³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

NOT ONE OF MINE

His win was bought with a vast amount of money. His oratory is crass and vacuous (read the transcript of his 'victory' speech.
His background is law not compassion (Westminster 'crawls' with lawyers.) He reminds me of Blair.

If, as you assert, our politicians align with Obama, we have a reminder of much that is wrong in British governance.

The IMF report today is surely a further nail in Gordon Brown's economic reputation? It
seems that the line that Britain was better
placed than any other economy as we got
into recession was yet another Labour lie?

Oh to be a voter in Glenrothes on a dreich
day like this ..........

Other news from Scotland is that three judges have retired to consider the bail
application made by Mr Megrahi in what
may yet turn out to be a miscarriage of
justice in the 'Lockerbie bombing' case.

But the wee girl at the supermarket cash desk in Dundee was talking about Obama
- and when I asked if she'd seen the Dizzy
Rascal interview on Newsnight, she went
into a long rap about how Obama had all
the right band name-checks in The States.

Interesting ........

Obama's choice of Treasury Secretary will be interesting. In Scotland politicians are
queuing up to invite the man to come over
for the 250th Anniversary of the birth of Rabbie Burns next year - but while there
is no reference to Burns in 'The Audacity
of Hope' there are multiple references to
another colourful character with Scottish
connections - first US Treasury Secretary
Alexander Hamilton whose father was a
lad from Ayrshire who emigrates to Nevis.

According to Obama: "Hamilton encountered fierce resistance
from Thomas Jefferson, who feared that a strong national government tied to wealthy
commercial interests would undermine his vision of an egalitarian democracy tied to the land. But Hamilton understood that only through the liberation of capital from local landed interests could America tap into its most powerful resource - namely the energy and enterprise of the American people. This idea of social mobility constituted one of the great early bargains of American capitalism; industrial and commercial capitalism might lead to greater instability, but it would be a dynamic system in which anyone with enough energy and talent could rise to the top."

Hamilton also spent a lot of time on banking
as America's first Treasury Secretary: "He
nationalized the Revolutionary War debt, which not only stiched together the economies of the individual states but helped spur a national system of credit and fluid capital markets. He promoted policies - from strong patent laws to high tariffs - to encourage American manufacturing, and proposed investment in roads and bridges needed to move products to market."
(from 'The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts On Reclaiming The American Dream' by Barack Obama 2006).

The Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa sent me this You Tube footage of
Obama meeting with some of their Cape
Town activists in Khayelitsha - in 2006 -
and you can see how he relates to the
Dizzee Rascal generation on equal terms:



Apparently TAC's Zackie Achmat told him he should run for President too!

The Beeb spent hours last night discussing the fact of a "black" President. Barack is not "black" - he is mixed race. Rahm Emanuel is Jewish. Are we going to have another wasted load of time discussing that?

Gordon Brown is Scottish. Wow! Shall we have a Doha Debate on that?

The nearest you got to mentioning race in today's Newsnight e-mail was the fact that you called Barack's new home the White House. No discussion there, I hope.

Forget it. They're all p-e-o-p-l-e!

Oh please stop with the American politics , can I respectfully ask for you to report our country news ?

Please remember who the Licence Payer is !

Obama might the best the system can deliver.

The system being imperfect for the best running of the planet.

You will find if Obama is the 'real deal' his policy will change, will have to change, over the next months and years. Away from what he originally outlined.

My website had him as the winner (against McCain) from February.

He might not be like "....many British politicians racing to claim President-elect Obama as one of their own?"

He might not be "one of their own". This is what they might find out.

I appreciate Barrie's comment about "bought with a vast amount of money".

In Paul Mason's Obamaomics #8 Stayingcool refers to

"And a lot of money went into his campaign to get him elected, much more than was given to McCain.

Which immediately raises for me, the question - why? Why would the heavy corporate funders be doing that? "

As yet I have found no evidence of 'heavy corporate funders'.

Yes he raised a considerable amout of money. The money from the 'corporations' does not appear to come from the corporation, but collected from individual employees.

I have looked his posted accounts and find no evidence of Stayingcool's 'heavy corporate funding'.

I can post my sources if anyone else wants to check for themselves.

To me he has raised his money in a away, that if Barrie accepted money had to be involved, was done in away that he might have approved of.

Lots of small donations (less than $100) from lots of people.

I was at a conference in London in 2004 and was talking to a Senior Civil Servant about the proposal for the Dome.

We talked about its aims, the financing. I could tell he approved.

But as he told me. "They were never going to allow you to do that".

I am not a lawyer or politician. An engineer or ecologist and can deliver projects. The political establishment were never going to allow an 'outsider' to put £50 billion a year in the UK economy.

That would shift some attention from the lawyers in the big house by the river in London.

Perhaps what Obama might do is allow people like me better opportunity to do what we can do, by changing the blocks of the established political system.

Hopefully British politicians will find Obama is not "one of their own". For all our sakes.

Celtic Lion

Why do people talk of banks "passing on" interest rate cuts? They cannot pass on what has not been passed to them. Most of their funds are obtained from customers' deposits and the markets, where rates are not controlled by the central Bank. There seems to be a bizarre belief the central Bank in some way controls interest rates in general. It doesn't. The banks cannot pass on cuts because they have not received any.

The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ should be more careful; constantly talking of "passing on" cuts makes people believe that is possible.

At last!! UKIP Nigel (Question Time) has made the point I just made above. The first person I've seen do that on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ {which woefully has let several idiots (including Yvette Cooper, who really does know better) ramble on about "passing on " interest cuts. Not unusual to have poor economic coverage on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳*}. Well done Nigel; I might even vote for you next time.

