Saying sorry

Interestingly althougn David Cameron says that some of the problems of the economy
relate to problems from earlier decades and therefore were systemic and not just the Labour Governments responsibility.

Is this a coded appeal to Labour voters that still detest Thatcher?

"In truth, of course, the re-balancing and the regulating are likely to happen before he has any chance of being prime minister."

I despair at the commetariat and so called pundits inability tp understand basic truths of human inter-reaction. What Cameron is about is a new broom. Heaven knows we need one.
If you pick up on The Chinese statements with regard to the Brown scenario of printing money to wash out Government debt, you will see why this inept Government wanted "global" unity for his strategy. We have run out of money and this administration is going to be kicked out because of that. If they stick to the "plan" the pound will disappear. Trust me our situation is far worse than anyone, including the Opposition Leader are allowed to know.

Ha ha - brown completely out flanked...

Cameron is right that saying sorry is easy when you have nothing to be really sorry about - after all who is cameron appologising to?

However brown saying sorry would have to be to every man, woman and child (and a few generations of unborn) in the county.

Brown is not noted for his courage - he isn't man enough to take responsibility.

Nick, you say:

The difficult bit is for politicians to look back and say right where did I go wrong. It's that, that needs to take place in order to build trust with the public so that we can get this economy out of recession and into recovery.

Reckon that’s a bit of a bummer for Duff Gordon - He does not admit liability or do sorry.

After all he is always right - yeah in your dreams.

Nick what are your thoughts about 2010. Do you reckon they will carry him out of No. 10 in a straight jacket?

Roll On 2010. 15 months to go.

Somebody should be saying sorry to the poor British taxpayers. A fundamental moslem preacher, who was prominent in the disturbances at the welcome home march for British soliders, has been spouting off demanding that sharia law should prevail here. He wants women to wear the burka, adultery to be punished by stoning, and all the practices which his particular sect demand. Fair enough, I agree with free speech, even by those whom I believe are wicked and/or demented. But, I was disgusted to learn he receives at least 25,000 pounds per year in benefits. No doubt, the bleeding hearts will cry his wife and children shouldn't suffer on his behalf. Frankly I don't give a thought for them. He and his wife should work to support them. My motto is: FREE SPEECH BUT NOT FREE LOADERS!

There will be many that will be cynical about this statement, Gordon Brown for one. I wonder what The PM's reaction will be? Too late for him to do the same now. He will just be accused of being a copycat to save face.

Wow!
'Dave's' BIG idea for sorting out the global economic crisis......try and force the Prime Minister to say sorry.

Yeah...that will solve things.

Why has it never occurred to 'Dave' and wee georgie osbourne that the opposition's role should be to come up with an alternative strategy to take the country forward????

He is just a clueless PR man.............

it's a SORRYFEST !!

Don't think much of this ploy - and ploy is what it is. Bit like watching Kevin Keegan try to take on Alex Ferguson at mind games.

The reality is that the Opposition, in a parliament where the Government has a big majority, is powerless.

The current situation is down to the Government. They had the inside dope on all matters - the opposition did not. To the extent that the Opposition did have info, the timing and detail was all in the hands of the Government.

The Government took all the decisions that mattered and nothing the opposition could have said or done woul have made a bit of diffference. In fact, when Brown was Chancellor nothing the Prime Minister said on matters economic or financial made a bit of difference.

I guess the idea is to put Brown on the hook. I fear the effect will be to let him off it or join him on it - or replace him on it by the time Brown selectively quotes from Cameron's confession.

While we are on Who Said Sorry for What?, didn't Vince Cable sort of say sorry a few months ago for not warning even louder and clearer than he did of the economic problems brewing?

This blog has only been up for minutes and already Mr Angry in various guises is queuing up to fulminate against our Gordon.

But consider this dear bloggers. Its not easy being a failed radical socialist. Not easy at all. YOU TRY being Chancellor of the Exchequer when you have no inate feeling for capitalism and its little ways.

Yeah, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

And dear old Alistair too. Another failed radical socialist, misty eyed over Arthur's wonderful speech last night with the bloke from the telly that likes to say "My Arse".

There is nothing to apologise for. And a little bit of sympathy wouldn't go amiss. Safe our Gord!!!!

I loved that story in this morning's FT about the PR brief for the G20 summit and the two classes of guest at the London jamboree. When the PR people start putting the knife in with abandon then you really know that the game is up. Whatever next?

Did anyone see Alan Johnson on Question Time last night. No, me neither. He's the only guy I know that makes Gordo look like a natural born Prime Minister.

Any bloggers who still haven't seen Gordo being sent up by Jon Stewart on his visit to the States don't know what they are missing. It's an absolute hoot, how our great one plundered and used all the President's best lines in his Congressional address. Toe curlingly embarassing. Enjoy!!! You can find by googling englisheccentric

Nick, here is a nice take on Comic relief and Duff in the USA! from Brian Taylors blog.

Why can't any of our politicians come clean and admit that the our financial regulatory system was based on the preferred EU model?


https://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/03/another-room-another-elephant.html

https://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/little-ado-about-even-less.html

Nick,

Where precisely did any of the government ministers you quote actually use the S word.

Saying a mistake was made is not saying sorry for making it. It just says I was wrong - not I am sorry I was wrong.

Humility is one thing but to be truly humble you have to apologise.

At least David Cameron has said sorry that the Tories did nothing and would not have avoided the same mistakes.
Now they can move on to looking for solutions.

He's within a whisker of me actually considering him worth voting for - first Tory ever to have managed that feat if he actually has some policies to review before the election.

Actually better to google Jon Stewart Gordon Brown. There is a direct link there from the Guardian (of all people!).

Just to make things easy here's the direct link.
https://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220289&title=brown-in-the-usa

and when is THATCHER going to say sorry, that's what I want to know?

I think most of us agree that the root cause of something like 80 pc of the problems we have in Britain today can be laid at that particular door

As all of the Labour party did not see this problem with debt, (and some still do not), the great banking friends of Gordons, and most of our famous economists saw nothing on the horizon, why on earth should Cameron apologise? This will not make Brown apologise, the man is so arrogant he sees no need for it, so nice gesture Cameron but dont hold your breath, it will not happen.

