Blimey! I've just been contacted by the FT on the topic of banks and rogue traders. On/off the record? Can one trust journalists? OTOH a pretty good way of getting myself into the eye of possible clients..........Questions, questions.....
Anyway, must calm down. Otherwise I'll morph into a female @SeanT. And that would never do.
You really have to grab that sort of chance. And we have it on good authority that @SeanT is a happily married man of impeachable behaviour. I mean unimpeachable. Woops!
Can one trust journalists?
Sort of. You can trust them on the on the record or off the record bit, but as many people have learnt over the years, you need to be very clear about this at the outset (I think it was Steve Bannon who was the latest victim of not being clear - with the New Yorker).
A good journalist will ask open questions then allow you to fill the space, giving you time to say something a bit further than you had planned. So plan well before hand.
Blimey! I've just been contacted by the FT on the topic of banks and rogue traders. On/off the record? Can one trust journalists? OTOH a pretty good way of getting myself into the eye of possible clients..........Questions, questions.....
Anyway, must calm down. Otherwise I'll morph into a female @SeanT. And that would never do.
You really have to grab that sort of chance. And we have it on good authority that @SeanT is a happily married man of impeachable behaviour. I mean unimpeachable. Woops!
Can one trust journalists?
Sort of. You can trust them on the on the record or off the record bit, but as many people have learnt over the years, you need to be very clear about this at the outset (I think it was Steve Bannon who was the latest victim of not being clear - with the New Yorker).
A good journalist will ask open questions then allow you to fill the space, giving you time to say something a bit further than you had planned. So plan well before hand.
Its tricky in a situation like this, particularly when trying to launch a new business, but I would suggest you want to have something interesting to say that you have planned in advance rather than responding to the journalist's agenda. But in what I understand to be @cyclefree's line of business to be quoted in the FT is certainly attractive.
Miss Cyclefree, highlight past experience, relevant qualifications, and, perhaps most importantly, why hiring you is good for the customer.
Somewhat hesitant to raise this (the launch was dreadful as I managed to combine being ill for the first time in years with it so couldn't do the stuff I wanted to), but if anyone wants proofreading/formatting, I'm free /Inmanvoice
I suppose I could say, apropos the discussion on the thread, hire me or you'll end up like RBS. Or even "hire me and I'll stop you stop hiring crooks".
The trick is saying this without falling into that strange non-language known as management bollocks.
Anyway have been given some more contacts so need to go off and do some email networking.....
Good luck. I’d do a home page, a page on problems, a page on solutions, a couple of case studies, a bio page and a contact form. Keep it simple for now.
Write the whole thing in first person plural, it gives the impression that you’re more than just one person.
Get a landline “Office” phone number and use an answer phone or a divert to your mobile - don’t write your mobile number on your website unless you want 100 spam sales calls a day.
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
" The independence movement maintains the absolute majority by the minimum in the Parlament de Catalunya. The SocioMétrica poll for EL ESPAÑOL, the first after the flight of Carles Puigdemont to Brussels, gives the parties that promote unilateral independence 68 deputies, the absolute majority: exactly half plus one of the seats of the autonomous chamber " https://www.elespanol.com/espana/20171101/258724920_0.html
Miss Cyclefree, highlight past experience, relevant qualifications, and, perhaps most importantly, why hiring you is good for the customer.
Somewhat hesitant to raise this (the launch was dreadful as I managed to combine being ill for the first time in years with it so couldn't do the stuff I wanted to), but if anyone wants proofreading/formatting, I'm free /Inmanvoice
I suppose I could say, apropos the discussion on the thread, hire me or you'll end up like RBS. Or even "hire me and I'll stop you stop hiring crooks".
The trick is saying this without falling into that strange non-language known as management bollocks.
Anyway have been given some more contacts so need to go off and do some email networking.....
Good luck. I’d do a home page, a page on problems, a page on solutions, a couple of case studies, a bio page and a contact form. Keep it simple for now.
Write the whole thing in first person plural, it gives the impression that you’re more than just one person.
Get a landline “Office” phone number and use an answer phone or a divert to your mobile - don’t write your mobile number on your website unless you want 100 spam sales calls a day.
I'd just add that Google AdWords was fantastic for getting my business off the ground, but that was over 10 years ago. Mind you, it sounds like word-of-mouth may render advertising unnecessary in your case. Good luck!
Blimey! I've just been contacted by the FT on the topic of banks and rogue traders. On/off the record? Can one trust journalists? OTOH a pretty good way of getting myself into the eye of possible clients..........Questions, questions.....
Anyway, must calm down. Otherwise I'll morph into a female @SeanT. And that would never do.
You really have to grab that sort of chance. And we have it on good authority that @SeanT is a happily married man of impeachable behaviour. I mean unimpeachable. Woops!
Can one trust journalists?
Sort of. You can trust them on the on the record or off the record bit, but as many people have learnt over the years, you need to be very clear about this at the outset (I think it was Steve Bannon who was the latest victim of not being clear - with the New Yorker).
A good journalist will ask open questions then allow you to fill the space, giving you time to say something a bit further than you had planned. So plan well before hand.
Thanks. All the tricks of an interviewer, which I have used.
It is a fine line between saying something of interest and not, of course, breaching the confidentiality I owe my previous employers. And, first of all, finding out exactly what they want to write about. I have been quoted by journalists before when I've spoken at conferences. One very naughtily gave me top billing over a rather colourless talk given by some FCA poo-bah and I got gazillions of emails along the lines of "You go girl!" since I'd been pretty frank. Anyway will have a think and go find a tape recorder or whatever the latest App is.......
Blimey! I've just been contacted by the FT on the topic of banks and rogue traders. On/off the record? Can one trust journalists? OTOH a pretty good way of getting myself into the eye of possible clients..........Questions, questions.....
Anyway, must calm down. Otherwise I'll morph into a female @SeanT. And that would never do.
You really have to grab that sort of chance. And we have it on good authority that @SeanT is a happily married man of impeachable behaviour. I mean unimpeachable. Woops!
Can one trust journalists?
Sort of. You can trust them on the on the record or off the record bit, but as many people have learnt over the years, you need to be very clear about this at the outset (I think it was Steve Bannon who was the latest victim of not being clear - with the New Yorker).
A good journalist will ask open questions then allow you to fill the space, giving you time to say something a bit further than you had planned. So plan well before hand.
Thanks. All the tricks of an interviewer, which I have used.
It is a fine line between saying something of interest and not, of course, breaching the confidentiality I owe my previous employers. And, first of all, finding out exactly what they want to write about. I have been quoted by journalists before when I've spoken at conferences. One very naughtily gave me top billing over a rather colourless talk given by some FCA poo-bah and I got gazillions of emails along the lines of "You go girl!" since I'd been pretty frank. Anyway will have a think and go find a tape recorder or whatever the latest App is.......
< marketing_hat > And if you give them an interview on the record, make sure they put a link to your new website at the bottom of the article. < /marketing_hat >
Alastair Darling's autobography details how bad things got. RBS rang one early one aternoon and said "we've run out of cash, we're closing at 4pm unless you do something". RBS got an emergency cash injection. Why?
Consider what them closing abruptly one afternoon would do. Every business who banks with RBS - either directly or indirectly - would have no access to cash or cah flowiing through them. Every customer would find not only the branches closed but the cash machines unable to dispense. And the following day? Chaos - people pulling as much cash as possible from their bank in case they go over next. Which makes them run out of cash. So they shut. And then next one. How is that a positive?
This.
There's been a hell of a lot of crap written about the bank bailouts in the past 10 years.
But people don't seem to realise that not bailing out the banks would have led to every ordinary citizen losing everything they had in a UK bank. Then being unable to pay their mortgage and thus losing their house. ie for the majority of citizens their entire wealth would have disappeared overnight. It wasn't just the banks which were bailed out, we were all bailed out.
That it needs explaining on here is embarrassing. CiF maybe (to deaf ears, obvs), but not on PB for heaven's sake!!!
