You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2008.

Letters to the press by esteemed economists do not have a good track record ..

But 16 have put their head above the parapet to condemn Darlings plan to spend his way out of recession.

Its possible they are now facing the wrong way, for having exposed themselves its fire from the direction of the parados they now need worry about.

Still … their remarks seem to make sense – but we must ask just how serious is Darling/ Brown about this spending?  Given the track record of Labour is this perhaps just propaganda?   They know the pressure will be on Sterling.  But for political reasons they say what they have to.

Even as it is we are committed to £9+ billion of pointless expenditure on the Olympics. Do we need more?  As the article points out – how can we be sure that this rushed expenditure (if it is real and not a phantasm) will be worth a damn in the future?  Its quite possible it will starve the really needy parts of our economy

I am not the greatest fan of John Redwood – but he has a point –
– Why should we taxpayers fund an anti competitive bank merger?
– Has the fall in the pound reflected the inevitable fall in interest rates?  If so it would be crazy not to massively cut them now.  Sterling has got to be a worry – a depreciating currency will impoverish us – but in the real world I foresee death famine and pestilence if we do not directly help businesses and plain old fashioned ordinary people.

This to me seems to be the ultimate wrong headedness of the Darling/Brown ‘ Viv Nicholson ‘   policy.


Well …. I said Brown would throw money at his dire poll ratings and he is.

Darling is quite clear about it – though I doubt that the economy is quite as robust to pay for it as he pretends.

Given all the taxes we have been throwing at the government during 11 years of ‘good times’ then that should be easy.  There will be loads of money in a surplus won’t there?

err no.

Its all going to come from more borrowing, borrowing piled on top of an existing pile of already far too high borrowing.  How come government borrowing is good but private borrowing is bad?

So just when will the gov. pay back all its borrowing?  When will it bring in some measly sort of surplus to cover the massive spendthrift borrowing?
Err ….  If you are a dumb socialist the question can be rephrased – ‘When will the govt put up taxes?’

And just for the benefit of conomically illiterate socialist I can whisper the answer to them – “It will be just after the run on the Pound”.  It will be just like old times for the Socialists to leave us with a good old fashioned Sterling Crisis.

The Nelson Touch” has gone down in history … it gave us victory at Trafalgar and cemented British dominion of the seas for the next century and gave birth to the British Empire.

Sadly for the Nation another one-eyed man’s touch has proved to be disastrous for the British economy and its lasting heritage can at the moment only be guessed at.

There is no end to the many and manifold sins and wickednesses that Gordon Brown either as Chancellor or Prime Minister has inflicted on this country.  In connection with this awesomely frighteningly disastrously unfolding financial crisis Brown seems to have excelled himself.  And Browns statements about regulation in general and financial regulation in particular are a devastating indictment of hubris on a massive scale.

The government – this LABOUR government – has been unequivocally in charge since 1997. Under Gordon Brown it  drastically changed regulation to a light touch ‘risk based’ model. It did so back in 2005.  The ‘Better Regulation Action Plan’ should be hung round Browns neck as a noose that terminates his premiership.
How many times do we need to repeat his words before the nation wakes up?

We will look to apply on a wider basis the principle of risk based regulation to financial services legislation and the work of the FSA.


The FSA, which we set up in 1997 as a world leading example of how to regulate financial services … has already done valuable work on adopting a risk based approach and I welcome the thinking it is doing about how it can further reduce the burden of financial regulation.


A risk based approach helps move us a million miles away from the old assumption – the assumption since the first legislation of Victorian times – that business, unregulated, will invariably act irresponsibly.

Every single one of those words is a nail in Browns coffin of credibility.

Why did the Titanic ship of state hit the economic iceberg?

In this time of crisis the Opposition are offering support, certainly for the principle involved – well realistically its the only option available – so the govt know they can get on with it without being criticised.  But what happens?  All lefties can do is take advantage of this and make party political points.  I think Browns pathetic party politicking at QMT will come back to haunt him – given the points I make above – he deserves it

October 2008
« Sep   Nov »