You do seem to have an expectation that Cameron should apoloise for things that happened under past tory leaders?

This current government has been in power for nearly 12 years. Thay have had a hefty majority in parliment and thus managed to pass whatever they wanted through the house. They have grown the public sector to an unprecetented level, (greater than that achieved by the Soviet Union) spent all that was in the kitty, and we now live in a pretty run down country entering our most difficult period, little prepared for the challenges ahead.

There is not a single Labour government that has not spent us into massive debt, spending other peoples money is easy. The trick is to make the books balance.
This government has left us poorer in so many ways and more divided that in 1997.

So, we now have not only 3 Cabinet Ministers saying that they would like to see mistakes acknowledged with apologies,but also the Opposition.

Of course,there will be many who will say that Cameron is just playing political games,because he really has nothing to apologise for.

But the real focus must now be on Brown who stubbornly and arrogantly, refuses to acknowledge any personal failure,or responsibility. Is it really true,Nick,that he lost it on the plane to DC,and said he had nothing to say sorry for??

It's time for you to fess up to what this fool really thinks of himself.

First comment 5:48, current time 7:13, still not moderated. This site is becoming unusable due to the delay in moderation. it is about time that serious consideration was given to after the fact moderation publish comments real time, delete those that fall foul of the rules. it is impossible to set up any dialogue with this current system.

So it's just Brown living in self-denial then, fingers in ears, going "la la la, I can't hear you!"

This is juvenile politics from Cameron and Osborne. They are hell bent on humiliating Gordon Brown. Why would they want to do that ? It is because they donot want the public to realise that the Tories have no policy or message for the country. They believe that they can win the next election by just being, "not labour" without any palusible policies. British voters are not stupid. of course they are angry with government and like me they protest that they will not vote for Labour in an opinion poll. But when it comes to a real election-they will not be so sanguine. The Tories believe we should do nothing to counter the recession. Listen to their shadow Health Secretary, John Maples etc. It is about time the Tories grew up and developed some meaningful policies rather then just engage in PR and spin.

Ive said before the tories are as culpable they are the opposition, they are privy to things , mere plebs are not, they have their noses in the same trough , sorry doesnt cut it , it just makes them sound like they just said

" I did smoke a joint but I didnt inhale"

Gord will not look good when the G20 is over so there is no point in the Tories attempting to look good they are all as bad as each other.

Nick Robinson:

It is nice that some many political figures are saying SORRY ...For making mistakes....At least, they know that they are making amends for their missteps.....

~Dennis Junior~

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

There was no regulation needed because Labour had put and end to boom and bust.

They unfortunately replaced it with Big Bang and Depression.I dont understand how anyone with the information the Government had could not have forseen this debacle coming and whats worse is there is even more to come........

How can we the people legally force a Government to call an election ??? is there a way ???

Amazingly Nick is quick to file a report when Cameron speaks on a matter yet remains silent sometimes for days on end when such trifling matters as the complete economic meltdown is in full swing and the PM staggers from disaster to disaster and the Harpie is in full backstabbing mode. Funny that !

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

Back to work and back to the games eh? Boring. Is Dave really arrogant enough to think anyone listens to the Tories on the economy? Laughable. Just hearing the name George Osbourne has me rolling around in stitches.

It's OK Dave, don't let it get to you.
I don't blame you for the rape of British industry, for the sale and non-replacement of social housing, for the privatisation of our national assets, for the conversion of the police into a force of repression, for the collapse of public services, the suppression of organised labour, for the social breakdown of the eighties and nineties or even for the glorification of men in red braces.
Those were different Conservatives, weren't they Dave?
Dave????
Don't be a fool, Man. Shout louder that you'll extricate us from the ECHR
Shout louder that you'll seriously re-examine our relatioonship with the EU
Shout louder that you'll dump ID cards.
Then I might think about voting for your party.
But don't, Dave, whatever you do, patronise me by telling me that your party's long long history of alignment with big business, deregulation and unrestricted profiteering was all a mistake.

7. At 6:22pm on 13 Mar 2009, Billmcfadden wrote:
Wow!
'Dave's' BIG idea for sorting out the global economic crisis......try and force the Prime Minister to say sorry.

Yeah...that will solve things.

Why has it never occurred to 'Dave' and wee georgie osbourne that the opposition's role should be to come up with an alternative strategy to take the country forward????

He is just a clueless PR man.............

===

Wrong. The opposition's role is to challenge the Government of the day, as in oppose, not act as some think tank for a clueless, government.

#11

.... I think you may have hit the nail on the head ... but I'm not sure Gordon's a failed socialist ... he's just a socialist ... and he found that he couldn't apply any of his beliefs to modern fiscal policy ... so he didn't try. Result ? ...I think he stood by as Chancellor while people like Fred the Shred salted away billions in RBS funds in the Cayman Islands to avoid tax... and now they laugh at him ... quite right too... he isn't a failed socialist, he's a failed politician.

More policies the Government should be apologising for.

Why are the govt. so adamant on pushing Job Centre work out to the private sector despite evidence showing how private firms had performed far worse than the state-run job centres they are replacing.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/08/welfare-tony-mculty-parliment

Perhaps it has something to do with this???

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2512391.ece

Nick,

you don't even hint at a possible out manoeuvring by Cameron of Brown

I appreciate the balance, but I'm afraid I'm not getting the language unless it is that Brown is now being politically isolated.

Why is Nick Robinson so hell bent on extracting an apology from Gordon Brown? it is juvenile and playground politicking. It doesn't matter who says sorry for what. Both the main political parties have over the last few decades brought this nation down to its knees. Apologising now will not achieve anything.

Why can't our politicians grow up and form a government of national unity - after all we are witnessing a colossal economic meltdown, not to talk of global warming and other disasters looming in the background.

We all need to unite and try and find a way out of this mess. Also it is no good berrating bankers as Preston does repeatedly on the other blogs - most bankers are hard working and very clever people who may just be in a position to pull us through. Obviously we need to weed out the bad apples and bring in more regulation and supervision.

I think you are reading it wrong here Nick.

Sure there's a part of Cameron trying to wrong foot Brown in the sorry stakes but the key for what he's 'sorry' for is in the line: "All parties signed up to a cosy economic consensus."

