If you were to survey Labour party members just now about who they thought was the worst ever Labour Prime Minister,who do you think would be the most popular (for want of a better description) choice? Just a thought.
Mind how you go!
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
It's not a gate, it's a political scandal story
I dislike the now common habit of adding 'gate' to a word to indicate a political scandal - the latest being 'smeargate'. I wish it would stop - or that someone would create a scandal about a garden ...
Anyway, I can thoroughly recommend the blog which has caused all the fuss: http://theredrag.co.uk/
Excellent writing, fine prose, eloquence at its very best.
Mind how you go!
Anyway, I can thoroughly recommend the blog which has caused all the fuss: http://theredrag.co.uk/
Excellent writing, fine prose, eloquence at its very best.
Mind how you go!
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Opinion polling
As we hear rumours of Gordon Brown considering an election this year, I wondered what may count against it in Brown's mind, so I looked at the most recent Yougov poll and thought "what if you remove the Scottish figures?" I reckon it gives you these figures:
Conservative 43%
Labour 33%
Lib Dem 16%
Others 7%
I may be wrong but I think, even allowing for Labour's over-representation in Scotland and disallowing the seats that we're about to take from them, that those results would give Cameron a working majority.
I think Brown will lose whenever he calls the election - too many mistakes made, too much of a mess left - but I think he's also hanging on and thinking "events, dear boy, events".
Ah, Callaghan
Conservative 43%
Labour 33%
Lib Dem 16%
Others 7%
I may be wrong but I think, even allowing for Labour's over-representation in Scotland and disallowing the seats that we're about to take from them, that those results would give Cameron a working majority.
I think Brown will lose whenever he calls the election - too many mistakes made, too much of a mess left - but I think he's also hanging on and thinking "events, dear boy, events".
Ah, Callaghan
Saturday, 11 April 2009
Oh, that terrible world crisis!
Who’s for a wee wander then? Excellent, follow me. Gordon Brown, in an interview on the Jeremy Vine show, insisted that the banking crisis was a global problem. It’s not.
The Australian banks haven’t melted down and haven’t needed a bail-out, nor have the New Zealand banks. When the Australian Government made a commitment to guarantee all deposits in an attempt to quiet troubled markets, the Australian Bankers Association was quick to emphasise that it wasn’t a bail-out and that the deposits were safe in any case.
Australia’s Treasurer, Wayne Swan was emphatic when he announced liquidity funding:
"Whereas the US Treasury is being forced to issue debt to invest in existing troubled mortgage assets, such as securities backed by subprime mortgages with high default rates, the [Australian Office of Financial Management] will invest only in newly issued, prime, triple-A rated RMBS that meet strict criteria in relation to the quality of the underlying mortgages".
In fact, Australia’s four main banks are pumping money into a new liquidity scheme in partnership with the Government. Ah, liquidity rather than propping up bankruptcy, properly regulated banks, oh the delights of old-fashioned prudence!
Then there’s Japan – it’s banks are struggling a little and are getting a dose of Government help but it’s nothing like a bailout or nationalisation. In the latter part of last year, Japan’s banks began buying up parts of failed US banks - which might be why their credit ratings may take a wee dunt, depending on whether their internal business models have stacked up properly. Japan’s banks, of course, are recovering from having their own problems a while back and learned the lesson a while back – it’s a pity our regulators smirked instead of learning.
Canada’s banks are closely regulated, meaning that they have come out shining and squeaky clean – drawing admiring glances from the US President (I imagine a few Canadian bankers sipped their drinks and muttered “it’s like 1812 all over again” with a wee smile). In fact, Canada’s banks have done so well that the Canadian Prime Minister fancies a bit of hunting, encouraging them to attend the US fire-sales - they feel disgruntled by annual profits sinking to ‘only’ $12bn while banks here would be delighted to restrict their individual losses to such an amount.
Indian Banks are doing so well that their share prices are on the way up and the banks themselves are starting to fund airlines’ new plane purchases. Indian banks are increasing their lending while our banks are shrivelling.
The Australian banks haven’t melted down and haven’t needed a bail-out, nor have the New Zealand banks. When the Australian Government made a commitment to guarantee all deposits in an attempt to quiet troubled markets, the Australian Bankers Association was quick to emphasise that it wasn’t a bail-out and that the deposits were safe in any case.