It was pleasing to note he pointed out it is silly to insist banks ease up lending (i.e. take excessive risks). That is what caused the problem in the first place {and would be a quick way to lose government (our) investment in the banks}.

*Some coverage is excellent (e.g Robert Peston). Some is appallingly bad (the people presenting simply have no understanding).

I asked my two political colleagues in the pub tonight ( same pub I saw Hazel B. in ) what event was happening, which normally would have had the media and a special Newsnight programme pontificating.
Neither had a clue.
So the Glenrothes election is a non event. Perhaps if the Labour candidate had been black or part black we would have had the worlds media present.

Perhaps tomorrow we will have the inquest.

YELLOW BRICK ROAD TO RUIN

I can never remember whether the Straw Man had no brain or no heart. Watching him on Question Time I was reminded that he shopped his son to the police, so I guess it is the latter. As to his part in the Iraq War: it was really IDS who gave us that. Blair brought his oratory (there's that damned word again) to bear on the Bear of Small (military) Brain - IDS, who heard the trumpet call and marched his troops to the 'Shock and Awe' lobby.

PS Lest we forget: Shock and Awe, in combination, amount to terror.

In some ways the media coverage is quite insulting, concentrating SO much on the fact that the black vote got Obama into the white house. Thank God Obama is also a brilliantly intelligent man else his victory might reflect America as being not racist, but incredibly stupid!
It would be better to credit America as an intelligent nation. It is the intelligent youth, black and white that got Obama in. If Obama had had a remotely intelligent and less shifty opponent to contend with, the competition would have been tough and he might not have made it. Not much has been said or credited to the fact that he is an intelligent man, a man with very strong ideals, cuts straight to the chase, and a brilliant speaker; and this is what America desperately wanted and needed. A lot has been said about the black vote getting him there. Yes history has been made, but congratulate the man and blow a trumpet for the content of his character! Not the colour of his skin. If he was white that is all we would hear, i.e. his character, intelligence, achievements, capabilities, oratory skills etc. etc. Nothing about him being white!

OK, the 'right' party won in Glenrothes (can we mention that now it's over?).

I guess wall to wall discussion. Polly T and Kevin Maguire on speed dial!

That'll put a smile on Gordon's face:) And we do all love that smile.

A bit late mind. What doesn't get talked about can matter as much during an election as what does.

And who controls the drip.

#13 Junkmale

The SNP knew there was going to be an economic crash and recession from 9th Jan 2006 when I saw my SNP MP.

He shares an office with a senior SNP MSP. The SNP could have solved the economic situation over 2 years ago.

I really believed in the SNP, some notion of representing a country rather than abstract ideas etc.

It appears they were a 'one trick pony'. Like TV property developers who could only make money because housing prices in general were rising.

Did manage to get this reply to Barrie in on Paul's blog the other day.

14. At 1:08pm on 06 Nov 2008, KingCelticLion wrote:
#13

Barrie

SMART

The Scottish Government had this thing about a SMART Safe Scotland. Eg



Then the SNP got in and in October 2007 came up with this idea of a 'Celtic Lion' economy, based on high and sustained economic growth rates.



(I thought it was a pretty name so decided to rescue it).

You'll never guess what happened next?

Well, one could argue that, a bit like elsewhere of late, it was less a triumph of one and more the failure of the alternatives to look any better.

That is, if one gets to hear of anything, much less argue it. I was/am less impressed with an effective pre/during news blackout when super beings were looking less than super, and will anticipate a ticker-tape parade now they have not crashed and burned and bunkers can be emerged from and fireworks set off.

In addition to my deep concern at the level, and influence of media manipulation being applied, I can now add the resurgence of tribalism, more than egged on by the MSM.

Hence the Labour Party's result in Glenrothes is described, in the Telegraph no less, as due in part to being down to his 'fellow Fifers being proud of one of their own 'doing well''.

Now, where did I hear that being shoved out recently, and to good effect?

Strange days.

politicians have the way out in their hands yet they refuse to do it. By creating the framework for a feed in tarriff they can start to generate hundreds of thousands of jobs etc.

but what do we get? Banks must make more debt. Even if lending doesn't make sense.

the pivot point is employment through new industry with growth potential. that lies with gordon not the banks. All he has to do is to stop preventing things like a feed in tarriff. Why wilfully block job creation? Is it ignorance or arrogance?

i have no doubt what we will get is public subsidy to old industries with no growth potential as we gold brick the path of failure.

2. At 7:51pm on 06 Nov 2008, neilrobertson

"But the wee girl at the supermarket cash desk in Dundee was talking about Obama
- and when I asked if she'd seen the Dizzy
Rascal interview on Newsnight, she went
into a long rap about how Obama had all
the right band name-checks in The States.

Interesting ........"

If anyone is old enough to remember a character in Rowan & Martin's Laugh-in, one might be tempted to add... 'but...'.

Remember, as Stan Lee wrote: "With great power comes great responsibility"

Use it wisely and all can gain. Abuse it and on a few will, briefly.

#4 Neil Robertson

Watched the Obama vid with interest. This must have been about the time I first picked up on the name.

If you get views of the TV cameras in the shots they are quite sophisticated.

I would consider he was planning his election victory then.

I was lucky and managed to watch his speeches live and uncut from Feb. That's when I had him as the winner.

This a paragraph from my assessment.

"Can the movement effect change? