Intriguing politics

Oh dear ! Nick, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now, trying to find an ulterior motive for Cameron's criticisms of bankers. This is followed by another reference to the " Osborne scandal " what scandal?, was it the one where our business minister spent a holiday on a Russian entrepeneur's yacht while aluminium tariffs were being discussed. What about Brown's claim of an agreement in Europe last week, it didn't include him, is this not news? Sometimes it seems that the " news " you come up with is sanctioned by Downing Street . Sooner or later this will all come home to roost, we will have a change of government and the BBC may well find that acting as propaganda arm of the Labour party may have a price.

I feel there is a general election coming soon.

Obviously so does David Cameron.

The blatant electioneering by Brown during this financial crisis and his cavorting around India Pakistan and Afganistan over the weekend leaves me totally disgusted.

Don't we have a foreign secretary to do that. And shouldn't tactics against terrorists remain secret?

He's obviously given up on this country and now wants to be seen as another Tony Blair. He needs to coordinate his hand movements first though.

The praying stance in Afganistan was a bad joke under the circumstances.

Anyway when will the election be?

Spring I guess.

Before everything goes to the dogs.

Nick,

Can you tell me what if anything is happening about the Speaker's Committee set up to look into the police investigation within the House of Commons? Perhaps, instead, you might want to tell me about the state of play with regard to the role that government minsiters have had in leaks to the press of sensitive market information to your colleagues in the media? Or even the extent to which government minsters are implicated in soirees on the yacht(s?) of rich and powerful industrialists. (Remember those pictures of Mandy beside Mittal and others?) Then there is the question of how the rest of the west view Brown's attempts to save the world .... I mean banks.

But then why bother when you can raise questions of the opposition who are at best still several months away from being able to contest an election, never mind win it.

Can I therefore suggest that before you submit another blog topic that raises questions about how the Leader of the opposition might be exploited by Labour, you might want to ask yourself if there is anything else out there in the world of politics that might be of greater significance to the electorate who happen also to pay your wages? Rather than being part of Mandy's spin machine, I would ask that you spend as much, if not more, time being an investigative political journalist.

Nick, all the Tories need to do is show all the pictures of Labour ministers hobnobbing with the rich and such like.

#Cough Ecclestonthepoisoneddwarf Cough#

Nick

Your logic seems to be as flawed as ever. So a Tory Law abiding rich guy can't be against rich crooks. Bit like a Labour MP(most of them are rich too) not being tough against working class crooks.

Why don't you just come out and say you perfer NuLabour, then at least people will know how to attack you, rather then your wink wink nudge nudge blogs.

I'd be happier if David Cameron was offering some solutions. Imagine what the media would do if he started offering advice to Gordon and that advice was seen to be good and implimented. The papers would have a field day and Cameron would take the high ground in this school ground fight. The problem for Cameron here is that the problem is due to Thatcherism and how Labour took on her policies to defeat the more liberal Major. Now I don't really understand what each party stands for and they are defiant on not explaining it to me.

Seriously though, rather than just point and say "Oh Gordon's got it wrong, we'll all lose our jobs" I'd like to see some solutions from Mr Cameron. Ideas such as moving towards a 4 day week would be very welcome to those about to be made redundant or already made redundant. If companies are laying off 1/5 of thier staff in some cases, just move them all to 4 day weeks spread over the 5 days. Workers get an extra day off and no one gets made redundant. Sure, everyone gets paid a bit less, but its better than 1/5 not getting paid at all. 4 days pay just needs the belt to be tightened on or two notches. No days pay and you'll have to sell that belt and maybe the trousers too.

Politically - I just cannot afthom out why he has done it??????

It strikes me as (a) unnecessary at this specific time (b) a massive political gamble (c) desperate!

I am almost begging to ask....WHAT IS ABOUT TO COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK THAT HE IS TERRIFIED OF???

The timing of this is bizarre....he has actually begun to stem the tide of accusation that he is "do nothing Dave".

He has actually managed,as you rightly point out Nick,to so far shrug off the undeniable link between Banks,Banking,Hedge Funds,Speculators and The Tory Party...

This seems on balance like a MASSIVE POLITCAL OWN GOAL...

I can just imagine Mandy and Campbell now preparing the response...

The links to Big Banks

The donations from Banks and Speculators

The contacts within Hedge Funds

The declared Directorships of the Shadow Cabinet of the Banks/Banking Sector

The continual voting in the Commons against all facets of Industrial Regulation when introduced in the past decade e.g Mortgage and General Insurance and Investments...

I am convinced there is something pretty destructive about to break about either the Party or Individuals fairly close to Cameron - he has seen the need to get in a sharp pre-emptive strike...other than that...its political suicide surely???...

This was a refreshing and insightful piece until you spoilt it by dwelling at length on recent Tory scandals, complete with a photograph to ram home the point.
Perhaps you could balance this with some New Labour scandals (and throw in a few LibDems ones for good measure). After all, there's a general election just around the corner.

Hardly subtle, Nick.

Nick, with all due respect, it's not really that intriguing, is it?

Nick,

would this be the same scandal & the same yacht that Mr Peter Mandelson was on?

By the way, how are your investigations going as to Mandelson's links with Deripaska regarding EU aluminium tariffs whilst he was EU Commissioner?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Cameron is only talking common sense. In point of fact, the old Securities and Futures Authority (one of the predecessors to the FSA) produced a paper on Senior Management Responsibility in investment firms and this was carried over into New Labour's Financial Services Authority.

The basic idea is that those who run investment firms need to be held accountable for the business they undertake, and the risks/effects they have on the FSA being able to manage its statutory objectives.

Every Approved Person (which every executive investment Director of an FSA regulated firm need to be) must have an annual competence assessment. Linked to this, on an annual basis they need to be confirmed as being fit and proper to undertake their duties. Have they kept up to date with market practice? How have they managed risks? Do they understand the risks what they do pose to the firm?

One does wonder if the FSA will be asking to see the assessment papers for some of the Directors of Britain's banks. However, it will be rather awkward for the FSA, since every bank will have been providing financial data to the FSA continuously, and every bank will have its own FSA inspectors.

Anyway, as Cameron says, if Doctors are held accountable by the GMC, then what about those who present risks to the financial system.

"It is of course one that the Labour Party wish to exploit ruthlessly."

Oh dear, not a single comment moderated yet - but what is the betting that many refer to Nicks use of the photo whilst admitting that Labour want to use it to damage Cameron?