Backing Brown's economic cloud cuckoo land and buying into the sham that the economy was in good shape, despite the warnings, wasn't fatal for the Tories but it did teach Cameron some harsh lessons. Being honest with voters is always the best policy in the long-run. 

I reckoned that Cameron would return more statesman-like as a prime minister in waiting and this is probably all part of that plan - along with a new haircut.

A general election must be getting pretty darn close.

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/will-cameron-come-over-all-statesman.html

I can't see any benefit to Cameron - and hardly any need - to say "sorry" for something he had no control over.

It's a bit like an airline captain, qualified to fly a certain type of plane and scheduled to fly from LHR to JFK, who says sorry because a similarly qualified pilot assigned to travel to Hong Kong goes a bit loopy and flies into Mount Everest...

He may feel regret for the outcome, but wasn't and couldn't be responsible for it.

I don't blame Brown for the global credit problem.

I do blame him for letting UK financial institutions run wild.

He - or his appointed regulatory cluster, under powers HE gave them - knew that banks were lending Billions more than the value of their deposits. (That increased dramatically under his Chancellorship...)
But he/they did nothing to check on the "source, value and sustainability" of the money they were lending. And nothing to stop lending to individuals at stupid multiples versus earnings or asset value.

Should Cameron (or any opposition leader) have been far more outspoken about a credit bubble? Yes.

Given the strong Labour majority, would it have made any difference? Nah.

The big clunking fist would still have kept swinging at windmills. (Remember the elimination of child poverty? Remember Prudence?)

Quick thought.

I was rather surprised that, as Nick evidently had a copy of Cameron's speech, he didn't tell us how many standing ovations he would receive.

He managed that with the Brown speech in Washington, before it had ended.

It's not Cameron who should be saying sorry. It wasn't he who had his stubby, nail bitten fingers all over the purse strings after all.

David Cameron is a very smart man. By offering apologies for not being the opposition that is expected of them, he has out flanked Brown quite cleverly. The opposition is not responsible for policy, or the implementation of policy, the ball is now squarely in the court of Brown and his party. He knows that Brown will stick to his oft repeated mantras, as that is all he can do. Bar the economy lifting rapidly, then unfortunately for him, the opposition has scored a point. It is a ploy that might work, but thanks to having years of politicians blatantly fleecing the public over the state of the finances for years, I think this will have no desired effect. The public is just too cynical for any more gimmicks, no matter the sincerity behind them. That said, Brown has shown that he has absolutely no clue as how to engage the public, so the onus will lie heavily on him to counter this move.

Pallini @25

There are plenty of policies and even in this article of Nick's he mentions some measures that DC is saying should happen.

On the Conservatice website are policies covering every aspect of what a government has to do.

Of course if you wish to remain ignorant to allow yourself futile rants on blogs then just carry on.

One question for Nick...did Brown really say "On 10p tax rates I made a mistake. "? he didn't say we, or mistakes were made...he said I made a mistake? Is that right?

This stuff justs gets to you.

Nick reports that Brown said "sorry" for making a mistake over the 10p tax band.

He was told from the day it was announced in the Commons that it was NOT a clever idea.

With all the very expensive, supposedly intellectually over-endowed, resources available, he could have come up with a simple solution.

Instead, he and they prevaricated, invented complex and piece-meal ways to "try" to make up for the impact of RAISING personal tax for the first time in his period in office.

So odd that he chose to impose that tax rise on the poorest section of society.

There was no mention then of "hammering the bonus culture" of his friends in the city...

It seems true that Brown sought to develop some sort of global oversight of financial institutions. But I recall the EU suggesting a framework that Brown rejected. (It would have impacted too much on the UK institutions.)

Looking forward to the outcome of the G20.

I guess it will only be considered a success if 20 nations compromise (as they have to) on exactly what Brown decides they should agree.

If any commercial organisation hires him when he leaves office, their shareholders should rise in revolt.

Where's Wat Tyler when you need him?

45. At 9:56pm on 13 Mar 2009, fairlyopenmind wrote:

"I recall the EU suggesting a framework that Brown rejected. (It would have impacted too much on the UK institutions.) "


No - he imposed it - that was precisely the problem - See links attached.

https://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/03/another-room-another-elephant.html

https://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/little-ado-about-even-less.html

Notwithstanding the edge that Nick gives to this speech, I read it as Cameron saying "time to move on". The "who's sorry" now past its prime and time to pin down why Brown/Darling are not establishing the root causes of today's problems to ensure no repetition.

How many months and how many business collapses have to pass before money finally reaches its intended targets towards getting the economy moving again? Are the next set of unemployment figures going to be dreadful? You can bet on it. This is all taking place on the Brown/Darling watch, no one elses.

Too much "jam tomorrow" politicking and not enough targeted action. Can't wait for May 2010.

Sorry saga - you say that reference to Prescott should be barred.

Seems that he believes that Cameron should say sorry for the ERM debacle.

Maybe he should. Entering the ERM always looked like a gamble - especially as everything hinged on what Germany would do to protect its own economy.

But Labour had pushed for entry and it took a lot of internal knee-capping before Thatcher agreed.

I don't trust Wiki too much, but they include a comment that:
"In 1997 the UK Treasury estimated the cost of Black Wednesday at GBP3.4 billion."

1997 was 5 years after the event, so I guess that estimate was in a Blair era.

Black Wednesday created pandemonium. But the UK - economically - got itself together.

Even allowing for inflation, GBP3.4BIL is a spit in the wind, compared with our present predicted government spend and just a pimple on the backside compared with the vast amounts being delivered under "quantative easing".

The latter seems to be "pretending we've got money".

Wish that would work with my bank manager...

If anyone wonders who was responsible for the change in many of the Conservative Parties attitudes they may want to take a look at the speech below,

Who remade the Tories Cameron on Portillo?

https://www.michaelportillo.co.uk/speeches/speeches_pub/right.htm

If the Conservatives had been more outspoken, what would have happened?

Brown would have ignored them - they wouldn't have been saying "yes" to him, so they would have been unimportant to him.

Labour would have derided them for "talking down the Labour economic miracle."

