Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Ask three stooges...

All credit to Channel 4 for organising the Ask the Chancellors debate last night and particularly for making it advertisement free! It was interesting to see the three men head to head, all looking rather nervous. It's easy to criticise people on television from the luxury of one's own sofa but I was rather disappointed in GO whom I thought could have been far more punchy. It was only in his final one minute summary that he said that Labour had made the UK one of the weakest economies in Europe. He didn't mention "Prudence", he didn't say that GB ruined banking regulation at a stroke when he split the regulatory responsibilities between the Bank of England and the FSA, and he didn't question the dithering which led to the nationalisation of Northern Rock. He also didn't ask how VC would fund his proposal to raise the personal allowance for income tax from £6500 to £10,000 which will cost an estimated £16bn a year. Neither AD nor GO criticised VC's plan to scrap Trident. All three men criticised Barclays' bonuses when Barclays managed to do all its capital raising without recourse to the UK taxpayer: the politics of envy permeates. GO also didn't explain properly why the Conservatives are ring-fencing the NHS from spending cuts. He simply attributed the idea to David Cameron and "the modern Conservative Party." Anyway, I'm sure CCHQ will be going over this debate with a fine toothcomb and hope that DC will get some ideas from it for his performance.


Blogger Angus said...


2:10 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i watched the debate as well and felt indeed most unimpressed with the change proposed by the conservatives. No punchyness indeed , no new ideas. Frankly for the uninformed viewer it was VC who came over the best. This is a real chance for the conservatives but they have no spine, and its more of the same. the british voter is disenfranchised. In times where a change a la M Tatcher is required there is no one there. The conservatives are messing this one up big time.On bankers bonus they could have stated you reform it, not you tax it. The answer lies that those on big bonuses get them retained but most importantly get made personally liable to return them if the bank loses money.With that you will see a far more radical change.For example the corporate finance division might not let the derivatives division take ridiculous open ended bets because they have to contribute to the loss in the future if there is one.The casino aspect and greed of the bank will soon change.like a 5 year performance fee, the bonus gets returned if the earnings don't reflect it. Today you have a 12 month cycle which is a one way ticket on the up and you return nothing on the down. Only your retained shares for 3 years will fluctuate. so you reform by retaining shares and returning cash on your performance. you soon enough will see a different universe. Anyway i thought the debate is a sad state of affairs.If these 3 man are in the number 2 seat its like driving a travant on the m25

5:11 am  
Blogger Whispering Walls said...

Hi Anon - good idea re bringing back personal liability in banks. That's how City partnerships used to work. The govt now has the mandate to dictate how the nationalised banks are run, yet it's still sanctioning bonuses instead of repaying surplus cash to shareholders.

7:52 am  
Blogger Eurodog said...

There's nothing to worry about. Tony Blair is back!

8:19 am  
Blogger Whispering Walls said...

Ha ha ED! Welcome back Perma-Tan Tone!

8:44 am  
Blogger Welshcakes Limoncello said...

Would have liked to have seen that.

8:11 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a very interesting website regarding the election. I highly recommend taking the survey:


They are updating the policies as the manifestos come out as well.

1:33 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home