Sometimes I wonder whether it's done simply to antagonise, whilst at other times it looks like repaying the Labour spin masters.

"It is of course one that the Labour Party wish to exploit ruthlessly."

Mission accomplished then.

Intriguing politics?

For me the most intriguing thing about politics that I can think of is "how Peter Mandelson does continue to get away with it?"

Rich crooks, poor crooks, Zen Buddhism offers no answer...
But Zanulabour says "Rich man he may pay off zanulabour overdraft in time for us to have election"

You break the law or you stuff up your job you pay the price; something newlabour seem to have been slow to wake up to in their 'nobody is to blame' culture.

Come in Sharon Shoesmith.

Now come in Ed Balls, Gordon Brown, Jacqui Smith, Gorbals Mick and the rest of the newlabour crony machine.

Call an election.

Nick,

You know more than you are telling don't you?

You took a bit of flak over Corfugate so you must be pretty confident that Cameron is on the wrong side of something for you to drag it up.

AC and PM must have found some more damaging material for you to trail.

But therein lies the rub for the rest of us.

Just when we really, really need a strong competent opposition to hold to account the ever more damaging Brown, we have a hamstrung lightweight.

Oh well, soon be Christmas, fancy some more dirt stuffing?

Nick

Who else was on that yacht and how long did he stay on it?
Was it for a cup of tea, overnight or a whole week?
Any idea; are you going to tell us?

I think democracy has failed us. I for one, have absolutely no faith in any political party in this country or the USA for that matter. They seem completely out of touch with the people they persecute [supposedly represent] and none of them have anything useful to say about any of the crises facing our society. They have nothing to offer in terms of the banking crisis, the credit explosion, crime, immigration, falling education standards, failing morality, the death penalty, the Middle East, etc.

What are these people paid to do? They just churn out the same old failed arguments over and over, and spend their time scoring points off one another.

Time to find a new way perhaps? In an age when millions can readily access internet, can we not have online referendi (?) and major policy suggestions?

Nick

If you are right about Cameron's speech being intended to combat the effects of the Osborne and Ross episodes, it's been counter-productive don't you think ?

Here we have the BBC political correspondent implying that the reason for the speech is not the issues being raised in it - enquiry/hold to account/ day of reckoning etc and the need for the government to guarantee loans to business - but the wish to head off the danger of his being too closely linked with the 'shamed' and 'allegedly scandal' involved rich.

Did you even bother to consider or analyse the substance of what was said by Cameron ? Or did you just leap directly to what you imagine to be the real reason for the speech ?

I know you clever media chaps can can read between the lines of a one line statement but I would suggest that it is worth looking at what's in the lines before you seek to read between them.

By the way, I find the idea risible that those who hold against Cameron his Burlington Toff, rich background would be in any swayed by this speech.

That’s right Nick no one in Labour have ever done anything dodgier than Osbourne or been pictured with anyone who later had financial questions to answer.

Nick I know it's hard to focus on information that matters in the BBC but I would have thought the message to currency markets that the Government will not defend the pound will have appeared somewhere on your Radar.
Or the alleged biggest Ponzi scheme in history has just exploded in the US. (Which if you had listened to what Cameron said, is very relevant)
Like Mr Merdel in Little Dorit “The man of the age” was just throwing more and more people’s money at a position that had failed long ago. Does this remind you of anyone closer to home? Underpants over tight’s

20 Come on Nick own up....

Caroline Spellman was on the yacht too was'nt she - with her nanny - trying to sort out the secretarial duties for Mr Deripaska?...

Nick.

Contrary to popular belief, largely brought about by references on comedy shows, sticking the word "alleged" in front of an acquisition offers no legal protection against civil action.

BTW: Instead of banging on about Ozzie Osborne [sic] why don't you try to get the REAL knife crime stats from the Government?

See you in the pub.

"However, the recent alleged scandal about George Osborne on a billionaire's yacht..."

You just couldn't resist it, could you Nick? You had to get the boot in despite Mandelson's situation being the true scandal and Osborne's situation being a total non-event.

You're just perpetuating the same class war myths that labour tried to peddle in the "toff" campaign. Is that really the kind of reporting that we want from the BBC?

Labour don't care about holding people to account; they'll whitewash anything and everything because it always ends up coming back to them in the end.

Ask yourself why it is that when you try and report the details of a multi-billion dollar fraud (even when you hold technical evidence about who's perpetrating it) to the UK police they won't even let you fill out a form and just tell you to go away, whereas the Americans will fall over themselves asking you to provide as many details as possible.

The uk authorities under labour are too scared to admit any truths, and actively try to stop investigations; everything gets swept under the carpet because doing otherwise would show everyone just how corrupt and negligent they've all been under labour's watch.

2. It has always been the norm for the Prime Minister of the day to visit UK troops in some part of the World - around Christmas and the New Year...

Blair did it,Major did it,Thatcher did it etc...

And Do nothing Dave has hardly sneaked in and out of "hotspots" unannounced has he....like Iraq,like Afghanisthan, does anyone remember Georgia....!!!!!!!!....

Clearly the visit to India was linked too to Mumbai and possibly economic talks....

Must try harder....and Dave wont be doing any electioneering any time soon surely??????????

Surely the most intriging politics since Friday is the fallout from the Government's leaking of unapproved knife crime figures - ending with the Home Secretary's apology in the House of Commons.

However for some reason you don't think this is worth blogging about despite all the articles you penned over the Damien Green affair.

Nick,

I have to agree with kaybraes 1#

please don't start banging the labour drum as many of your other so called neutral colleagues do on behalf of the Labour party.

It seems that the only true neutral journalist out there these days is Jon Snow.

Cameron is speaking the words of millions of hard working taxpayers who are fed up with being taken for a ride by a socialist government that has destroyed the UK.

As a votor I want the people including politicians who have caused this crash accountable for what has happened.

I don't want to see Gordon Brown and Tony Blair enjoying a comfortable lifestyle on big fat pensions while millions face retirement (including myself) with nothing due to their incompetance.

Unbelievable! You really are a joke...couldn't you think of any other COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT tosh to drag up to highlight your point?

Dear Nick,

Nice warmly piece about them toffs, which source did it come from?

Hope "the richest people of our society" include any who prop up (Za)Nu(Improved)Labour?

How much is rich now?

Also, will you be asking your (HP)source what is the truth about the latest government figures that now appear to be misleading?
70 police injured but only 12 reportable and, of those, only 4 involving contact with other people???