The BBC would have given them 5 microseconds of coverage, deriding them for talking down the country and for opposing the Government.

And none of the other broadcast media would have said anything about it at all.

If it had been a Labour opposition attacking a reckless Tory Government, then the BBC and every other news sttaion would have helped them to rip the Tories to shreds.

If anyone owes us an apology, it's the BBC, for singing to Labour's tune, over and over and over again.

What I fail to understand is that in spite of all this saying sorry the only anger generated is in blogs like this one!
I like the Icelandic approach , constant peaceful demonstrations outside parliament until the whole goverment resigns , whose first action is then to sack all the central bank and regulators and nationalise the banks.
I understand that their currency has now stopped falling and although the country faces a difficult year they are no longer in the news as the new goverment is getting a grip on the situation with the support of the population.

Sagamix @20:

I'm sorry, but I think that's nonsense. You are airing a rather tiresome hang-up with a Prime Minister who left office - what, nearly 20 years ago - simply to try to draw attention away from that fact that Labour have spent more than half of the intervening time kicking this country back into the gutter that she dragged it out of.

If 80% of the problems of this country were her doing, then why on God's sacred earth have Labour done NOTHING to put it right????

Your argument is nothing but bitter, blinkered and backward-looking.

coachway @ 51:

Clearly the failed Icelandic Government was made of people who were genuinely "Honourable" and who took responsibility for their failures.

If Brown could actually accept some responsibility for his catalogue of failures, then he could at least recognise the need to change course and start to put things right.

And that starts with the words "I'm sorry that I made such a mess of things."

I think a lot of the hatred of Brown would disappear, and many people would even start to respect him a little, if he was big and brave and honest enough to say that.

very clever move, he's going to trounce Brown if he keeps this up

It's all very worrying.

I've tried to access this Jon Stewart Gordon Brown skit but everywhere I go, it seems that the Stasi, Alastair Cambell, the KGB, Mandelson, MI6 (aka JohnScarlett) have had it removed from the websites of Vimco. The Guardian and The Jon Stewart Show.

Is the moderator going over and above the line of duty?

All very strange but the harder this sketch is to find, the harder I will try to find it.

Why?

Because obviously the truth hurts and when I do find it, believe me, I will circulate far and wide.

If this puerile nonsense about apologies is to be pursued, then let's make sure that Margaret Thatcher is made to apologise for destroying the social fabric of our nation .... and if she's not up to it, then there are plenty of her henchmen still around.

RE:50
I am afraid my friend that I always agree with on this occasion I have to disagree and I am afraid so does David Cameron if you read his speech.

When he says that some of the problems we face , "relate to problems from earlier decades," do you think he is refering to Majors turn in office or Thatchers.

I am not sure I would go as far as to say 80% of problems are Thatchers fault, though I dislike the woman intensely, but there is no doubt that many of the social ills we have today stem from her period in office. Most certainly the underclass we now have in our society does.

Also as I wrote in another blog her highly mobile society has meant that many of the support structures that families of earlier generations had by being in the same or near vicinity have been lost. I feel this has without doubt added to the breakdown of our family life in many ways.

I do agree however that Labour has been far to concerned with cosying uptp Bankers and could have done far more than it has.

boat @ 52

Your argument is nothing but bitter, blinkered and backward-looking

well, I'm over-bidding at 80 pc but there's no question that the Wicked Witch transformed our economy and culture in such a radical way that her influence lives on ... more than lives on, it's all over the place

so I have no hesitation, for example, when it comes to the excesses of a financial sector which she set free, in tracing a great deal of that back to Mrs T

F.O.M. @ 40

Should Cameron have been far more outspoken about a credit bubble? Yes

Given the strong Labour majority, would it have made any difference? Nah

I'd like to paraphrase this, open, in order to demonstrate something important

Should the Regulators have been far more vigilant about the credit bubble? Yes

Given the prevailing get rich quick culture in the City and elsewhere, would it have made any difference? Nah

... hardly had to change any words, did I?

I'm trying very hard to remember a politician who ever admitted making a mistake while in power.

I'm sure that somewhere there is a little book full of aphorisms for politicians. And the very first sentence in that book says, "Never admit to making a mistake".

They're all doomed to follow that advice, because they are absolutely clueless about what real people think after years of being pandered to by toadies and yes men.

It doesn't matter what colour their political rosettes, underneath they're all the same.

55. At 10:47pm on 13 Mar 2009, andfinally wrote:
It's all very worrying.

I've tried to access this Jon Stewart Gordon Brown skit but everywhere I go, it seems that the Stasi, Alastair Cambell, the KGB, Mandelson, MI6 (aka JohnScarlett) have had it removed from the websites of Vimco. The Guardian and The Jon Stewart Show.

Is the moderator going over and above the line of duty?

All very strange but the harder this sketch is to find, the harder I will try to find it.

Why?

Because obviously the truth hurts and when I do find it, believe me, I will circulate far and wide.

===

Try this.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Surely the average voter will see through this blatant political ploy?

Sic 42? Tarquin 54?

Oh well maybe not.

Did he, by any chance, offer up any policies? Solutions? That kind of thing?

No, but why should we expect any? He's just being a "pretty normal kind of guy", no big ideas - the heir to Blair.

60. At 11:20pm on 13 Mar 2009, pete_in_halstead wrote:
I'm trying very hard to remember a politician who ever admitted making a mistake while in power.

I'm sure that somewhere there is a little book full of aphorisms for politicians. And the very first sentence in that book says, "Never admit to making a mistake".

===

Try these.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3422421.stm

#61

Moderators, are you censors, NewLabour apologists or do you just not possess a sense of humour?

Just wondering.

58, sagamix wrote:

"boat @ 52

- Your argument is nothing but bitter, blinkered and backward-looking -

well, I'm over-bidding at 80 pc but there's no question that the Wicked Witch transformed our economy and culture in such a radical way that her influence lives on ... more than lives on, it's all over the place

so I have no hesitation, for example, when it comes to the excesses of a financial sector which she set free, in tracing a great deal of that back to Mrs T"

Come on Saga.

Thatcher allowed financial institutions to do more than one thing at a time. That's what the Big Bang was about.
BUT she also put in place a regulatory environment that worked.