Part of the problem was that for understandable party political reasons it was felt necessary to deny for some time that Gordon Brown had in fact saved the world. Three general elections later, even senior Conservative figures, most notably George Osborne, can be more open about the crisis.
"Saved the world" is something of an exaggeration. And, given that he claimed to have abolished boom and bust (ie the business cycle) it's hardly unfair that he should get the flack.
Didn't he say 'Tory boom and bust', meaning specifically the practice of encouraging a boom in the run up to elections - the Lawson boom and Barber boom for instance?
As opposed to Labour boom and bust.
Well yes. He was arguing that Labour had made it impossible to repeat the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, and the Lawson boom. All of them provoked by Conservative govrrnments for electoral purposes. A different matter to the ordinary business cycle.
Alastair Darling's autobography details how bad things got. RBS rang one early one aternoon and said "we've run out of cash, we're closing at 4pm unless you do something". RBS got an emergency cash injection. Why?
This.
There's been a hell of a lot of crap written about the bank bailouts in the past 10 years.
But people don't seem to realise that not bailing out the banks would have led to every ordinary citizen losing everything they had in a UK bank. Then being unable to pay their mortgage and thus losing their house. ie for the majority of citizens their entire wealth would have disappeared overnight. It wasn't just the banks which were bailed out, we were all bailed out.
That it needs explaining on here is embarrassing. CiF maybe (to deaf ears, obvs), but not on PB for heaven's sake!!!
Part of the problem was that for understandable party political reasons it was felt necessary to deny for some time that Gordon Brown had in fact saved the world. Three general elections later, even senior Conservative figures, most notably George Osborne, can be more open about the crisis.
Yep - I have been saying this for years. We were fortunate it was Brown and Darling (and Balls) doing the heavy lifting when the effluent hit the fan. And that it was Obama, not McCain, in charge in the US. The thing everyone forgets is how much worse it could all have been if siren voices further to the right had been listened to.
It was Brown's bailing out every bank that asked which helped add yo the narrative the bankers got away with it and the rise of Corbyn, at least Dubya let Lehmans go bust.
Dubya did indeed let Lehmans go bust -- and so did Gordon Brown when Barclays was prevented from bailing out Lehmans.
He did get Lloyds to rescue HBOS though but Lehmans was a US bank every British bank got a bailout.
It makes little sense to look at it in terms of individual banks. Through contagion and bank runs, one failed bank leads to another which leads to another like a row of dominoes, which soon collapses all banks if there is no bailout of the system.
The US did bail out all the banks in the US apart from Lehmans but as Lehmans suffered the biggest losses in the crash and had taken the most risks it had to pay the price.
Theresa May has done the right thing (from the Tory point of view). She's started to promote the younger up and coming generation to key positions, installing people who could succeed her in a few years time. The old farts club who are the current front runners are uninspiring, and its a mystery how a blonde buffoon, Donald Trump lookalike who looks like a pig in a wig could be the saviour of the Tory party (who could I be describing?).
I really dont think the Tories are as finished as some people think.
The Tories are and never will be finished Just sleeping as Blair said when they were facing his 179 majority.
This reminds me of a conversation with a friend shortly after 1997 GE. He said that the next Conservative PM had not yet been born. I said that the next Conservative PM had not yet been elected to Westminster.
Correct about Cameron but not about TMay.
This is utter rubbish. The Tories are currently polling around 40%, a poll rating Major in 1997, Hague in 2001, IDS in 2003 and Howard in 2005 would have given their eye teeth for.
Corbyn at the moment is heading for a 1964 or 1974 result at best, a weak Labour minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP. He is nowhere near a Blair 1997 style landslide.
Cameron in 2010 proves that failing to achieve a majority is no guarantee that the loser will be back in government any time soon....Labour squeaking a 1974-esque victory by no means guarantees the Tories waltzing back into no.10 at the following election. I tend to agree that the Tories are assured a 40% vote share as long as Corbyn remains in place but if Corbyn sneaks in I expect him to be even more stubborn than May at holding onto power.
Maybe but 2 years after achieving a tiny majority the Tories lost it so that does not exactly offer great comfort to Corbyn in his quest for a comfortable working majority.
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
Alastair Darling's autobography details how bad things got. RBS rang one early one aternoon and said "we've run out of cash, we're closing at 4pm unless you do something". RBS got an emergency cash injection. Why?
Consider what them closing abruptly one afternoon would do. Every business who banks with RBS - either directly or indirectly - would have no access to cash or cah flowiing through them. Every customer would find not only the branches closed but the cash machines unable to dispense. And the following day? Chaos - people pulling as much cash as possible from their bank in case they go over next. Which makes them run out of cash. So they shut. And then next one. How is that a positive?
This.
There's been a hell of a lot of crap written about the bank bailouts in the past 10 years.
But people don't seem to realise that not bailing out the banks would have led to every ordinary citizen losing everything they had in a UK bank. Then being unable to pay their mortgage and thus losing their house. ie for the majority of citizens their entire wealth would have disappeared overnight. It wasn't just the banks which were bailed out, we were all bailed out.
That it needs explaining on here is embarrassing. CiF maybe (to deaf ears, obvs), but not on PB for heaven's sake!!!
Part of the problem was that for understandable party political reasons it was felt necessary to deny for some time that Gordon Brown had in fact saved the world. Three general elections later, even senior Conservative figures, most notably George Osborne, can be more open about the crisis.
"Saved the world" is something of an exaggeration. And, given that he claimed to have abolished boom and bust (ie the business cycle) it's hardly unfair that he should get the flack.
Didn't he say 'Tory boom and bust', meaning specifically the practice of encouraging a boom in the run up to elections - the Lawson boom and Barber boom for instance?
As opposed to Labour boom and bust.
Well yes. He was arguing that Labour had made it impossible to repeat the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, and the Lawson boom. All of them provoked by Conservative govrrnments for electoral purposes. A different matter to the ordinary business cycle.
As opposed to the Brown Boom of borrowing £50bn a year and handing it out as tax credits?
Or the £161bn borrowing and £250bn of printed money in 2009-10 to avoid still being in recession as the election loomed?
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
Blimey! I've just been contacted by the FT on the topic of banks and rogue traders. On/off the record? Can one trust journalists? OTOH a pretty good way of getting myself into the eye of possible clients..........Questions, questions.....
Anyway, must calm down. Otherwise I'll morph into a female @SeanT. And that would never do.
You really have to grab that sort of chance. And we have it on good authority that @SeanT is a happily married man of impeachable behaviour. I mean unimpeachable. Woops!
Can one trust journalists?
Sort of. You can trust them on the on the record or off the record bit, but as many people have learnt over the years, you need to be very clear about this at the outset (I think it was Steve Bannon who was the latest victim of not being clear - with the New Yorker).
A good journalist will ask open questions then allow you to fill the space, giving you time to say something a bit further than you had planned. So plan well before hand.
Thanks. All the tricks of an interviewer, which I have used.
It is a fine line between saying something of interest and not, of course, breaching the confidentiality I owe my previous employers. And, first of all, finding out exactly what they want to write about. I have been quoted by journalists before when I've spoken at conferences. One very naughtily gave me top billing over a rather colourless talk given by some FCA poo-bah and I got gazillions of emails along the lines of "You go girl!" since I'd been pretty frank. Anyway will have a think and go find a tape recorder or whatever the latest App is.......
There are also plenty of free Online magazines you can write for, and link to your website. (HuffPost is the biggest example), My wife does this. If it is of interest, it will be re-produced/translated in foreign editions too. She has got clients from Korea, Canada and Iceland (amongst others) this way. You already write excellent thread headers, so think about it if your area of expertise generates a news story. They are often linked to too, so can develop a life of their own. They won't pay, but are always looking for content. You will know of specialist ones in your area of expertise. Plus you then get cold-called to comment by journalists. It is free advertising, costs nowt, but a little time and effort.
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
Particularly as the seriousness of the allegations looks - at this stage - worse for Labour.
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
Particularly as the seriousness of the allegations looks - at this stage - worse for Labour.