Xxxx
Keep up the propper-gander

Nick

We're still waiting for an explanation as to why Lord Mandleson was also on Deripaskas's yacht - and not just for the day, either. Apparently he was staying on it...or perghaps you don't think that's important enough?

Come on BBC - pull your socks up!

Cameron is quite right to speak out, and I'm a Labour supporter. Associating with this or that bil/millionaire is part of a politicians job and it must be nerve racking to wonder which of them will drop you in it sooner or later. Guilt by association is easy, cheap, and snide, whatever party you support.
Can we please have a little more maturity by HYS subscribers as well as BBC reporters generally? (I single no one out-there are too many cynics).
To those who sneer, name me 1 British politician who has made a corrupt fortune from his/her job in the last 20-30 yrs.
If they are all in it for themselves, they aren't very good at it!

13 - having worked in Compliance for many years on and off - and being subject to the auspices of the FSA and its predecessors you are 100% factually correct...

What you - and DC - (not trying to link you with him just making a point) however - fial to point out crucially is...

The Tories since 1997 - have voted against or abstained in every single vote in the House of Commons when legislation was proposed to INCREASE regulation and/or to INCREASE the Regulatory powers of the FSA and other bodies - seeking to safeguard and protect customers...and/or individuals..
Source - Hansard...

Now that begs the question why and what the rationale..

In almost all cases the rationale was that over-regulation would have a negative market influence of either UK Banks or Banking - or on the City of London - as a worldwide force in the provision of Financial Services and Banking...

So - why - back to my initial point...

WHY HAS CAMERON OPENED HIMSELF UP TO THE RIDICULE AND HYPOCRACY THAT HE IS NOW ADVOCATING EXACTLY WHAT HE AND HIS PARTY HAVE VOTED AGAINST FOR OVER A DECADE???

Furthermore...

Does this apparent - Damascus moment - indicate we are suddenly going to see the Conservative Party..

- return all donations from this sector

- refuse any further donations from the sector

- cease and terminate all Directorships in this Sector

- untie - all links to Consultants,Consultanties and Funding linked to Hedge Fund and Equity Companies...

IF CAMERON DOES THIS - HE WILL WIN A LANDSLIDE ELECTION VICTORY - and DESERVEDLY SO...

If he does'nt...

He is a hypocrite amongst Hypocrites....

Whilst waiting for the outcome - but scared of holding my breath for too long...

I return to my first point.....just what is he scared of??

I agree with Nick. It is intriguing that Cameron should take the high moral ground on those who caused the crash - because in doing so he will implicate himself and his party, because it will high-light where most of their funds have come recently. He is adopting this stance as there will never be an enquiry - it would take months to set up, would cost millions to run. It is plain and simple "I have not got a policy to pretend is new, and Mr Brown has all the publicity as he wings around - so I'll make a silly statement about something that will never happen". The shame is that so many are sending in comments that support Cameron. All paid up card holders ??? All tory toffs/toffesses ??

So, Nick, this is the latest bit of Government spin you can come up with ......pretty pathetic don't you think?

as a BBC journalist, shouldn't you know the difference between 'enquiry' (i.e. to ask about something) and 'inquiry' (i.e. to investigate something)?

You should go back to school Nick...

I'm starting to think that the Tories could do worse than to not contest the upcoming election and hand the result to Labour. Let them sort out their own mess. Brown seems to be dumping more and more poison into the chalice deliberately, and it seems likely that the next Tory government will have to make some very unpopular moves in order to sort the whole mess out. Public spending will have to be cut while keeping taxes the same in order to get the massive debt under control that Brown is lumping us with. Brown is clearly hoping that the Tories will make the tough decisions to get the country back on the right track, just in time for Labour to capitalise on those necessary but unpopular decisions and start squandering our wealth again.

Presumably Cameron is trying to differentiate himself from the pusillanimous approach taken throughout newlabour's reign?

The approach that avoided controversy, never blamed anyone, had created the perfect economy; the approach that was gutless and false and that is everything the public has tired of listening to.

The approach that says it's okay to run up even more debt rather than take a difficult decision about the economy; the approach which remains to it's core spineless and utterly newlabour.

Call an election

Cameron suggesting an enquiry?

What is the problem with that Mr N.R?

So what if he is pals with the former

Carphone Warehouse co founder.

Was Cameron handing out Honours for

donations?? Is that your smear??

Do you support New Labour?

See the killing of the Brazilian guy has been

SIDESTEPPED BY THE BBC.

What a surprise.

23....I wonder if any of the Ponzi Merdel money can be traced in to a British Political Party ???...

now that may explain a few things....

mighten it???

Of course this is 100% pure speculation and guesswork on my part...

No11 Yellowbelly.
Do you agree with the view that that only a fool would think that a European Trade Commissioner, with a glowing world wide reputation, would not discuss industrial issues with leading protagonists?

Nick..as you seem to think that this photograph of Cameron is so damaging,perhaps you (or anyone else) could tell me when it was taken,and in what circumstances?

Seems to me that you are suggesting if a political leader has his photo taken with someone who,years later, turns out to have done something wrong;the said political leader should automatically get tarred with the same brush..charged,tried and sentenced.

..So how about some out of Mandelsons holiday album,please?

I'm constantly amazed at your choice of what to write about, in total agreement with many of the posters on here.

Why is it that you are focussing on the Conservatives' meetings with "dodgy" businessmen (nice photo to lend credence by the way), and completely ignore those meetings that Labour ministers had, sometimes with the same people.

Then you suggest that Cameron's proposal to prosecute these dodgy businessmen is politically dangerous.

Presumably you think that Brown's approach of (as he himself might put it) "doing nothing", and letting them get away with it, is political genius.

No more than I am coming to expect from Labour, the BBC and you Nick.

Very balanced, Nick. Thanks for giving your views on Clegg's speech.

Of all the things that are going on... this is what you choose to write about.

For all those who say you have a New Labour bias Nick.... you're not exactly doing a lot to refute it are you?

Cameron isnt in power. Truth be told, unless he sorts his act out he isnt LIKELY to be in power either.

Brown IS, without a clear electoral mandate from either his own party or the electorate.

It is HIM and HIS party and THIER behaviour who a political editor should be asking pertinent questions of. They are directly accountable to the electorate. Cameron isnt!

What happened to "Nation Shall Speak Truth Unto Nation"?

When Greg Dyke left did he take the BBC's backbone with him?

Why is everyone at the BBC so scared of demanding the answers? The only reasons can either be financial, political or idealogical.

I used to think better of the BBC than this. More fool me.

