today's news

[Colette]

Well,as know one else seems to be broaching the subject I for one would like to say that today we have said goodbye to an honest and honourable man.No matter what your politics are I think it comes to a sad pass when the future of the government of this country depends on the whims of a young and untested man who passed the beauty contest in the television debates.I think that followers of both the main parties will live to rue the day ( and the will he/won't he shenanegins of the last few days) and hopefully at the next election we can elect a leader of either colour who has the majority of the electorate behind him (or her)and who can prove to be a strong and decisive leader. Sorry if I've offended anyone and I expect and probably deserve a complete dressing down by all and sundry.

[Oor Willie]

I'm with you on this one Colette, I'm not a labour voter but I think he was a good honest man who was doing his best for the country all we can hope for now is that the fact that it's a coalition government may rein in the excesses a bit or they may realise that us jocks want nothing to do with them and let us go, nae chance, and anyway I wouldn't trust Alex Salmond as far as I could throw him, there that should stir it up a bit

[MacDuff]

No Colette I don't think you need dressing down. But, whereas honesty and being honourable are excellent characteristics in anyone, they in themselves do not provide talent and political acumen. Gordon Brown's legacy created initially as Chancellor - longest period in British political history- and subsequently as Prime Minister, left the U.K. with massive debt, which will now have to be paid off. Note, the excerpt from The Economist posted under Benedetti's election night party. But even more damning is The Economist of May 8. Heading: "A lamentable legacy". Then: "In 1997 national employment was bounding ahead and unemployment tumbling. The public finances were on the mend. The legacy after the 2010 election could hardly differ more. Unemployment is still rising. The blowout in public borrowing is far graver than in the 1990s.

There is a way out of the mess (the legacy!)but the journey will be arduous and perilous. A sustained recovery must be combined with a harsh clampdown on government spending and increased taxation."

Then later in the same article: "Such a meagre growth rate will not suffice to stop further job losses. Unemployment has reached 2.5m, or 8% of the workforce, the highest since 1996. It is likely to carry on rising, even if it falls short of the 3m." I repeat, The Economist is not regarded as a right wing journal and indeed supported Blair in the two previous elections.

On the other hand, with regard to "the whims of a young and untested man", What about John F. Kennedy, son of an incredibly wealthy father (a consequence of illegal activities) and Barack Obama?

The truth is that the honest an honourable man has left the U.K. in a perilous financial mess, and the electorate will have to pay the price of his profligacy and inept financial management.

[Kojak]

Not offended in the least, Colette but I expect I'll be shot down in flames and you'll box my ears on Friday (no blood on the best weddings/funerals 3 pce suite!) I for one am glad to see the back of him. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he gave away our gold reserves for a ridiculous price and as Chancellor of the Exchequer in all but name and Prime Minister he continued spending money we didn't have. Consequently when the crunch came we didn't have any reserves to cushion the blow. I'm only sad that two-timing Nick Clegg is feeling so self-important. He was like a little lad who couldn't choose between an ice lolly and a cornet. Hopefully, in time he'll end up with neither and without inflicting any of his parties zany policies. Like the old chinese proverb we are, unfortunately in for interesting times.

[StDavid]

All very interesting. I think Gordon Brown and his party cannot take all the blame as he did have to cope with a recession not of his making.
The ConDemNation (coalition) will probably not be a long lived Government, as historically they do not work very well.
I do believe he was a good Man and seemed genuine.
Wonder what flavour of Government we will have next.

[Colette]

No Norman I won't box your ears , as if I would!We can all agree to disagree. The good news is that a good day out will be enjoyed by the Northern Symi contingent on Friday for Gillian and Bernard's wedding.Hopefully someone will be IT literate enough to put the photos on the website.

[benedetti]

I am in disgust at the sight of two old Etonians on the steps of No. 10...workers of the world unite against this iniquity.