Brown chose to modify that arrangement. But didn't give a watch-dog any teeth!

(For goodness sake, the FSA admitted it knew there were problems with Northern Rock, but did what about it? Zilch. Nothing. Just happened to be a bank in a Labour heart-land. I'm sure that, had it been Southern Rock (easy drive from the City), someone would have popped down for a good chat...

I didn't like quite a lot of Thatcher's actions. But somebody had to try and get this nation working in a fairly modern way.

The UK bumped along in hope, post-WWII. A hope that nationalised organisations would deliver for the nation.

Some European countries appeared able to make national companies work. Germany had been devestated and just had to get its act together. France did what France always does - allow an elite to organise things up until the point when the workers get stroppy, when the politicians run away!

UK financial organisations acted with reasonable probity until 2000.

UK manufacturing, energy production, etc, etc was nationalised by Atlee. With minimal concern for a necessary level of productivity. Blame him for taking over run-down, war-exhausted commercial companies if you like. And for failing to ensure that UK creative manufacturing and delivery (that word again) would deliver profits... Doesn't matter whether you run a private or public-owned company, if you can't generate excess cash, you can't invest for tomorrow...

Blame Churchill. He disregarded the views of JFK's father that Germany was bound to win. Instead of doing a deal, to allow German hegemony over Europe, Churchill decided to fight for people who (in particular de Gaulle and France) were ungrateful for the UK effort. The UK ran up huge debts. For what?

How's your German, Saga?

instantaneous moderation this evening - I can't cope with it - bfn

55. At 10:47pm on 13 Mar 2009, andfinally wrote:
It's all very worrying.

I've tried to access this Jon Stewart Gordon Brown skit but everywhere I go, it seems that the Stasi, Alastair Cambell, the KGB, Mandelson, MI6 (aka JohnScarlett) have had it removed from the websites of Vimco. The Guardian and The Jon Stewart Show.

Is the moderator going over and above the line of duty?

All very strange but the harder this sketch is to find, the harder I will try to find it.

Why?

Because obviously the truth hurts and when I do find it, believe me, I will circulate far and wide.



Try my post #611 on the "Saying sorry" thread. That hasn't been removed YET!!

David Cameron has said sorry for the state of the economy.......Hurray......Our problems have been solved...the country is no longer in recession. I always knew boy Dave was a genius.

Laughatthetories wrote:
Surely the average voter will see through this blatant political ploy?

The average voter is easily swayed - 30% of them still think that Labour are worth electing for another term!

I think that for many voters it will make Cameron seem more human and in touch - something that Brown does have problems with.

Did he, by any chance, offer up any policies? Solutions? That kind of thing?

No, but why should we expect any? He's just being a "pretty normal kind of guy", no big ideas - the heir to Blair.

Why would he bother offering up policies? The last time the Tories did that they were called a "Do Nothing" party and then a few weeks down the line the policies were passed off by Labour as their own.

59, 2009, sagamix wrote:

"F.O.M. @ 40

Should Cameron have been far more outspoken about a credit bubble? Yes

Given the strong Labour majority, would it have made any difference? Nah

I'd like to paraphrase this, open, in order to demonstrate something important

Should the Regulators have been far more vigilant about the credit bubble? Yes

Given the prevailing get rich quick culture in the City and elsewhere, would it have made any difference? Nah

... hardly had to change any words, did I?"

Sorry Saga. That's nonsense.

You don't get it.

If a regulator has teeth, the attitude or culture of the firms it regulates doesn't matter. If the regulator can bite your bum, it's not about "being vigilant" - it's about fear that you could bleed to death while defending a "competitive principle"...

The regulator says jump and you say "Yes, sir, how high!".

The regulators said that BT had to "open up" access to its infrastructure to other companies/competitors.
Were they happy? Nah.
Did they do it? Yeah.

Why? Were they happy? No, BUT, regulators had teeth. And were told to nip at the ankles of those they regulated. And draw significant blood if they had to.

The Brown tri-partite system was poorly thought-through, under-equiped with powers and confused about who should do what.

Just how does that make it Thatcher's fault?

Even the then Governor of the BoE expressed public concern that the Brown arrangement posed serious questions.

Just which members of the corporate financial fraternity have suffered as a result of the wonderful regulation provided by BoE, FSA and Trasury?

I'm not talking individuals. Which companies have been fined or had their approval to operate withdrawn?

Sorry... Which ones? Can't hear....

Andfinally

re my post #67 above:

Ooops, I meant my post #611 on the "Sorry for What" thread.

So many similar blogs from Nick, sorry!

The person I felt a bit sorry for this evening is actually Prescott.

Whatever Cameron's objectives, his speech today has clearly left Labour reeling, confused, wrong-footed, deeply uncertain of how to respond. As ever, they have sent the trolls out (a surprising number on this board today) to say pretty much any random thing they can think of to try to dilute and distract. Sagamix and his desperate "blame it all on Thatcher" thesis is a classic case in point.

And poor old Prescott (no-one else from Labour being willing to take the risk and show their face) was just wheeled out on the news to try the old Black Wednesday gambit again - so ably debunked by fairlyopenmind at 48. But Prescott looks and sounds so ill. His delivery was utterly incoherent, to the point that I was glad to have the subtitles switched on. Shoving a few notes in his hand then pushing him out in front of the cameras was gross cruelty to a plainly very sick man. A new low for Labour, in my opinion.

fom @ 65

How's your German, Saga?

gut, danke

so, big picture, maybe there's nicht point in anybody saying sorry because it's NOT individual politicians that change things - they may APPEAR to, if they're charismatic personalties in the right place at the right time ... Hitler ... Stalin ... Caligula ... Thatcher ... etc etc ... but, in fact, the changes are caused by deeper factors - structural shifts in moods and attitudes, scienctific and technological advance - plus a touch of the randomness that characterises all human life - hence, the Thatcher revolution would have happened without Thatcher - New Labour would have happened without Blair, and (this one's the most obvious) the current economic collapse of the UK would have happened without Brown - all this nitpicking about, for example, the detail of the Regulatory System or the level of Govt spending is missing the point - IT WAS ALL INEVITABLE - that, in any case, is what dialectic materialism tells us - a theory that has more going for it than most, in my opinion

The problem the Tories have is that they don't really have many ideas for dealing with recession. At this stage they can get away with this and just critisise the government who inevitably are loosing support as the recession bites hard. When the election comes people will want to know what they would do differently and the truth is they don't have a convincing answer.