More like: "Nation Shall Speak Mandyspin Unto Lumpen Proletariat."

Disappointing.

Nick, I thought exactly the same. Why dod Cameron feel the need to talk about corruption in the city when there was plenty of other things to talk about. The deaths of four Royal Marines for instance? Strength of the pound, Knife crime figures, to mention but a few.

And a really interesting point Gordon Brown briefing Parliament about the fiscal package agreed by Europe over the weekend.

Yet George (Gideon) Osbourne is knowhere to be seen. Former employee of a certain Jewish Hedge Fund Manager in New York perhaps?

Nick

is your application in the post to become a government spin doctor. I would think that they have a complete battalion of them now, all drawing, cushy public pensions. Is that the attraction.

I wonder if any of the political parties have invested their funds in Mardoff? That would be time spent than recycling Labour press releases.

Shame on you.

Nick

When you write that warts and all book of the New Labour years in power could you please sum up the sleaze ratio of 10 years of in and out Ministers and half truths (sic) compared with the last 10 years of the amateur Tories.

Also you could publish some data on the wealth of some of these socialist politicians so we can evaluate the rhetoric of what they say against what they do.

And then lets see where New Labour can position themselves to avoid been seen in a negative light before trhe next election.

Can politics and the media coverage please grow up? We have a global crisis, not to mention wars occuring. Why is Mr Cameron stood next to the "shamed" Carphonewarehouse exec worthy of mention, politically or otherwise? There's no story behind it (unlike Osbourne), it's a social event and has nothing to do with anything. Does the photo i have of me stood next to Frank Bruno make me a boxer? I don't think so. The only way we will ever have true debate, and focus on the genuine issues raised is to grow up and focus on those issues, not clutch at pathetic, insignificant straws like children who have yet to learn logic in a playground.

GreatAndyDudley:

You ever thought of working for the BBC?





If this is the kind of reporting we're going to get, we might as well get it from a known, certifiable source as any other.



Ever fancied being a political journalist?



Political Editor in fact??!!




Judging by the current Haw-Haw-esque incumbent, you certainly seem adequately qualified. Whats stopping you?

#6
I think you have to listen pretty carefully to hear what the Conservatives and Lib Dems have been suggesting as alternatives to the Brownian solution to our current problems - but other suggestions have been made and the government chooses to ignore them in favour of throwing huge amounts of cash at the downturn in the rather vague hope that it may in some way help.

I would have thought that more targeted spending by the government (as suggested by other parties) would have had a more measurable effect, whereas the cut in VAT is both expensive and its effect unmeasurable. Brownian economics seems to be simply a measure of how much can be spent - it gives the illusion of doing a lot when in fact the money will have been largely wasted, as on other of their pet projects.

I think it is right for Cameron to raise issues as he has done. This government does everythng it can to shirk its responsibility and Brownian economics appears to be like the Titanic, impossible to manouvre when things get tricky, so missing the critical signs of things starting to go wrong - and when things do go wrong it's everybody else'e fault. I think some placing of responsibility is required.

All this current action by the government will not be regarded critically by them, so it must be looked at critically by others, but the result will be the same as Labour listens to no one.

Do I take it from your line in this piece that the official BBC line is that there should not be any investigation into what happen and if there is any fraud in the actions of the finance industry?

Does the BBC want us to focus on how the Tories are trying to perform a cover up?

You are the Political editor of the BBC aren't you?
So this must be the BBC line?

Will we be seeing the Anti Terrorist Squad raid Cameron's office and house?

Come on Nick what info have you got?

Come on remember,

Who, What, Where, When and Why

Nick,

"The main thing which makes blogs different from a newspaper column or even TV or radio broadcast is that it is a conversation between the author and the audience. So the success of Newslog will depend on you letting me know what you think about the news, and indeed about what I've written myself."

it's not much of a conversation though is it when you make some assertions which are challenged but there is no response from you, Nick.

I believe that David Ross' problems were a surprise to almost everyone and he has behaved entirely correctly albeit at great cost to himself and his family. One photo of itself doesn't make for a scandal, and you'd need more than this to create one.

Cameron's speech is important and should be treated as such. If the point being made was that Labour will seek to rubbish Cameron's points then surely the story to pursue is why they might want to do so.

So how about a follow up blog post that explores why Labour would not want to seek retribution for the failures of bankers and government appointed watchdogs that have allowed this crisis to develop so far?

Thanks Nick for my daily dose of Labour propaganda.

Same time tomorrow?

PS You might not want to mention the currency markets. Maybe you can dig out some more Tory family photos instead.

i thought the BBC and its employees were supposed to be neutral....This blog is the propaganda wing of the labour party and luckily most of the respondents on here recognise it...when are you going to defend yourself against these grave accusations?

I took this to mean he will be sending the fraud squad to investigate the FSA for their failings, as well as business men who break the law.

As far as the Carphone Warehouse fella is concerned, I'm not sure him taking a private loan against his stock is that bad a thing to do. The bank would have been collateralised and probably would have lent a nominal face value amount, and they would have had plenty to liquidate should the stock fall in value. It's almost sensible lending on the part of the bank - and I'm sure the bank that did this is as culpable as the gentleman in question.

Please investigate if Lord Sainsbury or any of his family have ever borrowed against his stock and if this was reported to the necessary authorities or the stock market. He's Labour so in the interest of fairness and all that!

Difficult for Cameron. The people responsible for the current crisis are not:- plumbers, engineers,joiners,bus drivers,car makers, seamen, or any other everyday trade or profession.
The guilty are financiers, bankers and speculators. This is exactly the class Cameron comes from. He went to school with them, he dresses like them he speaks like them and they are in his immediate circle of friends. How on earth could we ever believe that someone like this could ever take a balanced view of what needs to be done for the ordinary people of the UK. It's a front, if he wins an election the rich boys will be out again, within a legislative framework which will enable them to continue their self centred abuse of the country and it's long suffering people. Beware the caring Tory, at best he's a mirage to the thirsty in a desert of leadership.

Seems like Thailand has the right idea:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/3773558/Old-Etonian-becomes-Thailands-new-prime-minister.html

There. not so difficult to elect an Oxbridge educated old Etonian is it?

Especially at times of crisis.

Now call an election please so we can have our own.