Also lib dem activists made a complaint today that she was ignored and Cable said in his interview it is a problem for all parties
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
Particularly as the seriousness of the allegations looks - at this stage - worse for Labour.
Also lib dem activists made a complaint today that she was ignored and Cable said in his interview it is a problem for all parties
Cable is the one who allowed Rennard to return as part of his campaign team - hardly shows he is fully on board with the new atmosphere.
" The independence movement maintains the absolute majority by the minimum in the Parlament de Catalunya. The SocioMétrica poll for EL ESPAÑOL, the first after the flight of Carles Puigdemont to Brussels, gives the parties that promote unilateral independence 68 deputies, the absolute majority: exactly half plus one of the seats of the autonomous chamber " https://www.elespanol.com/espana/20171101/258724920_0.html
Madrid has won - 8 of the rebel Catalan ministers are now behind bars. Puigdemont and the remaining ex-ministers of the Spanish province of Catalonia won't find sanctuary from extradition in Belgium or any other EU state. He should remember the fate of his predecessor, Lluis Companys.
Didn't he say 'Tory boom and bust', meaning specifically the practice of encouraging a boom in the run up to elections - the Lawson boom and Barber boom for instance?
As opposed to Labour boom and bust.
Well yes. He was arguing that Labour had made it impossible to repeat the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, and the Lawson boom. All of them provoked by Conservative govrrnments for electoral purposes. A different matter to the ordinary business cycle.
But he didn't say that.
He claimed, when the crash had come, that that was what he had said. But he was not telling the truth.
For example, here is one of the forty-seven occasions he used that phrase or a similar one in the Commons, the budget of 17th March 2004:
For decades after 1945, Britain repeatedly relapsed into recession, moving from boom to bust. But I can report to the House that since 1997 Britain has sustained growth, not just through one economic cycle but through two economic cycles, without suffering the old British disease of stop-go.
Now you may notice there is nothing in there to say it was 'Tory' boom and bust. Nor could it be, as he referred to 1945, the sixties and the seventies, when Labour governments were in power.
But when the crash came, his boasting had left him nowhere to run. So he lied about what he had said. He may not even have realised he was lying as his gargantuan capacity for self-deception may even have hidden it from him.
But we have, with hindsight and the record, no business to swallow that lie.
(Moreover it's doubly ironic that you comment on politically motivated boom and bust when one of the key causes that made the crash so severe here was Brown's anxiety to extend cheap credit to consumers to reinflate bubbles that threatened to burst, building up large problems for the future.)
Alastair Darling's autobography details how bad things got. RBS rang one early one aternoon and said "we've run out of cash, we're closing at 4pm unless you do something". RBS got an emergency cash injection. Why?
Consider what them closing abruptly one afternoon would do. Every business who banks with RBS - either directly or indirectly - would have no access to cash or cah flowiing through them. Every customer would find not only the branches closed but the cash machines unable to dispense. And the following day? Chaos - people pulling as much cash as xt. Which makes them run out of cash. So they shut. And then next one. How is that a positive?
This.
There's been a hell of a lot of crap written about the bank bailouts in the past 10 years.
That it needs explaining on here is embarrassing. CiF maybe (to deaf ears, obvs), but not on PB for heaven's sake!!!
Part of the problem was that for understandable party political reasons it was felt necessary to deny for some time that Gordon Brown had in fact saved the world. Three general elections later, even senior Conservative figures, most notably George Osborne, can be more open about the crisis.
"Saved the world" is something of an exaggeration. And, given that he claimed to have abolished boom and bust (ie the business cycle) it's hardly unfair that he should get the flack.
Didn't he say 'Tory boom and bust', meaning specifically the practice of encouraging a boom in the run up to elections - the Lawson boom and Barber boom for instance?
As opposed to Labour boom and bust.
Well yes. He was arguing that Labour had made it impossible to repeat the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, and the Lawson boom. All of them provoked by Conservative govrrnments for electoral purposes. A different matter to the ordinary business cycle.
As opposed to the Brown Boom of borrowing £50bn a year and handing it out as tax credits?
Or the £161bn borrowing and £250bn of printed money in 2009-10 to avoid still being in recession as the election loomed?
What about them? For all I know those were a decent response to 2008, which most economists seem to agree with. Whether it constitutes a boom or not is not the issue. You or whoever it was said he claimed to have abolished the business cycle rather than this political practice - I'm correcting that misconception. Critique Brown all you like, but understand what he even claimed in the first place.
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
Didn't he say 'Tory boom and bust', meaning specifically the practice of encouraging a boom in the run up to elections - the Lawson boom and Barber boom for instance?
As opposed to Labour boom and bust.
Well yes. He was arguing that Labour had made it impossible to repeat the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, and the Lawson boom. All of them provoked by Conservative govrrnments for electoral purposes. A different matter to the ordinary business cycle.
But he didn't say that.
He claimed, when the crash had come, that that was what he had said. But he was not telling the truth.
For example, here is one of the forty-seven occasions he used that phrase or a similar one in the Commons, the budget of 17th March 2004:
For decades after 1945, Britain repeatedly relapsed into recession, moving from boom to bust. But I can report to the House that since 1997 Britain has sustained growth, not just through one economic cycle but through two economic cycles, without suffering the old British disease of stop-go.
Now you may notice there is nothing in there to say it was 'Tory' boom and bust. Nor could it be, as he referred to 1945, the sixties and the seventies, when Labour governments were in power.
But when the crash came, his boasting had left him nowhere to run. So he lied about what he had said. He may not even have realised he was lying as his gargantuan capacity for self-deception may even have hidden it from him.
But we have, with hindsight and the record, no business to swallow that lie.
(Moreover it's doubly ironic that you comment on politically motivated boom and bust when one of the key causes that made the crash so severe here was Brown's anxiety to extend cheap credit to consumers to reinflate bubbles that threatened to burst, building up large problems for the future.)
'The chancellor said: "Those who today are arguing that economic stability comes by opposing necessary changes in interest rates and by avoiding the tough decisions necessary to meet the inflation target, would risk returning to the boom and bust of the past."
Boom and bust clearly referring to political decisions on interest rates to stimulate a boom - to Maudling, Barber, Lawson.
Didn't he say 'Tory boom and bust', meaning specifically the practice of encouraging a boom in the run up to elections - the Lawson boom and Barber boom for instance?
As opposed to Labour boom and bust.
Well yes. He was arguing that Labour had made it impossible to repeat the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, and the Lawson boom. All of them provoked by Conservative govrrnments for electoral purposes. A different matter to the ordinary business cycle.
But he didn't say that.
He claimed, when the crash had come, that that was what he had said. But he was not telling the truth.
For example, here is one of the forty-seven occasions he used that phrase or a similar one in the Commons, the budget of 17th March 2004:
For decades after 1945, Britain repeatedly relapsed into recession, moving from boom to bust. But I can report to the House that since 1997 Britain has sustained growth, not just through one economic cycle but through two economic cycles, without suffering the old British disease of stop-go.
Now you may notice there is nothing in there to say it was 'Tory' boom and bust. Nor could it be, as he referred to 1945, the sixties and the seventies, when Labour governments were in power.
But when the crash came, his boasting had left him nowhere to run. So he lied about what he had said. He may not even have realised he was lying as his gargantuan capacity for self-deception may even have hidden it from him.
But we have, with hindsight and the record, no business to swallow that lie.
(Moreover it's doubly ironic that you comment on politically motivated boom and bust when one of the key causes that made the crash so severe here was Brown's anxiety to extend cheap credit to consumers to reinflate bubbles that threatened to burst, building up large problems for the future.)
'The chancellor said: "Those who today are arguing that economic stability comes by opposing necessary changes in interest rates and by avoiding the tough decisions necessary to meet the inflation target, would risk returning to the boom and bust of the past."
Boom and bust clearly referring to political decisions on interest rates to stimulate a boom - to Maudling, Barber, Lawson.
But that's not what he said. Which is the point really.
Normally, with an increase in the interest rate, you would expect the pound to rally. The opposite happened. Probably, on balance, not a bad outcome.
