Regrets? Just the one

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

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.

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.

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?

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....

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.

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.

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?

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.

Why hasn't [link=https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1063358/How-Camerons-secretive-donors-bet-collapse-Bradford-amp-Bingley.html%5Dthis[/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

#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.

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!"

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!

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.......

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?

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:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/28/marketturmoil.shares

instead Nick decides to focus on an imagined "gaffe".

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.

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.

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

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!

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)

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.

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....

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?

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.

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.

13@flamingpatricia

No really stop it. The tories have a right to voice their opinions. Without being ruthlessly parodied.

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

#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...

I thought we already had an Office of Budget Responsibility called HM Treasury - or isn't the Chancellor responsible for the budget any more?

"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!

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!

I think Gordon will voice only one regret - that he did not spend enough.

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.

#31

It doesn't show...

Maybe he's gone native...

Or perhaps just trying to please the boss...

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.

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.

Derek

They're coming to take you away

Ha ha

He he

Ho ho

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.

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.

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?

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!

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?

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.

Wow, that just gave me a Zengasm.

Keep 'em coming, sweetie.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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..

I'm still waiting for an explanation from you as to why my comment at 8.22pm last night STILL awaiting Moderation.

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.

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.

#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?

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.

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).

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?

53. Charles_E_Hardwidge

See the infinite monkey theorem works.

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.

Robin @ 60

... "Oxbridge rejects like Harriet Harman" ...

You saying that she applied and failed for Oxford and/or Cambridge before going to York?

Same old Labour, same old tax and spend and end up bankrupt. Do they never learn?

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.

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.

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.

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.

# 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.

Oh Dear

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.

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!

- 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.

#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.

#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.

#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.

"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.

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.

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'

#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.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

# 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).

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.

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.

Never apologise, never explain....

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

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.

# 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.

#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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#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

'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.

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.

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.

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.

#76 balhamu

I think you'll find it was intentional irony.