First of all, Nick is or was a Conservative. Chair of the Young Conservatives if i remember correctly. Which make the comments by some on here a bit ridiculous, especially by those who think he has some form of labour agenda

Secondly, as a floating voter, Cameron's speech today came across as a bit desperate and quite a bit more wooly. No practical ideas of any immediate use to the public and no clear definition of their policy on the economy, other than to not punish the rich with an increase in tax. The speech did not show how the conservatives would sort this mess out should they win the next general election (whenever that is)

Thirdly, the comparison of the way the FSA is dealing with potential fraud to the way the US deals with white-collar crime was pure vote winning. Any wrong doing will be uncovered eventually. Changing the British application of the law to make the handing out of judicial sentences more common for this type of crime requires a change of thought from judges.

This will not happen overnight and is not really an immediate issue or cause for concern for the public. Blaming Brown for this, or suggesting that Britain's economic problems are totally down to him, is a bit stupid. Is the Madoff fraud, and the losses suffered by the banks here in the UK his fault as well?

A big mistake appears to be the changing of the governments attitude towards the banks. After promising them money to shore up their balance sheets, they are now being told to pass on interest rate cuts to the public, despite having to pay for already scarce wholesale cash at a higher rate. This is not rescuing the banks, its squeezing them again.

Of course, we are yet to hear what the conservatives would do if they were in a similar position. Let's wait and see.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Well done Mr Robinson, it's clear that you write whatever the wishes of the political party that would give the BBC the biggest funding. The quality of your contributions explains why I as non-UK individual hardly watch BBC and now prefer CNN.

A few suggestions for a to-do list if you want to seem somewhat less biased:

-Ask Brown why he is blocking an inquiry whether Ed Balls was on the pay roll of a think tank when Ed Balls worked for Brown, as recently imported in the Times?
-Ask Brown why he rubbished Osborne when Osborne recently warned about the collapsing pound, while Brown in 1992 wrote a letter in the Evening Standard about sterling following sterling's ejection from the ERM?
-Ask Brown why he is sending the UK ambassador to complain to the Germans that the Germans have questioned Brown's policy to try and solve a problem of debt-fuelled consumption with debt-fuelled consumption, while in before-mentioned 1992 letter in the Ev. St. Brown said the government should not blame comments from France and Germany for sterling's demise?
-Ask Brown why sterling has now fallen to lower levels than following the ejection from the ERM?
-Ask Brown to introduce a law that would require the government to spread public sector jobs adds across all newspapers and their websites in order to enhance diversity of applicants and prevent the purchase of favourable reporting (you should not fear asking this question Mr Robinson because I think you do not write a column on the Guardian)? A proper reporter would ask the government to publish what it has paid to which newspaper for job adds. This is potentially one of the biggest scandals of all time.

44 dontneedthegrief

true enough; I'd assume that Gordon Brown once was in the same picture/frame as Mugabe, does that make Brown complicit with Mugabe's reign of terror?!

Hitler was once pictured with pretty much every world leader there was at the time.

As you say, it doesn't really tell you anything other than they happened to be in the same place at the same time once upon a time.

I guess Nick calls that situation sleaze (when it's a tory that is).

I was once pictured with Alex James from Blur, but that doesn't mean I'm a groupie or even a Blur fan, I just happened to be there at the time.

Got any pictures of Gordon Brown with Mugabe handy nick? That'd add some much needed balance.

I'm just ignoring your latest blog Nick because it is inconsequential. It doesn't necessitate a comment because we can all see that it bears the mark of BBC bias.

"It is of course one that the Labour Party wish to exploit ruthlessly."

Hmm, wonder who'll help them with that Nick?

This is truly bizzare -and I dont mean Nick Robinson's blog. What precisely is cameron playing at? What does he believe in? Talk about mixed messages!

The recent financial crisis should bring out the free-marketeers begging for forgiveness as it is so obvious -as it was all those years ago -that the "market" does not work. What Cameron is calling for now is tighter controls on these institutions (although his shadow chancellor believes otherwise) but this hasnt been the Tory doctrine since 1980 has it?

With the very latest news now revealing more private and corporate greed going unchecked, the days of free-market economics are surely over. When the Government talks about the banks passing on interest rate cuts to customers its almost like a peep against a huge tide of outright greed. Theyre not listening Gordon, theyve got their snouts in the trough.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Following my previous to-do list fir you Mr Robinson, asking Brown the following questions will also help you to shed your bias credentials:


-If Britain is best-placed to face the downturn, why is it that sterling has been falling aganist both the dollar and the euro?
-If it all started in the US, why has the pound fallen 25% against the dollar?
-How did UK banks end up with the weakest balance sheets in Europe at the end of 2006?
-Why did UK banks sell mortgages to over 100% of real estate value?
-Why did Brown run a budget deficit when the economy was growing above trend?
-Why was the cost of housing not reflected in the new inflation index?
-Does it make sense to make banks lend out more money now that unemployment is rising and already in 2007 companies accounting for 25% of borrowing by non-financial companies could not service their debt by operating profits?
-Why hasn't Brown endeavoured to improve insight in the cost of public sector pensions (some actuaries estimate the liability anywhere bewteen 600 billion and a trillion)?
-Is it reasonable that 27% of council tax is being spent on local council pensions?
-Has the change in dividend tax treatment for company pension funds contributed to corporate pension fund deficits and subsequently a dearth of business investment in the UK?
-Did the IMF warn about the UK's borrowing binge and if so what was the government's response?
-If the IMF warned about the UK's borrowing binge, why do we need a new early warning system (the IMF has been warnig the UK since the start of the century)?
-Do you think that means-tested benefits harm productivity at all?
-Why were so many pounds of means-tested tax credits paid out wrongly?

Gordon t10

Name you one politician who has made a corrupt fortune?

I think I can think of one who on the face of it, whilst he has never been arrested, tried, convicted of anything (then again, neither has Robert Mugabe), is the type of politician who, I personally beleive leaves the most unpleasant of tastes in the mouth, so to speak.

lets put it this way.

A substantial part of His fortune allegedly came from a Belgian Widow as an inheritance.

He has been found by his peers to be untrustworthy, resigning shortly afterwards as Paymaster General. Talk about giving Dracula the keys to the blood bank!

Everything he touches turns to rat excrement... allegedly (allegedly Jaguar Cars, Coventry City Football Club, everybody elses Pensions - apart from the Public Sector - Mandelsons home loan, to name but a few)... it might be nothing to do with him, I'm sure he was perfectly above board. Funny how all of these things went down the tubes rapidly during/after his involvment.

Not to mention a very hush hush offshore trust, called Craigavon (if I recall correctly) which holds most of his wealth.... allegedly. Bet thats one HMRC's Stormtroopers wont be going after, eh?