Now the existing anti-Labour public feeling may well be sufficient to get the Tories elected in 15 months time, but they will have to deal with a whole load of difficulties. Winning the election may be the start of their troubles as the solutions offered by the Tories are neither robust, nor do they chime with the public mood of greater intervention.

72 JR

What are you talking about? Prescott has always been incoherent even in his pomp but he at least tries to say what he thinks (as far as one can tell) and can't be accused of calculating political ploys.

I prefer incoherence to political hypocrisy any day.

Does this make me a Labour troll?

mind @ 70

You don't get it

I think you're over-estimating the importance of the detail of the regulatory framework and under-estimating the importance of the prevailing uber capitalist City culture (bit of German again there, see) - traders, bank bosses, hedgies, fund managers, shareholders, insurers, uncle tom cobley and all, shared a common consensus of how to do business and that CC was GET RICH QUICK

no regulator stood a chance

perry @ 72

Sagamix and his desperate "blame it all on Thatcher" thesis is a classic case in point

80 pc - can't you read?

Saga,

Generally speaking, I'm a rather conservative - small c - social democrat.

I like people.

Believe that genius comes from anywhere regardless of social background.

Think that Thatcher's remark about there being "no such thing as society" has been badly misinterpreted.

If some bloke tries to mug you, "society" won't help. But someone with a social conscience may be brave enough to try.

(You are unlikely to find a PC around... That's "society's" - or at least politicians' - fault. Too many other pressing things to do, rather than actually be on the beat. Too many targets to be collating. Too many requirements to gather evidence rather than a quick slap on the head for a putative delinquent. Wow. Just how old fashioned is that? Goes back to my early days under a Labour government!)

"Society" can offer a broad framework of ideas and values.

People - individuals - deliver.

There's that word again.

Delivery is what matters.

I've been in a group of Ministerial level and KGB operatives, in the USSR in transition to what it is now, and told 'em that I didn't really give a stuff about what political system you run - as long as you care about the people you have under your responsibility.

I still believe that to be true.

If words counted for anything, Cuba should be a major player.

It's completely pointless if citizens roll up to vote for people who just take their money, spend it like a drunk in a tavern and then say "it was the circumstances that made things go wrong". Nothing to do with a lack of understanding? Nothing to do with poor regulation of either the speeches, the legislation, the implementation? Nah, just "something cropped up".

Doesn't wash with me, Saga.

And I'm sure that somewhere inside, you believe that it's not fair that some poor smuck is being taxed to pay for a "play co-ordinator".

Not reasonable that someone isn't allowed to climb a ladder to help another, because they "haven't been trained".

Life's too short for all the silly rules to be paid for, at our expense, badly managed at our expense and end up in litigation - again at our expense, for things that people have been doing for years.

Would I like UK coal mining? Yep. If people are brave enough to do it.

Self-sufficiency seems to make sense.

Worried about global warming? Yep. But a bit confused when a BBC item suggested that a forest fire in the Amazon could generate more CO2 output than Europe and Japan combined... so where does that leave our "absolute determination" to plaster the UK with inefficient and costly windmills.

Ah. All comes together now.

Tilting at windmills...

Back to Brown

74 stevenpalmer

You are lost in a mist of desperate Labour spin and propaganda.

Tell me, other than the VAT fiasco (which it certainly is), what has Labour actually DONE about the recession? Frankly, the answer is they have said much and delivered nothing. Even Mandelson has perked up to the government's chronic problem with delivery. Now we hear that half the cash from the "easing" auction has gone straight out of the country, so no benefit achieved there either.

You talk about when the election comes, and the Tories having no policies, but the true focus is on Labour and its method of government, which is just "talk lots, do nothing".

Typical Cameron shiftiness. Why was there a need to "warn about personal debt" Why was there a need to warn about bank regulation? What, exactly, was the "cosy consensus"that politicians all signed up to?

The answer is the same to them all - the economic policies of the Thatcher era. The "economic miracle" of the Thatcher government was that the British people were encouraged to spend the country out of the home-made recession that the Monetarist policies of the early years of Thatcherism had visited on the country. The sale of council houses created a house-price bubble that created virtual "wealth" against which credit could be granted, apparently without risk.

The result was a house-of-cards economy that could continue to grow only if personal debt continued to be high, if house prices continued to rise at a rate well above inflation, and if interest rates kept pace with inflation. A collapse of the kind we are experiencing was inevitable.

So come on Dave. Apologise for Thatcher's legacy.

73, sagamix wrote:

"fom @ 65

How's your German, Saga?

gut, danke

so, big picture, maybe there's nicht point in anybody saying sorry because it's NOT individual politicians that change things - they may APPEAR to, if they're charismatic personalties in the right place at the right time ... Hitler ... Stalin ... Caligula ... Thatcher ... etc etc ... but, in fact, the changes are caused by deeper factors - structural shifts in moods and attitudes, scienctific and technological advance - plus a touch of the randomness that characterises all human life - hence, the Thatcher revolution would have happened without Thatcher - New Labour would have happened without Blair, and (this one's the most obvious) the current economic collapse of the UK would have happened without Brown - all this nitpicking about, for example, the detail of the Regulatory System or the level of Govt spending is missing the point - IT WAS ALL INEVITABLE - that, in any case, is what dialectic materialism tells us - a theory that has more going for it than most, in my opinion"


What a sad posting.

Just why do you think that some of the brightest and most competent people in a post-WWII era couldn't develop high quality, high-volume consumer products?

Yes - the Russian empire had fantastic people (many of whom I liked a lot - my fault!).

I don't really give a stuff about an individual who happens to lead a party or nation. With or without them, things happen.

BUT a leader who helps to create an environment can allow creativity to flourish.

My old Russians contacts used to say, yearningly, that they could build world-leading technology, but couldn't work out how to do it repetitively.

They were right.

Guys at the top had absolutely NO idea that you have to let people go do it!

