« Recalling Eric Varley | Main | The truth is out there »

July 31, 2008



"He said it again yesterday - but without a whit of detail."

But has David Cameron - whom she praises - provided a "whit of detail"?


I'm a bit wary of Milliband. I don't know if he's quite got the right ideas for reinvigorating the Labour Party. However, so long as he is not Harrient Harperson, I would vote for him as a Labour member.


Whilst it is true that regulation has lots of adverse unforeseen consequences (and 20years of experience of regulation by the DTI, SIB - remember them- and FSA reinforces the point) the fact is that banks and other financial institutions which will rely on Govt to be bailed out when things go wrong must expect to be better regulated. After all any bailout comes from the taxpayer and if we're paying I think we should have a say in what we're paying for.


"if we're paying I think we should have a say in what we're paying for."

I agree. But we also would want to ensure that regulations (or the monitoring and audits that come with regulations) do not preclude the banks from doing what they are meant to do. So for example, I do not want to see regulations that would (effectively) preclude the banks from lending me money.

Yes, we need to know what we are paying for--more to the point we would like to give the markets some assurance that the meltdown is being (somewhat) controlled. But we also want to be able to walk into a bank and get a loan when we need to. At least I do.




This demonstrates the quality of bank management, I'm afraid. There are no new regulatory obstacles to stop banks lending to individuals. 2 years ago, banks were trying to give the stuff away and now they are really tough in lending. The FSA warned banks in their lending practices against procyclicality if they wanted to benefit from IRB status for capital adequacy purposes(that is don't lend too easily in boom times and too toughly in slowdowns). Sure, sure said the banks. I think you can see why people are a little sceptical about banks' management.


The Miliband smile as shown in the photograph above, strikes me as being very Disneyesque.
I just can't pin down which of the characters he brings to mind.


Commondog- It's Pluto, Mickey Mouse's pet dog.
There's also a bit of Huckleberry Hound in there, but he was a Hanna Barbera creation.


Fortunately, if Labour goes down the plughole, it matters not one iota - since the Electoral Commission has recognised the existence of the British People's Alliance.

And it also appears that although David Lindsay (or 'Cllr David Alexander Stephen Lindsay') has taken on the triple roles of Leader, Nominating Officer and Campaigns Officer, he does appear to have a sidekick, in the form of Mr David Maurice Evans.

So it's now officially a two-man party.



As an outsider (I'm Australian) I've been following recent UK politics with interest. While it's pretty certain Labour's heading for a thumping at the election, I wonder why you and others speculate so openly that they might be almost destroyed as a party. Plenty of governments have copped floggings before and bounced back- the Tories were wiped out in 1997 and only a decade later are favourites to win a landslide. What is so different about Labour now compared to the Tories then, or Labour itself in the 80's? Just interested in the feeling on the ground in Britain. Cheers.


Marcus --

An another Australian (currently in Britain), this is something I too have found odd about British politics: whenever a party loses an election convincingly, the political classes (on both sides and in the media) seem convinced that it is now curtains for that party: Labour in the 1980s, Conservatives in the 1990s, and (if they lose) Labour again after the next election. As can be seen, the losers nonetheless bounce back. I sometimes wonder if the reason for this gloom-full prognosis is the folk-memory of the fate of the Liberals, who never regained office again after their defeat in 1922.

So, to answer your question, there is nothing inherent in the current situation that says Labour won't bounce back. That won't stop the Hanrahans working the issue to death, though.

Oliver Kamm

Marcus and Peter, that's a fair question, which merits a full response. I will post on this later in the week. I do, however, believe that the 1997 election might easily have destroyed the Tories as a party vying for government, especially given how long it took them to acknowledge the scale of their catastrophe. Had Labour and the Lib Dems done what Blair and Ashdown envisaged, then I consider that would have been the outcome.

Michael, that's wonderful news about David Lindsay and the British People's Alliance. My only query is why the indefatigable BPA supporter Martin Miller is not also a party officer. I hope you'll keep an eye on this one for us.


I think we may safely assume that this is the David Maurice Evans referred to above.

He gives his interests as "Roman Catholicism, cats and wine", and his favourite films, music and books provide further hints that David Lindsay might find him a congenial companion.


My apologies, for 'Evans' read 'Edwards'. I've double-checked, and I got it wrong twice for some unaccountable reason.


Splendid news about the British People's Alliance. Looking down the list of registered political parties, however, it seems that Cllr Lindsay will have his work cut out to distinguish his party from some of its rivals, such as the People's Alliance and the Christian People's Alliance. Can we dare to hope that Cllr Lindsay will soon unveil his party's long-awaited website?

I'm also pleased to report that my quest for a photograph of the BPA's leader has finally been rewarded - allowing us all to test the truth of his assertion that, like Barack Obama, he is 'visibly mixed-race'. I hope that Oliver will publish this photograph in any future posts on the British People's Alliance, so that the face of Cllr David Alexander Stephen Lindsay may soon become as well known as that of the BPA's leading supporter Neil Clark.

The comments to this entry are closed.