncertain environment.
'A battle of the bodies' 8:51pm on 08 Jun 2009 Labour MPs need to get real and understand the real choice they have.

Do they get rid of GB, accept the next election is lost, but regain enough credibility to ensure they become the Official Opposition.

or

Do they demonstrate a complete lack of political judgement and credibility and gift the role of Official opposition to the Liberal Democrats.

I would have thought it was a no brainer, but then I'm not a Labour politician
Survival but at what price? 10:50am on 06 Jun 2009 The good thing about derekbarker is that, although he is in a minority he is not alone and they will no doubt give GB the confidence to hang on until next summer, which will result in the total demise of the Labour party as an electable Government and ensure that for the next 30 years our two party system will become Tory and Liberal.

Unless, of course when the Liberals form the Government which follows the next Tory Government they introduce PR.
Green's arrest draws parallels 5:08pm on 28 Nov 2008 As others have said this was an opposition doing exactly what the state purse pays him to do, namely to hold the Government to account and to expose them when they are seeking to inappropriately withhold information from the nation and then arresting him for doing his constitutional duty.

In contrast the BBC announcements by Robert Peston on Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley nationalisation Lloyds takeover of HBOS, the Government’s announcement of the intention to recapitalise the banks, followed by Friday’s accurate account of what the Chancellor was going to say on Monday in the PBS were all predicted with an accuracy which cannot be explained by clairvoyance. Clearly someone in Government or the Treasury was leaking information to Robert ahead of Government statements and Robert was putting this information in the public domain, which leaves me with three questions.

1. Do you believe the fact that the Government wanted the information leaked by Robert means that he has a greater or lesser mandate than that of an opposition politician who is simply doing what we pay him to do.

2. If he does not have a greater mandate then do you feel that Robert should receive a home visit from the counter terrorism branch?

3. If you and you colleagues at the BBC believe that had a greater mandate, then do you think that the BBC should be renamed Pravda.

FINALLY, CAN THE BBC PLEASE REDRESS THE BALANCE BY TELEVISING A PROGRAM IN WHICH TONY BENN AND WILLIAM HAGUE DISCUSS THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.
We own Royal Bank 09:28am on 28 Nov 2008 Slightly off topic, I’m afraid, but relevant to your blogs in general.

Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley nationalisation Lloyds takeover of HBOS, the Government’s announcement of the intention to recapitalise the banks, followed by Friday’s accurate account of what the Chancellor was going to say on Monday in the PBS all predicting Government statements with an accuracy which cannot be explained by clairvoyance. Clearly someone is leaking information to you ahead of government statements and you are putting it in the public domain in advance of those statements.

So, unless you have been granted some form of immunity, the evidence against you is clear.

Are you expecting a home visit from the counter terrorism branch?
HBOS says independence equals nationalisation 9:26pm on 14 Nov 2008 As a Lloyds shareholder I would like to thank these two gentlemen profusely.

What they have managed to do is to cause HBOS to reveal the true extent of the basket case which Lloyds is being asked to take on and, as a result, to greatly increase the possibility of Lloyds shareholders voting it down.

Unfortunately the bottom line is likely to be that the HBOS shareholders are totally wiped out when HBOS is nationalised, broken up, and sold off in bits. The only consolation might be that if the purchaser of the retail banking portion is an overseas (middle east?) investor, then they may see some advantage in preserving the trading name as Bank of Scotland, which is waht seems to be the only important aspect for many people.

So, it will be good for Scottish self-esteem, good for the prestige of the Scottish Nationalist (who will claim to have save the bank from the dreaded English), good for Lloyds shareholders (who will no longer be saddled with a enormous and probably unquantifiable burden), but sadly no good for the current HBOS shareholders but they were probably not SNP voters.
Will HBOS stay independent? 09:16am on 10 Nov 2008 Before the two gentlemen of Scottish banking try to make the argument that, because Lloyds will need an extra £1.5Bn of additinal tier 1 capital if the merger doesn't go through, and that Lloyds are therefore the weaker of the two and HBOS can survive as an independent, they would do well to consider why Lloyds will need £1.5Bn of extra Tier 1 capital.

It might just be something to do with how they will have to treat the £10Bn loan facility that Lloyds have extended to HBOS, which, although it will be covered by the Government's guarantee on inter-bank lending, would have to be considered as a loan if the merger does not go through.

Given this, they might wish to consider the following:
1. if the merger does not go through, Lloyds could always avoid the need for the additional £1.5bn of Tier 1 capital by withdrawing or, at least not extending, the facility.
2. what therefore are they going to do if Lloyds announce that the facility is temporary, has been granted in order to allow the business to trade prior to the merger, is conditional on the merger proceeding and will not be extended if the merger does not proceed.
Obama shackled by debt 4:33pm on 05 Nov 2008 Hang on Robert,

There are other correspondents in the BBC or are you becoming the expert on everything.

Some of us were not happy at the extent to which you adopted a negative reporting policy which encouraged panic during the recent banking crisis, then when the Standard Chartered solution came up your blogs to on a political aspect, and now you are becoming a commentator on the US political scene.

Where are you going to stop?
Banks ask chancellor for capital 08:04am on 07 Oct 2008 #6 Why keep going on about fractional reserve banking as a fundamental problem?

Yes it is a problem, but only because the glue in the system has hit the velocity of money.

The system works like this.

1. a Bank lends you £10,000
2. you buy a car
3. The car manufacturer pays its suppliers and its employees and puts the rest in the bank.
4. Its employees buy food from a supermarket and spends on other things
5. This process (3/4) is repeat in both the supplier company and in those buisinesses where the employee spends its money.
6. As a result the money the bank lent you finds its way back to the bank through the accounts of other people.
7. This money is then available to lend to me to also buy a car.

The issue is how quickly the money goes through this cycle, namely the velocity of money.

It practical terms it is analagous to the fact that water entering the upper reaches of the Thames is drunk by six people before it reaches the sea.

Tell me, what is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with this system?

«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

wotmenah