[snoopy2]

Interesting first Cabinet meeting - rise in v.a.t. but not on hire of or purchase of status helicopters - well we are relieved - buying two next week!! First statement of intent - tax the poor reward the rich - serves the country right for getting rid of the one man that could have dug us out of the mess.

[MacDuff]

I had been under the impression that the position of the U.K banks was a consequence of their actions under Gordon Brown's legislation which resulted in them having to be bailed out. That the U.K. housing bubble was a consequence of U.K. banking "principles". Northern Rock was whose fault? RBS and others having to be bailed out by the U.K. taxpayers was whose fault? The massive U.K. debt built up during the period of Mr. Brown's tenure in Downing Street first as Chancellor and then as Prime Minister was whose fault? Does Mr. Brown really walk on water?

Of course it could be that the two Etonians have inherited a garden of roses and that the immediate record debt in British history is their fault, but such a conclusion takes a vivid imagination. But, on the other hand, it could be that the drop in the value of the pound to a record low in history, the record U.K. debt in history, the huge unemployment figures - all of which occurred during Mr. Brown's period of thirteen years in Downing Street are a reflection of his talents and are his legacy. Because that's what the figures show, what the international markets demonstrate and what The Economist reported.

Just because Mr. Blair (Fettes has some claim to being the Eton of Scotland) and Mr. Brown were undergraduates together at Edinburgh University, doesn't mean that they have talents lacking in the two Etonians. My memory - of admittedly quite a long time ago, reminds me that the No. 1 academic school in the U.K. was Manchester Grammar School (under Dr. James) and that Eton was fifth. Further, and do correct me if I am wrong, Cameron studied PPE - the E standing for economics.

[StDavid]

Does this mean the the collapse of the American banks and housing bubble were Gordon Browns fault too? There I was thinking it was a combination of greed and mismanagement by the banks and a world wide recession.
I am glad the Nu Conservative government has gone (oops meant labour ) but only because any party that is in power too long does seem to start causing harm.
Look at the hopeless last Conservative government.
The rise in VAT will hit the poor, pensioners and those on benefits hugely as they do not have the income to absorb it.
The raising of the tax threshold of those earning �10,000 or less will not help much.
This new ConDem government has already started out badly.

The huge unemployment figures are a consequence of the destruction of UK industry by the last Conservative government. We then started a downward spiral of other industries collapsing because of the loss of their trading infrastructure, ie. the businesses they traded with were no more or had been moved abroad.
Remember unemployment was highest under the Conservative government. The denationalisation of railways and utilities has made society far worse and travel horribly expensive.
Damn it! I did not mean to go off on a rant.
Old Millfieldian, so ex public school as well.
As I was just saying to my other half, "political, me? never".

[D and E]

The scariest thing I read catching up on the election coverage (thankfully we were on Symi on the day that will prove to have been the electorate's biggest mistake) was the description of the new Cabinet as being of a generation of "Thatcher's Children". But will they have learned from her economic ignorance and social arrogance ? I doubt.

It was that woman and her ultra-rightwing cohorts (many who still lurk around in the shadows of power in both houses) that left the country in such a state that public borrowing was required on top of record rates of economic growth. How else could we have paid for at least an attempt to recover the NHS (which is still in places woeful - we are having first hand experience of that as I write !!) and other essential public services that had been subject to no investment during the Tories years of mismanagement.

Being a lifelong socialist, and unlike so many still proud to call myself that, my elation when the Tories were so solidily defeated was soon deflated when "New" Labour did not take the opportunities to reverse so much of the anti working class measures that Thatcher had put in place. To gain an insight into why just read Alistair Campbell's Diaries - The Blair Years. I recommed blood pressure pills when reading this if you are a like minded socialist.

Brown was a competent Chancellor that made some mistakes and Kojak sets these out but in effect he was promoted beyond his competence. Being in the Civil Service all my life I have seen this so many times - a belief that because someone can do a job at one level well they must be able to step up to the next. However his understaning of global economics is sound and without his intervention we may have found ourselves standing at the "hole in the wall" punching in our PIN numbers and getting nothing out.