... and serves as an MP for a run-down, post industrial wasteland in the midlands, from a mansion in Godalming Surrey. Knows how to connect with his constituents, he does.

Allegedly.


Work it out for yourself. I'm not going to name him, I've given you enough clues.

Not that this'll get posted anyway, the mods are bound to snaffle it.

Can't be slating the Dear Leader and his nomenklatura in public, can we??

Nick,

Is this really the best you can come up with?

You may have missed out on a trip with Gordon Brown; but their is no need to sulk.

This is a story worthy of the "silly season," -during the summer when news is slow.

How many times did your teachers write on your school reports - Can do Better?

This is an absolute load of old tosh and hardly does you credit.

It is of course one that the Labour Party wish to exploit ruthlessly.

Delete 'Labour party', insert 'BBC'.

More BBC bias. Why on earth are we forced to pay for this drivel?

What a disgrace the BBC has become with their selective reporting and pandering to their favoured political parties.

Yeah, I kinda figured my post accusing the BBC's journalists of being spineless apparatchiks in all but paid service of ZanuLiebour since the departure of Greg Dyke would get modded.


Quelle flamin' suprise, as the French might say.

This is double standards, Nick

Why put the shoe in on Cameron, when Meddlesome is just as bad if not worse!

Rothschilds?

Atleast be un-biased, and bring up Labours own skeletons too, in your blog. They all wear the same gravy stained T-shirts!

David Cameron talking about the economy? Thats almost as funny as his Chancellors lame attempts. Nobody wants the Tories and nobody wants Cameron.

Currently in the news we have the pound going down the tubes, a whitewash over the arrest of an MP, and labour releasing 'dodgy' - sorry 'early' stats about knifecrime.

And you nick, choose to have another go at the tories.

What do labour have to do for you to look in their direction?

56 Jonno_79

"Thanks Nick for my daily dose of Labour propaganda.
Same time tomorrow?
PS You might not want to mention the currency markets. Maybe you can dig out some more Tory family photos instead."

Don't mention the exchange rate, the uk recession (sorry, I mean "global downturn"), Menezes, Dr David Kelly, WMD, the "end to boom and bust", the doubling of the 10pct tax rate, the sheer weirdness of the vat reduction, the refusal to have a vote on the EU constitution despite it being promised, the monumental size of government pensions when everyone else is having their pension stolen by Brown, the speaker investigating his own actions, the home office allowing an opposition MP to be terrorised by the police for political reasons, the police storming parliament without even bothering to get a warrant.....(I could go on but there are simply too many things to list which the BBC don't like to talk about)

I actually find this "prosecute the lot" scheme that Cameron has going on quite distasteful. To the point that I don't actually support him. Oh, what the Tories would do for a more solid leader right now...

It also reveals the pertinent fact that Dave doesnt really understand the mechanics of econmics, less so the mechanics of a crash.

Then again, Grodo has even less of a clue.

Crashes are part and parcel of Capitalism and we've had crashes since the time of the Venetian merchants. Human greed is a much more powerful emotion than circumspection.

Get used to it - it won't be the last time. And there is no viable alternative.

Legislation will try to regulate this but the next bubble will be something that seems quite innocuous at the moment.

Trying to string a few bankers up to the flagpole simply because they followed the herd is jerrymandering of the worst kind.

Bankers all knew this was coming but they still had to fuel the fires because that is what Gordo wanted them to do and if they didnt they'd lose money hand over fist and get kicked out of their jobs. And if they had pre-empted the crash they would effectively have caused it themselves. Or lost a lot of money.

It's a lose-lose situation so they made the best of it while the sun was shining.

There is nothing illegal in boom and bust and there is nothing illegal in making money. Even lots of it. Do Nothing Dave would do well to remember that instead of playing to the gallery promising justice where there is very little to be had.

By all means prosecute those suspected of wrong-doing but I suspect there are very, very few of them. But don't move the golposts for those that were paying by the rules, however distasteful those rules were.

#34 -

Do we need increased regulation, or increased enforcement?

The FSA's Principles were a perfect creation to capture those who broke the spirit of the rules.

I think we need to get away fronm the idea that light regulation means no regulation. I don't know if you ever read it but the Companies Act 1985 (a Tory Act of Parliament) was a heavy weight piece of work that in many respects rivalled the Sarbanes Oxley Act which appeared much later. In 1992 the Cadbury Committee introduced the City Code on Corporate Governance (which heralded the "comply or explain" approach in relation to the governance of public companies). This was introduced in the Tory years, as were many governance initiatives that followed. The Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 created the FSA and this led to the disbandment of the Investment Managers Regulatory Organisation and the Securities and Futures Authority. These organisations were by no means lightweight. You might even remember receiving in the post SFA Board Notices indicating the disciplinary action against offenders.

I don't know what has been voted by whom and for what in recent years. But the fact is that the New Labour creation, the FSA has been in charge with Gordon at the helm either in the Treasury or as PM.

Enforcement has been weak. The rules have been there. We don't need any more. There's been no political will to address the debt boom because of political expediency. The eye may even have been on the ball (in fact the risks may well have been seen by New Labour and the FSA but allowed to fester to allow the financial system to remain competitive and thus flush with profits), but the ball was allowed to bounce into the back of our own net.

Would the Tories have behaved any differently? Well, we had IMRO, the PIA and the SFA. We didn't have the FSA in the Tory years. So who knows?

As for your comments on donations etc, I have to say, quite honestly, that when I skim-read your message at #7 I thought you were complaining about Labour. After all, we all know about Labour donors.

Labour has no lessons to give to others on donations. We all know that. I first heard of the prawn cocktail circuit when applied to Labour's new found love-in with the banks in the 1990s. The idea that Labour is funded by the profits of fruit machines in working mens clubs went many many years ago.

Sorry Nick but, you deserve all the criticims blogged above. No, I don't think you're biased. No, I don't think you're being used and abused. However, I do think you are misjudging the mood of the British people.

As Niall Ferguson's excellent LSE lecture on the Ascent of Money (shown yesterday on BBC Parliament) reinforced, the roots of the current financial crisis are not difficult to trace. Indeed, if those in charge of the western economies had bothered to look at all the relevant financial statistics over the past ten years, they would have seen the disaster coming. Instead, they deluded themselves by staring at the inflation numbers and nothing else. This is not a crisis brought by chance. This is a crisis brought by neglect.

And the biggest culprit? The longest serving finance minister in a major economy, Gordon Brown.