Manufacturing needs help to continue its recent rebound, particularly with a reasonable likelihood that there could be a recession in Q1 or Q2 next year.
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
Labour's turn this weekend perhaps?
If any of the sundays publish Guido's list on labour MP's it will be labour on the defensive and with serious questions to answer
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
Particularly as the seriousness of the allegations looks - at this stage - worse for Labour.
Also lib dem activists made a complaint today that she was ignored and Cable said in his interview it is a problem for all parties
Cable is the one who allowed Rennard to return as part of his campaign team - hardly shows he is fully on board with the new atmosphere.
Normally, with an increase in the interest rate, you would expect the pound to rally. The opposite happened. Probably, on balance, not a bad outcome.
Manufacturing needs help to continue its recent rebound, particularly with a reasonable likelihood that there could be a recession in Q1 or Q2 next year.
With the amount of euro and dollar sales I projected for my employer, I am happy for sterling to stay lowish
Normally, with an increase in the interest rate, you would expect the pound to rally. The opposite happened. Probably, on balance, not a bad outcome.
Manufacturing needs help to continue its recent rebound, particularly with a reasonable likelihood that there could be a recession in Q1 or Q2 next year.
How can we be in recession in the next six months with GDP at 0.4% in the last quarter
Didn't he say 'Tory boom and bust', meaning specifically the practice of encouraging a boom in the run up to elections - the Lawson boom and Barber boom for instance?
As opposed to Labour boom and bust.
Well yes. He was arguing that Labour had made it impossible to repeat the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, and the Lawson boom. All of them provoked by Conservative govrrnments for electoral purposes. A different matter to the ordinary business cycle.
But he didn't say that.
He claimed, when the crash had come, that that was what he had said. But he was not telling the truth.
For example, here is one of the forty-seven occasions he used that phrase or a similar one in the Commons, the budget of 17th March 2004:
For decades after 1945, Britain repeatedly relapsed into recession, moving from boom to bust. But I can report to the House that since 1997 Britain has sustained growth, not just through one economic cycle but through two economic cycles, without suffering the old British disease of stop-go.
Now you may notice there is nothing in there to say it was 'Tory' boom and bust. Nor could it be, as he referred to 1945, the sixties and the seventies, when Labour governments were in power.
But when the crash came, his boasting had left him nowhere to run. So he lied about what he had
But we have, with hindsight and the record, no business to swallow that lie.
'The chancellor said: "Those who today are arguing that economic stability comes by opposing necessary changes in interest rates and by avoiding the tough decisions necessary to meet the inflation target, would risk returning to the boom and bust of the past."
Boom and bust clearly referring to political decisions on interest rates to stimulate a boom - to Maudling, Barber, Lawson.
But that's not what he said. Which is the point really.
It's clear in the quote, it's in the policy it informed of BoE independence, and it's how John Smith spoke about Maudling, Barber, and Lawson's booms. The interpretation that Brown claimed to have abolished the business cycle is the recent distortion.
" The independence movement maintains the absolute majority by the minimum in the Parlament de Catalunya. The SocioMétrica poll for EL ESPAÑOL, the first after the flight of Carles Puigdemont to Brussels, gives the parties that promote unilateral independence 68 deputies, the absolute majority: exactly half plus one of the seats of the autonomous chamber " https://www.elespanol.com/espana/20171101/258724920_0.html
Madrid has won - 8 of the rebel Catalan ministers are now behind bars. Puigdemont and the remaining ex-ministers of the Spanish province of Catalonia won't find sanctuary from extradition in Belgium or any other EU state. He should remember the fate of his predecessor, Lluis Companys.
If there's one last thing that Madrid needs to do to fuck things up completely, it's to make a literal martyr. Which is of course no guarantee that they won't do it.
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
Labour's turn this weekend perhaps?
If any of the sundays publish Guido's list on labour MP's it will be labour on the defensive and with serious questions to answer
Surely nobody thinks any one Party has a monopoly on 'inappropriate behaviour'?
I suppose it's worse for the Government because they're supposed to be running the country, not larking around like badly behaved adolescents. But you have to think that whatever the norms at Westminster are, they're pretty much the same across the board.
The public probably won't take too much notice, except to the extent that it reinforces the generally low status our rulers have in the public's mind.
Blimey! I've just been contacted by the FT on the topic of banks and rogue traders. On/off the record? Can one trust journalists? OTOH a pretty good way of getting myself into the eye of possible clients..........Questions, questions.....
Anyway, must calm down. Otherwise I'll morph into a female @SeanT. And that would never do.
Lol, no risk of that. Go for it, of course, just be very precise about what's on the record. The FT doesn't usually go in for bear-traps anyway.
Normally, with an increase in the interest rate, you would expect the pound to rally. The opposite happened. Probably, on balance, not a bad outcome.
Manufacturing needs help to continue its recent rebound, particularly with a reasonable likelihood that there could be a recession in Q1 or Q2 next year.
How can we be in recession in the next six months with GDP at 0.4% in the last quarter
Remember the Brexit cliff-edge!
The first effects will start to show in March 2018
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
No.
It's not that that question doesn't arise, the point i'm making is that the anger in the tory party won't be redirected and diluted by a shift of focus of attention to labour.
I'm suggesting the sacking of Fallon is an issue of principle for TM. She's taking such a strong stand regardless of personal liking/animosity, political strength & party positioning/advantage vs-a-vis Labour.
I'm suggesting in TM's mind, this behavior from her colleagues is absolutely wrong, in the moral sense. Not wrong but labour are at it too and the shit spreads all ways and we all know what man are like but the public expect better so he'll have to go.
Absolutely wrong, in the moral sense.
The PM taking that position is terrifying for many (particularly male) con MP's.
Didn't he say 'Tory boom and bust', meaning specifically the practice of encouraging a boom in the run up to elections - the Lawson boom and Barber boom for instance?
As opposed to Labour boom and bust.
Well yes. He was arguing that Labour had made it impossible to repeat the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, and the Lawson boom. All of them provoked by Conservative govrrnments for electoral purposes. A different matter to the ordinary business cycle.
But he didn't say that.
He claimed, when the crash had come, that that was what he had said. But he was not telling the truth.
For example, here is one of the forty-seven occasions he used that phrase or a similar one in the Commons, the budget of 17th March 2004:
For decades after 1945, Britain repeatedly relapsed into recession, moving from boom to bust. But I can report to the House that since 1997 Britain has sustained growth, not just through one economic cycle but through two economic cycles, without suffering the old British disease of stop-go.
Now you may notice there is nothing in there to say it was 'Tory' boom and bust. Nor could it be, as he referred to 1945, the sixties and the seventies, when Labour governments were in power.
But when the crash came, his boasting had left him nowhere to run. So he lied about what he had said. He may not even have realised he was lying as his gargantuan capacity for self-deception may even have hidden it from him.
But we have, with hindsight and the record, no business to swallow that lie.
Normally, with an increase in the interest rate, you would expect the pound to rally. The opposite happened. Probably, on balance, not a bad outcome.
Manufacturing needs help to continue its recent rebound, particularly with a reasonable likelihood that there could be a recession in Q1 or Q2 next year.
How can we be in recession in the next six months with GDP at 0.4% in the last quarter
There are many, many articles like this one. You can just google it.
At the end of the day, real incomes are falling and will continue to fall for a year or so. Sooner rather than later consumer spending will dip. It has already done so with big ticket purchases like cars. Car registration has now fallen for 5 consecutive months. Construction is also heading downwards.
The only chink of light is manufacturing. The lower pound does help.
It's clear in the quote, it's in the policy it informed of BoE independence, and it's how John Smith spoke about Maudling, Barber, and Lawson's booms. The interpretation that Brown claimed to have abolished the business cycle is the recent distortion.
It really is not. He was asked by Nick Robinson if he regretted having said 'no more boom and bust' and replied, completely falsely, that he had said 'no more Tory boom and bust.' Which is what you also claimed he said. And is not what he says by implication or otherwise in that statement.