Britain has become as shallow as the USA and all that was missing from the TV Debates was Simon Cowell and his airhead judges. Image and celebrity is all - look how Blair faired well for so long on simple soundbites and an excrutiating smile - now we have this in stereo. We therefore have got what we deserved.

As for the economy I put this down to the "special relationship" and the USA's dominance in the world economy. We were so tucked up with Bush's evil empire that our banks couldn't resist buying toxic financial instruments that intially turned record profits but then went sour. Look at Goldman Sachs latest exposures where they were still selling bad deals to a large number of small investors and advising their priviledged few to hedge against. Just as well I oppose capital punishment !!

As for recovery be careful for what we wish for. Public Sector spending is a huge economic driver with much of the spending generating activity in the private sector especially as so many services are contracted out to small and medium sized enterprises. A severe and sudden cut in public spending will result in a return to recession. A managed longer term strategy is much more likely to work. Let's start with Trident - after all the USA has enough nuclear weapons for us all and surely they are due us something from that "special relationship".

[mr wotsin]

Unfortunately Mr Brown could not see past his own ego. He still believes he did nothing wrong, even selling our pension rights. He thinks he saved the world from economic disaster. Going back to when he was rector of Edinburgh University he demanded that Prince Philip swear him in because he was Duke of Edinburgh. He demanded that Blair should step down. When he gives a speech and his mouth drops to one side I always expect a lie next. I could put up with the party but not Gordon.

[MacDuff]

Whereas I would be one of the first to encourage difference of views and allocation of responsibility - for example, if Maggie Thatcher is(was) responsible for the sins, errors and admissions of the Blair Brown duo, perhaps she could(can) claim in turn that Clement Attlee and subsequently Harold Wilson, were responsible for her mistakes. An endeavor to blame the U.S. for Blair and Brown's mismanagement just doesn't wash. Yes, the U.S. was responsible for the U.S. bank collapse and housing bubble. But Blair and Brown were equally responsible for the U.K. bank collapse and housing bubble. I again remind you that none of the Canadian banks collapsed - due to sound GOVERNMENT regulation, not a single one got a single buck of public money! However, now that some of the guilty countries have recognized the error of their ways, they are endeavoring to set up a system of taxing the banks to form a bail-out fund.



We in Canada see no reason why, having had proper regulations and our banks complying with them, that our banks should have to pay such a tax - which in turn imposes costs on the public. Rather, we think that the banks in those other countries should learn from experience and copy the Canadian regulations! Doesn't that make "commonsense".?

Those of us who recall 1979 and the disasterous mess which led to Callaghan's demise, can recall that the U.K. required a Dictator - irrespective of party. Yes, it duly elected one. But few, if any, can claim that the 1973 - 1979 period was other than a bleak period in U.K. economic history leaving a very high level of debt in it's wake!

The grocer's daughter didn't attend Eton. Where was the 3rd Viscount Stansgate educated?

[D and E]

What I would like to know is how the relationship between Canada and the USA works. I get the distinct impression that GB is so enamoured with the USA that they say jump and we say how high. Perhaps the Canadians are not so in love with the USA. I totally agree that deregulation of the financial sector over here was a major error of judgement and it is good to hear that Canada did not suffer. Looking at pre-Thatcher I believe that politics were more liberal and the seachange came with her appointment. This thread has been an excellent exchange of views.