Does stuff happen despite a political leadership? Normally. But if the dead hand of state control descends, things get squeezed. Ideas get stiffled. People just fade away from potential into shadows of their own possibilities.

History is certainly about what happened. Sometimes leaders are aware of happening and sometimes not.

I fear that Brown could only see the narrow focus of economics (which I don't believe he truly understands from a practical standpoint) and is stuck in a time-warp, while technological and other change happens all around.

Laugh 75

What hypocrisy? Where?

More to the point, why no Labour response to the biggest domestic political story of the day, except from a man who plainly no longer has anything to lose?

fairly @ 78

well fine and dandy ... but politics is about where you are a scale of core beliefs and values, some of which can conflict

like nobody believes in a free market for third world babies, and nobody thinks that the kebab shop on the corner should be state sector - if the scale is 1 for FM in third world babies, and 10 for nationalisation of kebab shops, then you should be able to place yourself on the spectrum - a progressive would be a low number and a reactionary would be quite high - you sound like a 5, 6 or 7 - I'm a 3

conversely, everyone says they believe in social justice and everyone says they believe in personal freedom - but what matters is which way you jump when the two are in conflict - which one trumps the other? - for me, it's about fairness and equality, but I recognise, e.g. with the abolition of private schools thing, that that entails an attack on certain freedoms that other, more reactionary, types would hold quite dear - but, you know, tough titty

I mean, come on. If Cameron wanted portray himself increasingly like Blair, its now starting to get ridiculous. Apologise for something you had no responsibility over. Blair apologised for a number of things that he wasn't responsible for. For example, slavery. Of course, when it came to Iraq or anything he might have actually done wrong he was less forthcoming. It wouldn't be so funny if the Tories hadn't been arguing for the complete opposite a few years ago, rather like McCain in the US.
Anyway, when is David Cameron going to apologise for Norwich being 3rd from bottom in the Championship? I waiting, Dave.

fom @ 81

What a sad posting

sad as in ...

arrant nonsense?
puerile?
childish?
facile?
lacking insight?
derivative?
dull?
all of these?

or do you mean the text itself looks a little depressed?

sagamix @ 83

I'm a 3

no no no - you're an 8 you mean, not a 3

a 3 would make you a bit of a reactionary!

log off and go to sleep for heaven's sake

83, sagamix wrote:

"fairly @ 78

well fine and dandy ... but politics is about where you are a scale of core beliefs and values, some of which can conflict

like nobody believes in a free market for third world babies, and nobody thinks that the kebab shop on the corner should be state sector - if the scale is 1 for FM in third world babies, and 10 for nationalisation of kebab shops, then you should be able to place yourself on the spectrum - a progressive would be a low number and a reactionary would be quite high - you sound like a 5, 6 or 7 - I'm a 3

conversely, everyone says they believe in social justice and everyone says they believe in personal freedom - but what matters is which way you jump when the two are in conflict - which one trumps the other? - for me, it's about fairness and equality, but I recognise, e.g. with the abolition of private schools thing, that that entails an attack on certain freedoms that other, more reactionary, types would hold quite dear - but, you know, tough titty"

Saga,

I've had a few glasses of red. Too many, my wife says, so she's in bed. But still doubtful about your scale of measuring people.

How do you reconcile having a free market in third world babies with ranking yourself as a 3?

I can't imagine myself buying or selling any baby. Maybe you're thinking of a liberal called Madonna?

I don't ever envisage a time when the nationalisation of kebab shops would deliver any benefit whatsoever. In fact, the opposite.

Have you inverted your scale?

Dialectic materialism seems to boil down to "stuff happens". Then others things happen. Great insight! No wonder communism lasted for such a short time.

I guess everyone was aware that "stuff happens" for a few thousand years. It just took a spin-doctor to turn it into a relevance... or rather a political philosophy, which isn't worth a spit. (None are!)

Doesn't it make you sick that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler etc couldn't work out that, whatever they did people would still carry on thinking?

If you want an open statement, I tend to believe that "ordinary people" manage pretty well. And cope with appalling circumstances as best they can.

But heavy handed, self-righteous governments stuff them up. Not intentionally, in all cases, but ideals or idealism, make governments believe they have a special insight.

Rowlocks...

Al Gore claimed he'd invented the internet. Do you believe that? Buffoon. Then he's a spokesman for the Global Warming brigade. There is no doubt a very high concern about the global climate. But would you believe a tainted politician?

Sometimes individuals do make a difference. Alexander the Great led, encouraged and coerced a bunch of folks to do incredible things. Including the creation of a massive library, as well as dominating huge territories for a while.

Stalin led, encouraged, coerced a huge nation to behave with attrocities only overtaken by Mao Tse-Tung. But, somewhere in my grasp of history, all that stuff was "justified by" dialectic materialism.

I'm not comfortable with that. Are you???

People are inventive. Regardless of political leadership, people are inventive.

It's just a lot easier if people with little grasp of practical reality could back off a bit and let folk get on with their lives.

86, sagamix wrote:

"sagamix @ 83

I'm a 3

no no no - you're an 8 you mean, not a 3

a 3 would make you a bit of a reactionary!

log off and go to sleep for heaven's sake"


For once, I agree with you saga.

Just wasted a little a while trying to work out where you were coming from.

Still think you are sad if you believe that dialectic materialism is gonna make any damn difference.

People survive. Sometimes governments help by keeping out of the way and letting them grow.

Sometimes the "politically savvy, dialectually enriched" types simply gaze at their navels and wonder at how marvellous they are.

Sadly, I believe that we are in a navel-gazing period. These types are incredulous that they were born so talented and wonderful that they were born leaders.

Maybe incredulous they were allowed to survive birth and live so long without having to go to work...

New tablets for Saga please!

62 laugh

No he didn't offer much - but it's a very clever move - it makes him appear humble (it also smacks of media manipulation, but what doesn't these days) - we can see right through it of course, but that doesn't mean I can't be realistic and admit that people (voters) will lap it up - all Cameron needs to do is make the right noises and he'll waltz in to no.10

doesn't mean I would vote for him, but my vote is worthless anyway

No , I can't buy the " It's Thatchers fault" drivel.
20 odd years on and 11 of the Labour Party surely someone else is culpable?