You have now been shown hard evidence that you were wrong and you are trying to twist your original claim in an attempt to keep your illusions. Newsflash - it isn't working. There is no implication in that sentence that it was only the Tories he was blaming. Indeed, 1945 makes it abundantly clear he was including the Cripps Crash of 1949. Maudling was also only responsible in a limited way for 1967 - the short term miscalculations of Wilson and Callaghan were far more important (see here).
It is absolutely obvious that Brown genuinely believed he had rewritten the laws of economics - stretching back decades over multiple governments - and couldn't deal with his failure. That's why he invented the lie about what he said. But merely because a lie is politically useful doesn't make it any the less a lie.
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
It appears that 15 years ago Fallon was a backbencher, in between more senior posts. JHB was political editor of the Sunday Express. She may have had as much power to make or break a career than he did.
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
This may have come up already but I've only just seen the thread, but why is last night's defeat on a matter of arcane procedure some sort of failing of the Chief Whip? If it is a matter of the way in which it was drafted that is not a matter for the Whip to argue is it? What would be the point of forcing a division, if that were possible, if it is a question of procedure which apparently Labour were right on? A shame for the government, to be sure, but the Whip cannot help if Labour found an arcane rule to work with?
It's clear in the quote, it's in the policy it informed of BoE independence, and it's how John Smith spoke about Maudling, Barber, and Lawson's booms. The interpretation that Brown claimed to have abolished the business cycle is the recent distortion.
It really is not. He was asked by Nick Robinson if he regretted having said 'no more boom and bust' and replied, completely falsely, that he had said 'no more Tory boom and bust.' Which is what you also claimed he said. And is not what he says by implication or otherwise in that statement.
You have now been shown hard evidence that you were wrong and you are trying to twist your original claim in an attempt to keep your illusions. Newsflash - it isn't working. There is no implication in that sentence that it was only the Tories he was blaming. Indeed, 1945 makes it abundantly clear he was including the Cripps Crash of 1949. Maudling was also only responsible in a limited way for 1967 - the short term miscalculations of Wilson and Callaghan were far more important (see here).
It is absolutely obvious that Brown genuinely believed he had rewritten the laws of economics - stretching back decades over multiple governments - and couldn't deal with his failure. That's why he invented the lie about what he said. But merely because a lie is politically useful doesn't make it any the less a lie.
Once more - even if he was talkng about Cripps as well as Maudling, Barber, Lawson, etc. that is a world away from conflating it with the business cycle. Again: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YDS8AAAAIAAJ&dq page 18. Its definition of 'boom and bust' refers explicitly to interest rates being used to provoke booms for political purposes, not the business cycle. It's from 2004 - good thing Gordon Brown had a time machine to cover his tracks after 2008 eh.
Nobody at the time interpreted it as Brown saying he'd abolished the business cycle. Everybody understood what boom and bust referred to.
Didn't he say 'Tory boom and bust', meaning specifically the practice of encouraging a boom in the run up to elections - the Lawson boom and Barber boom for instance?
As opposed to Labour boom and bust.
Well yes. He was arguing that Labour had made it impossible to repeat the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, and the Lawson boom. All of them provoked by Conservative govrrnments for electoral purposes. A different matter to the ordinary business cycle.
But he didn't say that.
He claimed, when the crash had come, that that was what he had said. But he was not telling the truth.
For example, here is one of the forty-seven occasions he used that phrase or a similar one in the Commons, the budget of 17th March 2004:
For decades after 1945, Britain repeatedly relapsed into recession, moving from boom to bust. But I can report to the House that since 1997 Britain has sustained growth, not just through one economic cycle but through two economic cycles, without suffering the old British disease of stop-go.
Now you may notice there is nothing in there to say it was 'Tory' boom and bust. Nor could it be, as he referred to 1945, the sixties and the seventies, when Labour governments were in power.
But when the crash came, his boasting had left him nowhere to run. So he lied about what he had said. He may not even have realised he was lying as his gargantuan capacity for self-deception may even have hidden it from him.
But we have, with hindsight and the record, no business to swallow that lie.
Boom and bust is described exactly as I said. It's from 2004. How could it then be a post-2008 rationalisation?
I've quoted what he actually said from Hansard and you're quoting a political dictionary you clearly got in a google trawl written by a Labour supporter (whom I know slightly and respect greatly, I might add). You really are incorrigible aren't you?
It's even more ironic as if you had actually read it you might have noticed on page 215 it says 'Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown said he would avoid boom and bust policies.' Again no mention of the word 'Tory' there.
Here's a friendly tip. We all make mistakes - God knows I make far too many. But when you have made an error, admit it and stop digging yourself deeper into the more.
Edit - even on p.18 Lawson is only used as an (entirely valid) example and no reference is made to the political aspects you claim.
" The independence movement maintains the absolute majority by the minimum in the Parlament de Catalunya. The SocioMétrica poll for EL ESPAÑOL, the first after the flight of Carles Puigdemont to Brussels, gives the parties that promote unilateral independence 68 deputies, the absolute majority: exactly half plus one of the seats of the autonomous chamber " https://www.elespanol.com/espana/20171101/258724920_0.html
Madrid has won - 8 of the rebel Catalan ministers are now behind bars. Puigdemont and the remaining ex-ministers of the Spanish province of Catalonia won't find sanctuary from extradition in Belgium or any other EU state. He should remember the fate of his predecessor, Lluis Companys.
Yes, there will be no separatist problems in Catalonia ever again now.
Normally, with an increase in the interest rate, you would expect the pound to rally. The opposite happened. Probably, on balance, not a bad outcome.
Manufacturing needs help to continue its recent rebound, particularly with a reasonable likelihood that there could be a recession in Q1 or Q2 next year.
How can we be in recession in the next six months with GDP at 0.4% in the last quarter
Meeting the literal definition of a recession has never been as important, I feel, in an era of generally low growth, as to whether people feel they are in a recession. I thought as a result of that the Tories would not win a majority in 2015 and turned out to be wrong, but if there is a downturn leading to a recession as soon as possible under how it is defined, it won't matter when it formally starts.
Theresa May has done the right thing (from the Tory point of view). She's started to promote the younger up and coming generation to key positions, installing people who could succeed her in a few years time. The old farts club who are the current front runners are uninspiring, and its a mystery how a blonde buffoon, Donald Trump lookalike who looks like a pig in a wig could be the saviour of the Tory party (who could I be describing?).
I really dont think the Tories are as finished as some people think.
The Tories are and never will be finished Just sleeping as Blair said when they were facing his 179 majority.
This reminds me of a conversation with a friend shortly after 1997 GE. He said that the next Conservative PM had not yet been born. I said that the next Conservative PM had not yet been elected to Westminster.
Correct about Cameron but not about TMay.
This is utter rubbish. The Tories are currently polling around 40%, a poll rating Major in 1997, Hague in 2001, IDS in 2003 and Howard in 2005 would have given their eye teeth for.
Corbyn at the moment is heading for a 1964 or 1974 result at best, a weak Labour minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP. He is nowhere near a Blair 1997 style landslide.
Cameron in 2010 proves that failing to achieve a majority is no guarantee that the loser will be back in government any time soon....Labour squeaking a 1974-esque victory by no means guarantees the Tories waltzing back into no.10 at the following election. I tend to agree that the Tories are assured a 40% vote share as long as Corbyn remains in place but if Corbyn sneaks in I expect him to be even more stubborn than May at holding onto power.
Maybe but 2 years after achieving a tiny majority the Tories lost it so that does not exactly offer great comfort to Corbyn in his quest for a comfortable working majority.
True, although there were highly unique circumstances between those 2 years.
" The independence movement maintains the absolute majority by the minimum in the Parlament de Catalunya. The SocioMétrica poll for EL ESPAÑOL, the first after the flight of Carles Puigdemont to Brussels, gives the parties that promote unilateral independence 68 deputies, the absolute majority: exactly half plus one of the seats of the autonomous chamber " https://www.elespanol.com/espana/20171101/258724920_0.html
Madrid has won - 8 of the rebel Catalan ministers are now behind bars. Puigdemont and the remaining ex-ministers of the Spanish province of Catalonia won't find sanctuary from extradition in Belgium or any other EU state. He should remember the fate of his predecessor, Lluis Companys.