[MacDuff]

Well D and E, despite my willingness to write at length, a quarter answer would take a lot of space. Our impression is that the U.S. think that we live in igloos. We have the North American Free Trade Agreement with the U.S., Mexico and Canada. In general we are good neighbours, but like a Cornish saying, "Us won't be druve." For example, we did not take any role in Iraq. But on the other hand, as a NATO partner we are involved in Afghanistan where we have lost 145 soldiers to date. Our dollar is ours, and tends to be below the value of the U.S. one, but every now and then will reach par or exceed it. U.S. banks tend not to do much business here, as they don't like our regulations. Another difference is that we have a health system which although primarily funded by our Federal Government, is administered within in each province by it's provincial government. That of course is because we are a federation of ten provinces and a couple of territories. We like to think that we are modest, but went a touch over the top at the Vancouver OLympics when although third in the overall medal count, we had more gold medals than any country in Olympic history, the last being for the men's ice hockey where we beat the U.S. with a goal in overtime. Yes, the country is hockey mad! In the Summer Olympics, we have also had our moments - perhaps the most memorable ones being in Atlanta, U.S. of A., when a Canadian won the 100 metres and then real salt was rubbed into the wound, when Canada won the 4 x 100 metres! The U.S. of A. then claimed that their 200 metre winner was actually the fastest man (one Johnson). So he was duly challenged by our fellow to a race over 150 metres - and pulled up when clearly taking a beating. But, when Katrina struck, Canadian troops wre there in 48 hours - slightly longer than it took us to send aid and troops to Haiti.Individual Canadians then contributed $148 million for Haiti relief in one month, which our Federal government promptly matched and then added another $150 million. Our per capita GDP is a bit lower than that of the U.S., but we don't mind, as the measurement is in U.S. dollars - see the Economist. We are fast becoming a very multicultural society, giving preference to political and racial refugees and in that respect are second only to the U.S.
With regard to 1979, I think a lot of people are either too young to remember or alternatively have forgotten just how bad the U.K. economy got under Callaghan. As I said previously, the country needed a dictator irrespective of party - and elected one. She straightened things out and then overstayed her welcome. I have a pet theory that the U.S. is correct in limiting time in office for their political leaders to 8 years. After that, politicians tend to think that they are indispensable and act accordingly. It happened with Wilson, Thatcher and Blair!!
We in Canada have now been out of recession for over 9 months. Employment has been on the rise and the economy although still a bit fragile, is steadily improving. Like everybody else, the Greek thing has affected our markets, but not as severely as Europe. Will the drachma return?
I should perhaps mention a couple of differences between "Brits" and Canadians. In my time, British schools encouraged debating societies and fairly vigorous debate. This in turn led to adults being able to discuss and disagree without offence. In Canada, people tend to be offended by the expression of a different view. You would say thin skinned. Another difference is that Canadians "eat out" more than any other nation on earth. Yes, it helps to multiply obesity. That is supported by Coca Cola putting even more sugar into their product than they do in the U.S. Of course some claim it is a consequence of their genes, but my response is that in the U.K. during the Second World War, no obese people were to be seen! (Or indeed in the 1945-51 period of the Attlee/Cripps/Summerskill/Bevan/Bevin government when rationing was even more severe - I recall in 1947, my late mother saying to my older brother and I that she could no longer feed us and we would have to go to a cafe three times a week. Potatoes were rationed in 1947 and bread in 1948. When elected in 1951, Churchill immediately scrapped the ration books AND the indentity cards - what was it that Brown intended to introduce? Some folks love turning individuals into numbers! Hope you can deduce a few things about Canada from what I have said. I should add that each province has it's own taxes. The Feds have a 5% sales tax and provincial ones vary from 7% to 8%. In Alberta we don't have a sales tax and we have the lowest level of personal taxes. It may just be coincidence, but last year, Alberta celebrated 40 years of successive Progressive Conservative governments. It is illegal to have a budget deficit and there is over 20 billion tucked away for rainy days.

[MacDuff]

Hey everybody 8-) Who was the last white man to win the Olympic 100 metres :?:

Answer is Colin Wells, a Scot and represnting Great Britain, at the Moscow Olympics in 1980. Quite properly the Americans reacted by saying that he only won because they were not there :twisted: BUT, when it came to the "World's" the following year, they were there in force :o Who won the 100 metres :?: Why Great Britain represented by Colin Wells :o