So, Nick. Unless you start holding Brown accountable for his impeachable crimes against the British people and their economy and stop messing with trivia - like who David Cameron stands next to in photos - you will continue to get the abuse.

This is supposed to be the British Broadcasting Company, not the Back Brown Club.

You must be able to do better than this Nick. Your bias is showing.

Nick, I agree that his speech about taking "responsibility" for our actions is one of the fundamentals of Conservatism. However, rather than heading "off a real political danger," I believe what he was trying to do was make a distinction between Labour and the Conservatives; that the Tories, and any society they influence, will be around taking responsibility for actions, rather than passing the buck. I believe that reminding people they need to take responsibility for their actions does not go down that well with all. But it does go down well with the core Conservatives and those who believe the credit/banking crisis was nothing to do with them, and it is these people who want those who broke the roof to pay for it (not for those who broke the roof to fix it).

Hmmm. For all the brickbats, Nick does raise some important points which demand thought.

He says: "He [Cameron] says that an enquiry is necessary "in order to send the right message about our country's values". He insists that it is a "failure of moral leadership" on behalf of Gordon Brown not to have already done so".

What people seem to overlook is that the current amoral climate of greed and self-interest was created by the Tories themselves in the 1980s and Labour, terrified of appearing to be out of touch with this national mood, simply copied their policies.

You see, Cameron could break with this past and return to the old type of conservatism that believed in one nation compassion and common purpose, but to do that means that he is going to have to spell out exactly how he is going to do that. To date, he hasn't done so. Nick is absolutely right to bring this to our attention.

Nick,
It is a well known fact that a large number of Tory MPs, both front and backbench, have strong ties to the the City. Do you think that Mr Cameron has the bottle to carry out a wide spread cull of those that may have been up to their necks in the stench that is emanating daily from the cesspool? An attack on the Tory banking paymasters would really be intriguing.

What is "intriguing" is who is pulling your strings Nick?

Your ability to be objective and fair (or not) to all parties is staggering.

You actually put on a comment about Zimbabwe the same day of the "Null points from the Berlin jury". You think you can say that you were being fair by putting a blog on where the government are being criticised but then quickly move the topic on to Zimbabwe and leave it there for 4 days.

No one is saying the Zimbabwe situation is not serious but when there were other topics such as the knife crime statistics, the plight of the pound etc to comment upon, it seems clear as day where your allegiances lie. Quickly divert the discussion from a topic which is possibly anti-Labour to one which is non-political.

The "scandal" about the Osborne story is that you failed (and Peston) to clear up what you started. It won't go away you know.

The more comments you have of being pro NuZanLiebore, the more determined you seem to be to toe the government line.

I'm glad so many people can see through it. The problem is the uneducated (which NuLab are responsible for and need their vote) actually believe you.

We won't have a fairer society until this Animal Farm lot are voted out. Will Napoleon Brown allow the vote though.

Ref my post @44..

Seems that the photo was taken in 2006.

Well..that's it then..Cameron was clearly involved in Ross' naughty guarantees on his loans.

For those of you that are interested (!!!),I have a photo of me with Nick Faldo and Paul Azinger back in the '80's.I now hold my hand up and admit that we were all fixing the 2008 Ryder Cup result!

;-)

#1

I'm guessing you didn't read the post.

I think Cameron's motives have been well picked up on by this post and I imagine that DC would be happy about that. Much of Cameron's speech I agree with - I do not agree with his view that a stimulus is not required (just a better one than the wasted opportunity Gordon's was).

Really. You NickRobinson-LabourStasi-anyone-who's-read-The Guardian's a communist conspiracy theorists need to lay off the Port & Brandy's for a week or two...

Quite frankly I find the Osborne 'scandal' a non-issue compared to the killing of De Menezes, the knife statistics and going further back in time the many irregularities surrounding the decision to go to war in Irak - the Blair government covered itself in the proverbial brown (no pun intended) and nobody will ever be made accountable. What's worse, they decapitated the until then independent BBC to make of it a docile poodle, never as critical as it is understanding with any government policy.
Whilst I've never voted tory, the nauseating history of the labour government may persuade me to do otherwise. And Cameron seems different to the old Tories, a modern man who is departing from the past. I reckon he may have my vote this time.

# 77 getridofgordonnow

And despite all that, Labours popularity in the polls is increasing!

Are the people of this country thick or what?

i'm quite simply staggered.

"treating the richest people of our society the same as everyone else"

It is not going to happen ... ever.

The 'rich' are different, very different and they aim to keep it that way.

'Dave' Cameron comes from that background and knows it perfectly well.

So, AFAIC this is just a straightforward piece of political posturing from 'Dave'.

Now, if another 'Dave' ... Davies ... had spoken about this, there would have been some political legitimacy to it, as Davies at least has some (probably by now faint) recall of life outside of a gilded circle.

But as it was Dave Cameron who spoke, then it must be a case of shoot the messenger.

I'm not a Tory. Right, got that one out of the way first.... but I'm finding it increasingly hard to find any sort of objectivity to the blogs that Nick has been posting on here. It's almost as if he is going out of his way to develop stories that no-one else can see, while at the same time ignoring lots more major stuff.

1. Speakers ( non ) committee.

2. Ed Balls funding issue.

3. Germany breaking ranks with GB over fiscal policy.

4. The creation of ANOTHER body to oversee child protection.

5. Statistics office giving NO 10 a rollocking.

6. Postponment of 2 carriers for the RN.

7. FRES project for army binned after contract awarded, so starting all over again.

Osborne was on a yacht SO WAS MANDELSON. Cameron is pictured with a guy whos actions with his shares were wrong, but hardly illegal.

Lets have some current, relative objectivity to the blog, please

Surely we are past the age of using toff as a term of abuse. Are we still in the 1930's - I know the economy feels like it sometimes, but really - grow up people and cut out all this 'toff' and 'fatcat' shorthand and have an intelligent debate

#6!

Nick may not have a Labour agenda, that's true. However I believe that as a journalist he must occasionally feel himself compromised. This means that he feels obliged to give everyone a bit of a kicking, eventhough occasionally the basis for doing so is pretty thin.

Blaming Brown? Why not? He has led the Treasury and is now PM. He is known as an autocrat.

The management writer John Argenti back in the 1980s said that three things would lead to corporate failure:

1. an autocrat in charge
2. over leverage
3. a big project

Each of the above can be applied to the New Labour endeavour since 1997.