Yes, there will be no separatist problems in Catalonia ever again now.
"The Separatists have been "taken care of", my Master!" - Anakin Skywalker.
" The independence movement maintains the absolute majority by the minimum in the Parlament de Catalunya. The SocioMétrica poll for EL ESPAÑOL, the first after the flight of Carles Puigdemont to Brussels, gives the parties that promote unilateral independence 68 deputies, the absolute majority: exactly half plus one of the seats of the autonomous chamber " https://www.elespanol.com/espana/20171101/258724920_0.html
Madrid has won - 8 of the rebel Catalan ministers are now behind bars. Puigdemont and the remaining ex-ministers of the Spanish province of Catalonia won't find sanctuary from extradition in Belgium or any other EU state. He should remember the fate of his predecessor, Lluis Companys.
Yes, there will be no separatist problems in Catalonia ever again now.
Because they will have declared independence and towed themselves into Mid-Mediterranean?
Anyway, I have some more work to do. Have a good evening everyone and do enjoy the link to the EHR article on 1967 above - most interesting if somewhat depressing.
Normally, with an increase in the interest rate, you would expect the pound to rally. The opposite happened. Probably, on balance, not a bad outcome.
Manufacturing needs help to continue its recent rebound, particularly with a reasonable likelihood that there could be a recession in Q1 or Q2 next year.
How can we be in recession in the next six months with GDP at 0.4% in the last quarter
Meeting the literal definition of a recession has never been as important, I feel, in an era of generally low growth, as to whether people feel they are in a recession. I thought as a result of that the Tories would not win a majority in 2015 and turned out to be wrong, but if there is a downturn leading to a recession as soon as possible under how it is defined, it won't matter when it formally starts.
That is very true. Mathematically, the early 90s recession was very shallow, but I recall it felt horrendous at the time. Partly because of geographical impact, which the GDP statistics also don't reflect.
Didn't he say 'Tory boom and bust', meaning specifically the practice of encouraging a boom in the run up to elections - the Lawson boom and Barber boom for instance?
As opposed to Labour boom and bust.
Well yes. He was arguing that Labour had made it impossible to repeat the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, and the Lawson boom. All of them provoked by Conservative govrrnments for electoral purposes. A different matter to the ordinary business cycle.
But he didn't say that.
He claimed, when the crash had come, that that was what he had said. But he was not telling the truth.
For example, here is one of the forty-seven occasions he used that phrase or a similar one in the Commons, the budget of 17th March 2004:
Now you may notice there is nothing in there to say it was 'Tory' boom and bust. Nor could it be, as he referred to 1945, the sixties and the seventies, when Labour governments were in power.
But we have, with hindsight and the record, no business to swallow that lie.
Boom and bust is described exactly as I said. It's from 2004. How could it then be a post-2008 rationalisation?
I've quoted what he actually said from Hansard and you're quoting a political dictionary you clearly got in a google trawl written by a Labour supporter (whom I know slightly and respect greatly, I might add). You really are incorrigible aren't you?
It's even more ironic as if you had actually read it you might have noticed on page 215 it says 'Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown said he would avoid boom and bust policies.' Again no mention of the word 'Tory' there.
Here's a friendly tip. We all make mistakes - God knows I make far too many. But when you have made an error, admit it and stop digging yourself deeper into the more.
Are you ill? Not saying 'Tory boom and bust' every time doesn't then mean he's talking about the business cycle. As the book says: the standard use of 'boom and bust' was to refer to the use of interest rates to provoke booms for political purposes. Not the natural rhythms of a market economy. Explain how that can have been the dictionary definition in 2004 if it was a post2008 invention, Labour supporter or not.
" The independence movement maintains the absolute majority by the minimum in the Parlament de Catalunya. The SocioMétrica poll for EL ESPAÑOL, the first after the flight of Carles Puigdemont to Brussels, gives the parties that promote unilateral independence 68 deputies, the absolute majority: exactly half plus one of the seats of the autonomous chamber " https://www.elespanol.com/espana/20171101/258724920_0.html
Madrid has won - 8 of the rebel Catalan ministers are now behind bars. Puigdemont and the remaining ex-ministers of the Spanish province of Catalonia won't find sanctuary from extradition in Belgium or any other EU state. He should remember the fate of his predecessor, Lluis Companys.
Yes, there will be no separatist problems in Catalonia ever again now.
"The Separatists have been "taken care of", my Master!" - Anakin Skywalker.
I wonder which senator gave Rajoy emergency powers to deal with the increasing threat of the separatists?
You can trust journalists. Just make it clear what is on and off the record.
I have previously said (along the lines of): on the record X is a hard-working CEO off the record but can't be trusted with numbers on the record he will work hard to bring the company back to profitability off the record but he will need to fire Y to do it...
Etc.
Journalists will appreciate that you are a good source of info and background info and will want to maintain the relationship.
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
No.
It's not that that question doesn't arise, the point i'm making is that the anger in the tory party won't be redirected and diluted by a shift of focus of attention to labour.
I'm suggesting the sacking of Fallon is an issue of principle for TM. She's taking such a strong stand regardless of personal liking/animosity, political strength & party positioning/advantage vs-a-vis Labour.
I'm suggesting in TM's mind, this behavior from her colleagues is absolutely wrong, in the moral sense. Not wrong but labour are at it too and the shit spreads all ways and we all know what man are like but the public expect better so he'll have to go.
Absolutely wrong, in the moral sense.
The PM taking that position is terrifying for many (particularly male) con MP's.
That anger is being projected onto Williamson.
Perhaps it rankles that May isn't demanding the resignation of the equally sleazy Damian Green
It's not that that question doesn't arise, the point i'm making is that the anger in the tory party won't be redirected and diluted by a shift of focus of attention to labour.
I'm suggesting the sacking of Fallon is an issue of principle for TM. She's taking such a strong stand regardless of personal liking/animosity, political strength & party positioning/advantage vs-a-vis Labour.
I'm suggesting in TM's mind, this behavior from her colleagues is absolutely wrong, in the moral sense. Not wrong but labour are at it too and the shit spreads all ways and we all know what man are like but the public expect better so he'll have to go.
Absolutely wrong, in the moral sense.
The PM taking that position is terrifying for many (particularly male) con MP's.
Normally, with an increase in the interest rate, you would expect the pound to rally. The opposite happened. Probably, on balance, not a bad outcome.
Manufacturing needs help to continue its recent rebound, particularly with a reasonable likelihood that there could be a recession in Q1 or Q2 next year.
How can we be in recession in the next six months with GDP at 0.4% in the last quarter
Remember the Brexit cliff-edge!
The first effects will start to show in March 2018
What was Williamson's position on Brexit? Did he have one? Has she disturbed the balance? Otherwise it is not obvious why appointing another incompetent (assuming he is) to this cabinet could cause such a stir.
He's not incompetent, quite the contrary. However, he has no experience of running a department, or of speaking at the dispatch box, and he is (to put it politely) not the world's most compelling public speaker.
I am not saying he is Richard, I know nothing about him at all. I just can't understand why this appointment seems to have caused so many backbenchers to go off piste in a fairly major way. I am speculating that there is another agenda and since that is usually Brexit I was asking the question.
I don't think it's Brexit, I think it's a combination of several factors. Firstly it's a big promotion and people are jealous, especially since he doesn't seem to have any particular qualifications for the role and promotions are few and far between at the moment. Secondly it's Theresa May keeping to her small band of trusted and loyal advisers, which is seen as the cause of many problems. Thirdly there is the suggestion that he knifed Fallon and promoted himself, which may be unfair but is how it looks.