Australia’s Treasurer, Wayne Swan was emphatic when he announced liquidity funding:
"Whereas the US Treasury is being forced to issue debt to invest in existing troubled mortgage assets, such as securities backed by subprime mortgages with high default rates, the [Australian Office of Financial Management] will invest only in newly issued, prime, triple-A rated RMBS that meet strict criteria in relation to the quality of the underlying mortgages".
In fact, Australia’s four main banks are pumping money into a new liquidity scheme in partnership with the Government. Ah, liquidity rather than propping up bankruptcy, properly regulated banks, oh the delights of old-fashioned prudence!
Then there’s Japan – it’s banks are struggling a little and are getting a dose of Government help but it’s nothing like a bailout or nationalisation. In the latter part of last year, Japan’s banks began buying up parts of failed US banks - which might be why their credit ratings may take a wee dunt, depending on whether their internal business models have stacked up properly. Japan’s banks, of course, are recovering from having their own problems a while back and learned the lesson a while back – it’s a pity our regulators smirked instead of learning.
Canada’s banks are closely regulated, meaning that they have come out shining and squeaky clean – drawing admiring glances from the US President (I imagine a few Canadian bankers sipped their drinks and muttered “it’s like 1812 all over again” with a wee smile). In fact, Canada’s banks have done so well that the Canadian Prime Minister fancies a bit of hunting, encouraging them to attend the US fire-sales - they feel disgruntled by annual profits sinking to ‘only’ $12bn while banks here would be delighted to restrict their individual losses to such an amount.
Indian Banks are doing so well that their share prices are on the way up and the banks themselves are starting to fund airlines’ new plane purchases. Indian banks are increasing their lending while our banks are shrivelling.
Russian banks (I’ve no idea what the regulatory system in Russia is) have not yet needed any bailout but might need help in the later part of this year since the Russian banks survived much longer than ours, can we judge them better or did it just take longer?
It’s not a global problem, it’s a problem caused by poor banking regulation in those countries which allowed it. Gordon Brown’s tenure as Chancellor puts him right in the frame.
Gordon Brown went on to claim that he had warned about the financial crisis for years. Hmmmm….Let’s have a look at a speech that Brown gave on the Global Economy at the Reuters Building on October 1st 2007:
In the last 10 years our commitment to stability has been tested again and again, in the Asian crisis in 1997/8, the Russian crisis, the American recession, the trebling of oil prices, and of course in the last month with a wake-up call for every financial system round the world, a wave of turbulence that started in America, then Germany, has impacted on all countries and tested the stability of our own system. I believe it is because of the resilience of the system that has been built in the United Kingdom - Bank of England independence, the Financial Services Authority, the tripartite system we now have - that we are able to steer a stable course.
Yup, those regulators had it just about spot on, eh?
In any other decade but ours a trebling of world oil prices might have caused a recession but I believe the world economy showed itself flexible enough to adjust. Double digit price rises in housing in the United Kingdom in other decades have sparked downturns, but we have been flexible enough to be able to adapt. And I believe that because of the changes that have been made worldwide and then the changes that we have made in Britain, we are sufficiently flexible to adjust when events threaten our growth. And we will certainly continue to take all measures that are necessary to ensure that we are in future even more flexible to deal with events as they arise and to steer a course of stability.
Oh, aye, just so. See those warnings about the impending financial crisis just shining through?
In the days ahead we will continue to respond with the same calm vigilance. It is time however to recognise that there are changes in the financial system globally as well as nationally that do need to be made. Of course some of the wisdom we need is to refuse, even in the wake of difficulties, to make unnecessary changes. When Enron and WorldCom happened we did not in Britain respond with heavy-handed regulation. I believe that was the right decision then and in the same way we will not make that mistake now, but we will take measures that are necessary.
See how he insists on building us a buttress against the coming financial crisis?
You know better than me how we are and can continue to entrench our position as a world leader in business and financial services, but from the point of view of the government we insist that we will continue to implement our new risk-based light touch approach to regulation, we will make our planning system more flexible and responsive and of course we will work together on infrastructure to invest in our long term priorities. And I believe that that is an important part of London retaining its position as the pre-eminent financial centre in so many sectors.
Whoops! With a liability as Prime Minister is it any wonder we’re in difficulties?
Ach, woe is me, I’m aff to have stovies. Mind how you go!
Ach, woe is me, I’m aff to have stovies. Mind how you go!