As for holding people accountable, the FSA applies its own rules, organises its own disciplinary hearings and levies its own punishments - which can be appealed against. Cameron's point is valid. The FSA must demonstrate that it is investigating th behaviour of those who manage the financial system, and who are generally extremely well rewarded fot it.

I find it ironic that Cameron's point on accountability should be protested against by people who would describe themselves as socialist. The distractions they throw up is puzzling.

As for your comment on Madoff I wonder if any banking institution was negligent in the application of their due diligence procedures before handing over money to Madoff. To suggest that anyone is blaming Brown for Madoff stretches exaggeration beyond reason, tho in the sense they spending money neither of them have, there is a similarity somewhere.

In an earliercomment, the idea that Cameron grew up with bankers and therefore must be one of them is truly absurd. What about those who sit - and have sat - on the Labour bench who attended private schools? Does one think that Diane Abbot's children are going to grow up sympathising with fraudsters? Does Harriet Harman?Hardly!

Please start asking questions Nick

At least discover the date of the next election, and if you already know please share

I think the Lib Dems and the Tories should demand a public inquiry. How can the government say nothing needs fixing when they have just doled out a trillion? If something needs fixing then we need to know what went wrong so we know it did get fixed.

So far as I know there is no consensus that it was all simply the sub prime toxic loans that upset the spinning plates.

How much regulation do we need - was it all really the bankers?

Do new standards of risk analysis need to be set and when?

So far as I know we can get more and existing instruments like Credit default Swaps that can knock over the global economy anytime people don't get their sums and analysis right?

The crisis is global but our exposure to the crisis is not. Did we have too many eggs in one basket? How badly did regulation fail?

In the long run, although the current polls don't support what I am suggesting, the truth will come out and it is folly for Brown to think he can spin his way out of this.

There is the worrying thought that he really believes he has saved the world and will sort the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq as an encore.

Blair scared me but this is worse!

My, some people are very sensitive to anything that could be taken as a criticism of Cameron aren't they?

Nick's points were:

1. Cameron has been nervous of attracting criticism about being close to the rich (are you suggesting he hasn't? Really? As an ex-Eton pupil, and a Conservative party member I think it is fair to say he has been)

2. Recent events have led Labour to be able to gain some traction with this criticism and have actively tried to do so and will again in the future(again, fair comment)

3. Cameron attacking rich bankers is a good attempt at painting himself as in the corner of the poor and middle-class against the rich (and to paint Labour as the opposite if they resist calls for an enquiry)

The picture is fair comment (businessman who was a Tory doner, quango appointee and had some influence was busted for breaking FSA rules) - just as the video of Mr Brown "mis-speaking" during PMQs last week was fair comment (surprisingly, you right-wingers were silent about that and weren't moaning about anti-Brown bias. I guess stumbling over words in PMQ is far more serious than engaging businessmen who broke FSA rules as large doners and with influence in the party).

Accountability.

Just how many Labour MPs have failed to account for donations?

Indeed, how many have been subject to a Police investigation? Even admitting they broke the law, it was just 'not in the public interest' to prosecute.

Some have resigned pending criminal investigations.

Again, one Charity with very close links to Brown and Balls is also under investigation by the Charities Commission for political involvement.

One Lib Dem donator has been found guilty of criminal offences.

Add to that those in the City who being 'regulated' by an organisation not fit for purpose (created by Brown himself) have been bending the rules.

And the BBC drawls up one picture of Cameron with Ross?

Sickening.

I guess you lot know, if the Tories win, they are going to turn the taps off on your little gravy train, the BBC is fighting as much for the status quo as much as Brown is.

A broken, faulty status quo that is edging surely to a broken, improvished Police State spun ad nauseam by a state-owned broadcaster to anaesthetise the masses.

Double-plus good citizen, double-plus good.

ooh, YOU LITTLE DEVIL. Usual new labour spinning, talk about Osborne but no mention of "the oily one" mandy on the same boat. Sneaky, putting Cameron and "rich people" togethor , seperates "us" from"them" I think you been having lessons from a certain Mr Campbell.Unfortunately, people are beginning to realize that the BBC is not impartial anymore and so statements from its reporters have to be looked at very closely. Are you saying that it,s not good for the people who are at the heart of this economic mess we,re in, to be brought to account . Or is it just a smearing of Mr Cameron? New Labour must be getting desperate.

I think what we need now is an official office of media bias that would monitor the activities of all outlets.

We need more than anything an informed electorate.

A government getting elected with 25% backing is not viable anymore.

The people who are most to blame are the media they never do any investigative journalism anymore.
They rely on government leaks and spin spoon fed to them.

Why do we not get just the straight line from the parties without analysis? Analysis is starting to get in the way of the truth.
The BBC chooses its own protest groups but never has the rival views.

Then as today effort proves, we have the purposeful spoiler article to block the person’s ideas reaching the public.

The BBC what a moribund organisation you really are.
What happened to you after Hutton?

Maybe Cameron's statement was "intriguing" for some.

What intrigues me is why Brown has already failed to put in place an enquiry - with teeth - into why senior bankers failed to manage their businesses...

If you run a business, pay yourself millions, then turn around and say "Oh, I didn't know my employees were doing that", you are either stupid or incompetent - so should be sacked without recompense - or you deliberately misled the public - in which case you should be dragged through the courts for fraud.

Sad thing is that this government sets no standard by which we could judge people in the "commercial" world.

I cannot recall such maladministration of public money at any period in my life time.

Just how many of the Ministers who have sprayed our money around with gay abandon have been forced from office, when their half-baked schemes prove expensive, unworkable and wasteful?

That would apply to Brown, who set up so many rediculous "credit" schemes that are a disgrace, stuffed the low-income group by scrapping the 10p tax band and so many other things it's hard to list.

So Cameron says that people should be accountable.

And Nick chooses to include a photo of him with an entrepreneur who messed up. Is it not possible that there are photos of Brown with Richard Branson, who also "screwed up" and had some run ins with MHRC in his early days?

Nick, I thought this was a place for political analysis and comment. If you want to create an agenda for Labour, you should be clear.

I don't want you to create any atmosphere - just try and get at a little truth.

No comment about Jacqui Smith's release of statistics against the advice of the official body?

No reaction to Brown telling the Pakistanis that three quarters of "UK terrorist plots" have links to their country - when he has never stated that in Parliament?

No comment about the detailed effects of the "success" in getting a European response to the credit crisis (when it all looks vague and undecided)?

Come on, Nick. I don't really give a damn who sits in the cockpit. But I would like them to be honest about the flight conditions.