It's also that Fallon got sacked, at least ostensibly, for a crime that many of them fear they're guilty of.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
The question also arises when will Corbyn deal with his own shadow ministers as suggested by the media today
Normally, with an increase in the interest rate, you would expect the pound to rally. The opposite happened. Probably, on balance, not a bad outcome.
Manufacturing needs help to continue its recent rebound, particularly with a reasonable likelihood that there could be a recession in Q1 or Q2 next year.
How can we be in recession in the next six months with GDP at 0.4% in the last quarter
There are many, many articles like this one. You can just google it.
At the end of the day, real incomes are falling and will continue to fall for a year or so. Sooner rather than later consumer spending will dip. It has already done so with big ticket purchases like cars. Car registration has now fallen for 5 consecutive months. Construction is also heading downwards.
The only chink of light is manufacturing. The lower pound does help.
It's not that that question doesn't arise, the point i'm making is that the anger in the tory party won't be redirected and diluted by a shift of focus of attention to labour.
I'm suggesting the sacking of Fallon is an issue of principle for TM. She's taking such a strong stand regardless of personal liking/animosity, political strength & party positioning/advantage vs-a-vis Labour.
I'm suggesting in TM's mind, this behavior from her colleagues is absolutely wrong, in the moral sense. Not wrong but labour are at it too and the shit spreads all ways and we all know what man are like but the public expect better so he'll have to go.
Absolutely wrong, in the moral sense.
The PM taking that position is terrifying for many (particularly male) con MP's.
That anger is being projected onto Williamson.
Wait a minute, May fired Fallon?
If Pong is correct, then it would confirm that the PM has poor judgement, and she will force the Parliamentary Party to remove her.
It's not that that question doesn't arise, the point i'm making is that the anger in the tory party won't be redirected and diluted by a shift of focus of attention to labour.
I'm suggesting the sacking of Fallon is an issue of principle for TM. She's taking such a strong stand regardless of personal liking/animosity, political strength & party positioning/advantage vs-a-vis Labour.
I'm suggesting in TM's mind, this behavior from her colleagues is absolutely wrong, in the moral sense. Not wrong but labour are at it too and the shit spreads all ways and we all know what man are like but the public expect better so he'll have to go.
Absolutely wrong, in the moral sense.
The PM taking that position is terrifying for many (particularly male) con MP's.
That anger is being projected onto Williamson.
Wait a minute, May fired Fallon?
I don't know in this instance, but I think we all accept that in politics many people are resigned, rather than choose to resign. Many are the occasions are the 'X has resigned' then months or years down the line it is 'X didn't want to resign, Y made them'', and sometimes right from the start we know someone was in effect sacked.
May could finish up being leader in 2022 and winning. I'd have rated that as a big number to one against a while back, but less so now.
There is not a person alive, I'd suggest, that hasn't behaved differently towards someone they fancy than otherwise.
There is no case to answer for anyone to react to anyone else according to that second party's assumed demeanor. If you dress up as an assassin then I may reasonably assume that you are in fact an assassin. If a woman dresses as a prostitute then much the same.
Of course this argument doesn't work - prostitutes would shape the standard if it did. Nonetheless it should work, but we'd have to agree that, for example, "lipstick is basically a labour for cash enabler". Not sure we're there yet.
Alastair Darling's autobography details how bad things got. RBS rang one early one aternoon and said "we've run out of cash, we're closing at 4pm unless you do something". RBS got an emergency cash injection. Why?
Consider what them closing abruptly one afternoon would do. Every business who banks with RBS - either directly or indirectly - would have no access to cash or cah flowiing through them. Every customer would find not only the branches closed but the cash machines unable to dispense. And the following day? Chaos - people pulling as much cash as possible from their bank in case they go over next. Which makes them run out of cash. So they shut. And then next one. How is that a positive?
This.
There's been a hell of a lot of crap written about the bank bailouts in the past 10 years.
But people don't seem to realise that not bailing out the banks would have led to every ordinary citizen losing everything they had in a UK bank. Then being unable to pay their mortgage and thus losing their house. ie for the majority of citizens their entire wealth would have disappeared overnight. It wasn't just the banks which were bailed out, we were all bailed out.
That it needs explaining on here is embarrassing. CiF maybe (to deaf ears, obvs), but not on PB for heaven's sake!!!
Part of the problem was that for understandable party political reasons it was felt necessary to deny for some time that Gordon Brown had in fact saved the world. Three general elections later, even senior Conservative figures, most notably George Osborne, can be more open about the crisis.
Yep - I have been saying this for years. We were fortunate it was Brown and Darling (and Balls) doing the heavy lifting when the effluent hit the fan. And that it was Obama, not McCain, in charge in the US. The thing everyone forgets is how much worse it could all have been if siren voices further to the right had been listened to.
It was Brown's bailing out every bank that asked which helped add yo the narrative the bankers got away with it and the rise of Corbyn, at least Dubya let Lehmans go bust.
Dubya did indeed let Lehmans go bust -- and so did Gordon Brown when Barclays was prevented from bailing out Lehmans.
Barclays wasn't prevented from bailing out Lehmans
They were told they need to ask permission from their shareholders
Alastair Darling's autobography details how bad things got. RBS rang one early one aternoon and said "we've run out of cash, we're closing at 4pm unless you do something". RBS got an emergency cash injection. Why?
Consider what them closing abruptly one afternoon would do. Every business who banks with RBS - either directly or indirectly - would have no access to cash or cah flowiing through them. Every customer would find not only the branches closed but the cash machines unable to dispense. And the following day? Chaos - people pulling as much cash as possible from their bank in case they go over next. Which makes them run out of cash. So they shut. And then next one. How is that a positive?
This.
There's been a hell of a lot of crap written about the bank bailouts in the past 10 years.
But people don't seem to realise that not bailing out the banks would have led to every ordinary citizen losing everything they had in a UK bank. Then being unable to pay their mortgage and thus losing their house. ie for the majority of citizens their entire wealth would have disappeared overnight. It wasn't just the banks which were bailed out, we were all bailed out.
That it needs explaining on here is embarrassing. CiF maybe (to deaf ears, obvs), but not on PB for heaven's sake!!!
Part of the problem was that for understandable party political reasons it was felt necessary to deny for some time that Gordon Brown had in fact saved the world. Three general elections later, even senior Conservative figures, most notably George Osborne, can be more open about the crisis.
Yep - I have been saying this for years. We were fortunate it was Brown and Darling (and Balls) doing the heavy lifting when the effluent hit the fan. And that it was Obama, not McCain, in charge in the US. The thing everyone forgets is how much worse it could all have been if siren voices further to the right had been listened to.
It was Brown's bailing out every bank that asked which helped add yo the narrative the bankers got away with it and the rise of Corbyn, at least Dubya let Lehmans go bust.
Dubya did indeed let Lehmans go bust -- and so did Gordon Brown when Barclays was prevented from bailing out Lehmans.
He did get Lloyds to rescue HBOS though but Lehmans was a US bank every British bank got a bailout.
Alastair Darling's autobography details how bad things got. RBS rang one early one aternoon and said "we've run out of cash, we're closing at 4pm unless you do something". RBS got an emergency cash injection. Why?
Consider what them closing abruptly one afternoon would do. Every business who banks with RBS - either directly or indirectly - would have no access to cash or cah flowiing through them. Every customer would find not only the branches closed but the cash machines unable to dispense. And the following day? Chaos - people pulling as much cash as possible from their bank in case they go over next. Which makes them run out of cash. So they shut. And then next one. How is that a positive?
This.
There's been a hell of a lot of crap written about the bank bailouts in the past 10 years.
But people don't seem to realise that not bailing out the banks would have led to every ordinary citizen losing everything they had in a UK bank. Then being unable to pay their mortgage and thus losing their house. ie for the majority of citizens their entire wealth would have disappeared overnight. It wasn't just the banks which were bailed out, we were all bailed out.
That it needs explaining on here is embarrassing. CiF maybe (to deaf ears, obvs), but not on PB for heaven's sake!!!
Part of the problem was that for understandable party political reasons it was felt necessary to deny for some time that Gordon Brown had in fact saved the world. Three general elections later, even senior Conservative figures, most notably George Osborne, can be more open about the crisis.