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
They'll bet on anything
It comes to my attention (courtesy of a political betting website) that betting has started on Scottish Independence. Not being the type of chap who bets with a turf accountant, I found it strange that there was enough betting on politics to support a betting website, and it never even thought about crossing my mind that a bookie would be taking bets on the outcome of the Independence referendum next year. Surprised? You're goodling right I was surprised. Surely those odds aren't right though ...
Mind how you go!
Mind how you go!
Frank Ellis
I was saddened to hear that Councillor Frank Ellis has died. Frank was a good councillor, a good servant of the people who elected him (a fine joiner too) and one of life's decent human beings.
He was a guy who would always help if he could, and a committed and dedicated nationalist. He'll be missed.
He was a guy who would always help if he could, and a committed and dedicated nationalist. He'll be missed.
Monday, 6 April 2009
Professor Sir Neil MacCormick
The rallying cry of the MacCormick was always a thunderous belly-laugh and the trademark was the joke that carried on far past its normal life because the teller of the joke was laughing too much. Neil MacCormick was a man of enormous good humour, fantastic generosity of spirit and deep humanity. He was liked and respected on every road he travelled.
He was loved and respected in the SNP, highly regarded as one of the towering intellects who made the philosophical and jurisprudential case for Scottish independence, his extensive knowledge and deep understanding of the concepts and principles of constitutional law giving a solid underpinning to the party's positioning on constitutional matters. As the son of John MacCormick Neil would have grown up learning all sides of the debate in the family home and he made contribution to the cause which was substantial in every meaning of the word - a contribution which, it could be argued, was greater than his father's. Many party members have been privileged to witness excellent and well-argued tea-room debates at conference (honest, they weren't in the bar) between Neil and other members of the party with a similarly deep philosophical take on nationalism - people like Neil's friend Dr Allan McCartney who preceded him as an MEP and into that last campaign.
Neil was one of those few people who could excel in more than one field and it is a measure of his ability and his modesty that those of us who knew him mainly or entirely through politics have little appreciation of the scale and scope of his achievements in academia and those who knew him from academia have little appreciation of the regard in which his political abilities are held on this side of the fence. One chap who knew Neil on both sides of the fence described his lecturing technique in these terms:
Fellow academics at Edinburgh University held him in high regard as well, one (who is no laggard himself) described Neil to me as 'the outstanding legal intellect of his generation'. He was sought by Ivy League universities but turned them down, preferring to stay in Scotland, and his contribution was marked when Edinburgh University took the unusual step of granting him an honorary degree (universities don't usually give those to their own academic staff) - one of the seven honorary degrees bestowed upon Neil during his career. John Swinney made sure that his diary was free for that afternoon so that the party was represented by one of our most senior members at the ceremony, indicating the regard in which the party held Neil - although personal friendship would also be playing a part in John's decision. The scale and the importance of Neil MacCormick's academic exploits can be seen in the Biographical details held on Edinburgh University's website.
Neil had one dark secret - when at Oxford University he helped Lord James Douglas Hamilton to pass an exam. Lord James had turned up with footwear which would not have been acceptable in the exam and Neil loaned him the shoes which Neil was wearing so he could sit his exam.
It's perhaps illustrative of the character of Neil MacCormick that he was an internationally known and respected academic and he was one of the leading intellectual lights of the SNP but that he always found time to talk to whoever sought him out for advice and that his favourite stories which he told 'on himself' were not about his achievements but about things like the Burns Supper where the catering arrangements went wrong and the local chipper was pressed into service for haggis suppers. He had discoursed with scholars and reasoned with fools but still had the humility to hand credit which belonged to him on to others who deserved it less. SNP members all across the country can tell stories of how Neil MacCormick helped them out, helped them up, gave them advice, and then changed the subject when thanks were proffered.
Even in his final illness he looked ahead to a better Scotland, regretting that he wouldn't be around to see independence but that, like his father, he was a staging post in the long march to independence and along the way he had improved some things around him. In a Sunday herald interview he said his great sadness was that he wouldn't have a long retirement to enjoy with Flora and her philosophical take on his illness spoke to the support she always had for him. She said we are all in life's departure lounge but that Neil had a better idea of his departure time than most of us.
He's departed now, and Neil will be missed, missed sorely by those who knew him - and missed sorely by the SNP.