Guido still has John Stewart, it is not a skit it is an accurate comparison!

I suspect this announcement by David Cameron was a calculated ploy to play The Government at its own game. Gordon Brown was hoping to complete the first leg of his world/bank saving G20 kudos mission this week end by sending his Chancellor to strut the world stage as a financial leader and innovator. Everyone knows of course that he is the master who controls the puppet that is AD. David Cameron's preemptive 'sorry' has helped to blow that faint hope out of the water. I doubt anything concrete will come out of these talks anyway.
A cynical ploy as I have intimated but who cares? Gordon Brown does this kind of thing all the time. Of course we all want something to work but these meetings won't be the catalyst. They are merely a chance for a photo opportunity in an attractive corner of Sussex.

There is or was a saying "Deeds not words".

Dump ID cards - make me happy!

No apology is needed.

The real truth of all this is that it doesn't matter one iota what Brown, Cameron, Cable, Obama, etc, say about all this and what they do about credit.

The people who will perpetuate or end the recession are us. Nothing will happen until we decide to have confidence.

Billions are being wasted by governments around the world in trying to bring the recession to an end. And Britain id bankrupting itself.

My wife and I have a pretty good income - enough that we can invest in shares and save monthly. And enjoy ourselves - we are happy to please - the pictures, the odd meal out, coffee in Cheltenham on Sunday's, that sort of thing. And holidays mainly walking in the UK.

So what have we done?

Stopped investing in shares except for pensions, moved everything else to cash, paying more off our small mortgage (we've lived in the same house for 20 years), searched around to get the best rates on our ISAs, not bought a new car, cook in bulk on Economy 7, etc.

In fact we are maximising our income for retirement.

Are we confident in the future. Well my wife's company is making staff redundant, my clients are all small businesses who are saving cash in the hope of survival, and things look bleak.

Will the VAT decrease or the billions given to the banks change our buying habits. Not likely!

Only when sentiment has changed and we feel confident will we start buying again. I want a digital camers but the prices are stil falling. My wife needs clothes for work but we only buy in heavily discounted sales.

ALL OUR FUTURES depends on the end of the recession and only when the peoples of the world regain confidence will that happen.

Forget the politicians. It is us who have the power to make it happen.

84 cainsy586

No need to apologise for a football team that are rubbish. Its in their own hands!!

Start playing football!!!!

#50 boating-voter

But to be fair, 5 micro-seconds would be enough time for Gideon Osbourne to present his entire economic strategy

fairly @ 87 plus

I've had a few glasses of red

yes, I thought you were going a bit lyrical on me

you're getting the wrong idea, open

I'm not offering DM as some sort of super theory to explain everything, that would not only be ridiculous, it would be a sign of a fairly closed mind!

no, it's just interesting to consider to what extent events are inevitable because of deep, structural factors, as opposed to being affected by the actions of individual people

don't you think that's quite an interesting line of musing?

Chaps, with respect you are all missing the crucial point as far as I can see. All this stuff dating back to apologising all the way back through history does not change a jot of where we are today. We are were we are and in part we made it so. Let us not kid ourselves we all participated in this, some were patently just very good at being greedy and for me that is the lasting legacy if this government that failed me and my principles. We must stop the bickering about the past and move on, and do it quickly.

The 10p tax thing was the final straw, pure politics al la our Prime Minister. That was the turning point for so many, how could HE of all people increase taxes on poor people. Unbelievable. It went against every principle I believe in, you do not hit the poorest in society and cosy up to rich fat cats and become mesmerised by their affulence.

So we need to move on. This whole sorry situation gives us a huge opportunity to right what is wrong. To re-balance our society and make it fairer. I also feel we need to go back to some core values, greed and the so-called celebrity cult has fueled a very different set of values in this country. It needs to be reset and rapidly. Frankly I would get rid of celebrities, who the hell cares about them anyway, they are just egos seeking to feel important. Their lives are meaningless drivel and unimportant. School children should not have ambitions to marry footballers.

It is ridiculous and a sorry reflection on the mantra of Education, Education, Education. Blair WAS RIGHT, he had a vision, but he had no stomach to see it through. How many times do I see people who say to me I did not do school. What form of excuse is that?

What we need is a leader who will take that mantra because without an educated work force we are nothing. All the debates and arguments about Mrs T, John Major, Blair and our current Prime Minister mean nothing if we cannot educate people to secure jobs that are of high value and enable us to compete in a world market. The building of an economy based on debt, no matter who started it, was fundamentally wrong [and I am not economist]. We need change and we need it now.

I will vote for the person that persuades me that they can deliver change that is fair and balanced and creates a society more at ease with itself and less focused on greed and getting rich quickly. I sincerely hope that what our Prime Minister says comes true that on election day we have a choice - because chaps we need it now more than ever before. This is our opportunity to re-define our country and to reclaim it for the mess it is in - no matter where we start the argument of who's fault it is. The past is interesting history and no doubt many will debate this for years to come. Today we need to define our future. It is important that we do that for all our sakes, irrespective of which form of politics you follow.

The corruption that has gone on throughout the entire financial system in the "boom years" is criminal.

Govts - UK and others - either turned a blind eye (not figuring the mess would errupt on their watch) or were just plain stupid.

Games are still be played as we - the taxpayers - are being taken for a bunch of mugs. All one has to do is look at the "suckers rally" this week in the markets once the Big 3 in the US - Citi, BoA and JP Morgan - all announced that they are now miraclously "profitable" again. When will all of this madness end!

https://creditcrunchedoutinuk.blogspot.com/

They're are incapable of saying sorry Nick. Brown and his merry band of woodentops were the architects of this mess, they know their heads are on the block if the admit they were responsible. Just heard Darling on the radio doing the same tired old stuff about other countries having to follow 'our' lead. Wow what arrogance! New Labour have shackled a whole generation of taxpayers to years of tax increases and underfunded public services. They have recklessly spent our money to subsidise failed and failing financial institutions with little or no benefit for the taxpayer. Companies are going bust all over the place, people are losing their jobs, their homes and their relationships all for what? To bail out their friends in the city. What a disgrace. They're spending public money as if it is monopoly money, perhaps it will be soon if they carry-on like this.