Yep - I have been saying this for years. We were fortunate it was Brown and Darling (and Balls) doing the heavy lifting when the effluent hit the fan. And that it was Obama, not McCain, in charge in the US. The thing everyone forgets is how much worse it could all have been if siren voices further to the right had been listened to.
It was Brown's bailing out every bank that asked which helped add yo the narrative the bankers got away with it and the rise of Corbyn, at least Dubya let Lehmans go bust.
Dubya did indeed let Lehmans go bust -- and so did Gordon Brown when Barclays was prevented from bailing out Lehmans.
He did get Lloyds to rescue HBOS though but Lehmans was a US bank every British bank got a bailout.
Comments
Sort of. You can trust them on the on the record or off the record bit, but as many people have learnt over the years, you need to be very clear about this at the outset (I think it was Steve Bannon who was the latest victim of not being clear - with the New Yorker).
A good journalist will ask open questions then allow you to fill the space, giving you time to say something a bit further than you had planned. So plan well before hand.
https://www.elespanol.com/espana/20171101/258724920_0.html
Thanks. All the tricks of an interviewer, which I have used.
It is a fine line between saying something of interest and not, of course, breaching the confidentiality I owe my previous employers. And, first of all, finding out exactly what they want to write about. I have been quoted by journalists before when I've spoken at conferences. One very naughtily gave me top billing over a rather colourless talk given by some FCA poo-bah and I got gazillions of emails along the lines of "You go girl!" since I'd been pretty frank. Anyway will have a think and go find a tape recorder or whatever the latest App is.......
But that's just me, I am sure our MP's are beyond reproach.
It wouldn't surprise me if TM's strong reaction to the allegations/behavior is completely genuine - As per wiki, her working life began at the BoE in the late 70's. As a smart and attractive young woman, It's likely she would have had lots of unwanted approaches from very very powerful men who could make or break her.
That kind of stuff scars.
Or the £161bn borrowing and £250bn of printed money in 2009-10 to avoid still being in recession as the election loomed?
You already write excellent thread headers, so think about it if your area of expertise generates a news story. They are often linked to too, so can develop a life of their own.
They won't pay, but are always looking for content. You will know of specialist ones in your area of expertise.
Plus you then get cold-called to comment by journalists.
It is free advertising, costs nowt, but a little time and effort.
He claimed, when the crash had come, that that was what he had said. But he was not telling the truth.
For example, here is one of the forty-seven occasions he used that phrase or a similar one in the Commons, the budget of 17th March 2004:
For decades after 1945, Britain repeatedly relapsed into recession, moving from boom to bust. But I can report to the House that since 1997 Britain has sustained growth, not just through one economic cycle but through two economic cycles, without suffering the old British disease of stop-go.
Now you may notice there is nothing in there to say it was 'Tory' boom and bust. Nor could it be, as he referred to 1945, the sixties and the seventies, when Labour governments were in power.
But when the crash came, his boasting had left him nowhere to run. So he lied about what he had said. He may not even have realised he was lying as his gargantuan capacity for self-deception may even have hidden it from him.
But we have, with hindsight and the record, no business to swallow that lie.
(Moreover it's doubly ironic that you comment on politically motivated boom and bust when one of the key causes that made the crash so severe here was Brown's anxiety to extend cheap credit to consumers to reinflate bubbles that threatened to burst, building up large problems for the future.)
'The chancellor said: "Those who today are arguing that economic stability comes by opposing necessary changes in interest rates and by avoiding the tough decisions necessary to meet the inflation target, would risk returning to the boom and bust of the past."
Boom and bust clearly referring to political decisions on interest rates to stimulate a boom - to Maudling, Barber, Lawson.
Play nicely folks.
Manufacturing needs help to continue its recent rebound, particularly with a reasonable likelihood that there could be a recession in Q1 or Q2 next year.
I suppose it's worse for the Government because they're supposed to be running the country, not larking around like badly behaved adolescents. But you have to think that whatever the norms at Westminster are, they're pretty much the same across the board.
The public probably won't take too much notice, except to the extent that it reinforces the generally low status our rulers have in the public's mind.
Guest speakers Chuka Umunna and Anna Soubry.
https://order-order.com/2017/11/02/clegg-hosting-christmas-dinner-for-remain-elite-at-5-star-knightsbridge-hotel/
The first effects will start to show in March 2018
It's not that that question doesn't arise, the point i'm making is that the anger in the tory party won't be redirected and diluted by a shift of focus of attention to labour.
I'm suggesting the sacking of Fallon is an issue of principle for TM. She's taking such a strong stand regardless of personal liking/animosity, political strength & party positioning/advantage vs-a-vis Labour.
I'm suggesting in TM's mind, this behavior from her colleagues is absolutely wrong, in the moral sense. Not wrong but labour are at it too and the shit spreads all ways and we all know what man are like but the public expect better so he'll have to go.
Absolutely wrong, in the moral sense.
The PM taking that position is terrifying for many (particularly male) con MP's.
That anger is being projected onto Williamson.
Boom and bust is described exactly as I said. It's from 2004. How could it then be a post-2008 rationalisation?
There are many, many articles like this one. You can just google it.
At the end of the day, real incomes are falling and will continue to fall for a year or so. Sooner rather than later consumer spending will dip. It has already done so with big ticket purchases like cars. Car registration has now fallen for 5 consecutive months. Construction is also heading downwards.
The only chink of light is manufacturing. The lower pound does help.
You have now been shown hard evidence that you were wrong and you are trying to twist your original claim in an attempt to keep your illusions. Newsflash - it isn't working. There is no implication in that sentence that it was only the Tories he was blaming. Indeed, 1945 makes it abundantly clear he was including the Cripps Crash of 1949. Maudling was also only responsible in a limited way for 1967 - the short term miscalculations of Wilson and Callaghan were far more important (see here).
It is absolutely obvious that Brown genuinely believed he had rewritten the laws of economics - stretching back decades over multiple governments - and couldn't deal with his failure. That's why he invented the lie about what he said. But merely because a lie is politically useful doesn't make it any the less a lie.
I suppose the whips' office have a book on MPs' private lives which they use at times such as this but it seems extremely tame compared to Steven Norris, David Mellor or Cecil Parkinson. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1367684/The-nine-charmed-lives-of-Steve-Norris.html
Nobody at the time interpreted it as Brown saying he'd abolished the business cycle. Everybody understood what boom and bust referred to.
https://twitter.com/chrisgreybrexit/status/926132855562035201
It's even more ironic as if you had actually read it you might have noticed on page 215 it says 'Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown said he would avoid boom and bust policies.' Again no mention of the word 'Tory' there.
Here's a friendly tip. We all make mistakes - God knows I make far too many. But when you have made an error, admit it and stop digging yourself deeper into the more.
Edit - even on p.18 Lawson is only used as an (entirely valid) example and no reference is made to the political aspects you claim.
Anyway, I have some more work to do. Have a good evening everyone and do enjoy the link to the EHR article on 1967 above - most interesting if somewhat depressing.
You can trust journalists. Just make it clear what is on and off the record.
I have previously said (along the lines of): on the record X is a hard-working CEO off the record but can't be trusted with numbers on the record he will work hard to bring the company back to profitability off the record but he will need to fire Y to do it...
Etc.
Journalists will appreciate that you are a good source of info and background info and will want to maintain the relationship.
NEW THREAD
There is not a person alive, I'd suggest, that hasn't behaved differently towards someone they fancy than otherwise.
There is no case to answer for anyone to react to anyone else according to that second party's assumed demeanor. If you dress up as an assassin then I may reasonably assume that you are in fact an assassin. If a woman dresses as a prostitute then much the same.
Of course this argument doesn't work - prostitutes would shape the standard if it did. Nonetheless it should work, but we'd have to agree that, for example, "lipstick is basically a labour for cash enabler". Not sure we're there yet.
They were told they need to ask permission from their shareholders
Which wax exactly the right decision by Darling