He was loved and respected in the SNP, highly regarded as one of the towering intellects who made the philosophical and jurisprudential case for Scottish independence, his extensive knowledge and deep understanding of the concepts and principles of constitutional law giving a solid underpinning to the party's positioning on constitutional matters. As the son of John MacCormick Neil would have grown up learning all sides of the debate in the family home and he made contribution to the cause which was substantial in every meaning of the word - a contribution which, it could be argued, was greater than his father's. Many party members have been privileged to witness excellent and well-argued tea-room debates at conference (honest, they weren't in the bar) between Neil and other members of the party with a similarly deep philosophical take on nationalism - people like Neil's friend Dr Allan McCartney who preceded him as an MEP and into that last campaign.
Neil was one of those few people who could excel in more than one field and it is a measure of his ability and his modesty that those of us who knew him mainly or entirely through politics have little appreciation of the scale and scope of his achievements in academia and those who knew him from academia have little appreciation of the regard in which his political abilities are held on this side of the fence. One chap who knew Neil on both sides of the fence described his lecturing technique in these terms:
He didn't use notes, he wasn't delivering a prewritten hour, he was more in the realms of calling it down from the heavens.
Fellow academics at Edinburgh University held him in high regard as well, one (who is no laggard himself) described Neil to me as 'the outstanding legal intellect of his generation'. He was sought by Ivy League universities but turned them down, preferring to stay in Scotland, and his contribution was marked when Edinburgh University took the unusual step of granting him an honorary degree (universities don't usually give those to their own academic staff) - one of the seven honorary degrees bestowed upon Neil during his career. John Swinney made sure that his diary was free for that afternoon so that the party was represented by one of our most senior members at the ceremony, indicating the regard in which the party held Neil - although personal friendship would also be playing a part in John's decision. The scale and the importance of Neil MacCormick's academic exploits can be seen in the Biographical details held on Edinburgh University's website.
Neil had one dark secret - when at Oxford University he helped Lord James Douglas Hamilton to pass an exam. Lord James had turned up with footwear which would not have been acceptable in the exam and Neil loaned him the shoes which Neil was wearing so he could sit his exam.
It's perhaps illustrative of the character of Neil MacCormick that he was an internationally known and respected academic and he was one of the leading intellectual lights of the SNP but that he always found time to talk to whoever sought him out for advice and that his favourite stories which he told 'on himself' were not about his achievements but about things like the Burns Supper where the catering arrangements went wrong and the local chipper was pressed into service for haggis suppers. He had discoursed with scholars and reasoned with fools but still had the humility to hand credit which belonged to him on to others who deserved it less. SNP members all across the country can tell stories of how Neil MacCormick helped them out, helped them up, gave them advice, and then changed the subject when thanks were proffered.
Even in his final illness he looked ahead to a better Scotland, regretting that he wouldn't be around to see independence but that, like his father, he was a staging post in the long march to independence and along the way he had improved some things around him. In a Sunday herald interview he said his great sadness was that he wouldn't have a long retirement to enjoy with Flora and her philosophical take on his illness spoke to the support she always had for him. She said we are all in life's departure lounge but that Neil had a better idea of his departure time than most of us.
He's departed now, and Neil will be missed, missed sorely by those who knew him - and missed sorely by the SNP.
Friday, 3 April 2009
Gee-Whizz on the G20
So, the G20 has concluded its intricate deliberations and has issued a communique or two to tell us all what we should believe has been achieved. I'm deeply, deeply moved...
Gordon Brown celebrated the end of the Washington Consensus, hailing a "new world order" (I know, I know - another one). The Washington Consensus was a term coined by economist John Williamson in 1989 to describe what the international institutions based in Washington thought would be good economic policies for Latin America! It has ten strands:
Leaving aside the fact that the Consensus was about Latin America, let's look at what Gordon Brown would be pleased to see the end of:
Fiscal discipline
In essence, fiscal discipline comes down to running the country's finances properly - not having too much debt, that kind of thing. Should the Prime Minister really be celebrating the end of that?
Redirection of public expenditure
Gordon, apparently, doesn't think we should be spending money on healthcare, education, building infrastructure, income redistribution, and so on...
Tax reform
He doesn't believe in reducing marginal tax rates (there are arguments on both sides for that one) and doesn't believe in widening the tax base - he must think that the tax system is fine and doesn't need changed at all.
Interest rates
Not in favour of interest rate liberalisation? I don't think I am either - there's some argument that financial liberalisation has been partly to blame for some of the financial crises.
Exchange rate
Against a competitive exchange rate? Oor Goggsy? What happened to the neoclassical non-endogenous growth theory?
Trade liberalisation
Here's Brown calling for an end to trade liberalisation at the same time as he argued that we must shy away from protectionism.
Liberalisation of FDI inflows
Gordon Brown now opposes inward investment?
Privatisation
Well... I'll leave it to the economist John Williamson:
Deregulation
*ahem*!
Secure property rights
Surely Gordon Brown doesn't oppose secure property rights? Well, except for Scottish building societies, that is...
So, who thinks that Brown really seeks the end of the Washington Consensus - which was, after all, nothing more than a point of view, an opinion? He couldn't be talking about the end of neoliberalism, could he?
Mind how you go!
Gordon Brown celebrated the end of the Washington Consensus, hailing a "new world order" (I know, I know - another one). The Washington Consensus was a term coined by economist John Williamson in 1989 to describe what the international institutions based in Washington thought would be good economic policies for Latin America! It has ten strands:
Fiscal discipline.
A redirection of public expenditure priorities toward fields offering both high economic returns and the potential to improve income distribution, such as primary health care, primary education, and infrastructure.
Tax reform (to lower marginal rates and broaden the tax base).
Interest rate liberalisation.
A competitive exchange rate.
Trade liberalisation.
Liberalisation of FDI inflows.
Privatisation.
Deregulation.
Secure property rights.
Leaving aside the fact that the Consensus was about Latin America, let's look at what Gordon Brown would be pleased to see the end of:
Fiscal discipline
In essence, fiscal discipline comes down to running the country's finances properly - not having too much debt, that kind of thing. Should the Prime Minister really be celebrating the end of that?
Redirection of public expenditure
Gordon, apparently, doesn't think we should be spending money on healthcare, education, building infrastructure, income redistribution, and so on...
Tax reform
He doesn't believe in reducing marginal tax rates (there are arguments on both sides for that one) and doesn't believe in widening the tax base - he must think that the tax system is fine and doesn't need changed at all.
Interest rates
Not in favour of interest rate liberalisation? I don't think I am either - there's some argument that financial liberalisation has been partly to blame for some of the financial crises.
Exchange rate
Against a competitive exchange rate? Oor Goggsy? What happened to the neoclassical non-endogenous growth theory?
Trade liberalisation
Here's Brown calling for an end to trade liberalisation at the same time as he argued that we must shy away from protectionism.
Liberalisation of FDI inflows
Gordon Brown now opposes inward investment?
Privatisation
Well... I'll leave it to the economist John Williamson:
My own view is that privatization can be very constructive where it results in increased competition, and useful where it eases fiscal pressures, but I am not persuaded that public service is always inferior to private acquisitiveness as a motivating force. Under certain circumstances, such as where marginal costs are less than average costs (for example, in public transport) or in the presence of environmental spillovers too complex to be easily compensated by regulation (for example, in the case of water supply), I continue to believe public ownership to be preferable to private enterprise. But this view is not typical of Washington.
Deregulation
*ahem*!
Secure property rights
Surely Gordon Brown doesn't oppose secure property rights? Well, except for Scottish building societies, that is...
So, who thinks that Brown really seeks the end of the Washington Consensus - which was, after all, nothing more than a point of view, an opinion? He couldn't be talking about the end of neoliberalism, could he?
Mind how you go!
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Scurrilous
As a scurrilous rumour monger, I feel obliged to poke a little fun.
Buy a T-shirt from Kezia - what's the connection?
Buy a T-shirt from Kezia - what's the connection?
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Thank you Darling!
What a couple of days I've had! There I was in the wee shop round the corner (picked up a few wee groceries, including the delectable smoked mackerel pate, lovely it is), just standing at the till whistling a charming little ditty to myself when it reached my turn and the young lady rang up my purchases.
Well, I say purchases, but it never quite got that far, it got as far as her saying "that'll be £11.52 please" and me reaching for my wallet to discover that it wasn't there - I'd left it in my house. Jings, crivvens, how embarrassing! I had to explain that I'd have to nip back and get it and could she just hang onto my stuff for me and I wouldn't be long. Then I turned round and explained to the guy behind me what had happened - that was a big mistake.
The guy behind me turned out to be Alistair Darling - Chancellor of the Parish. He shoved me out the way, paid £23.04 for my messages, seized all my assets and publicly disclaimed me. I've asked him to justify his actions but he just tells me that I'm the author of my own misfortune - funnily enough, I thought he was the author ....
Mind how you go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)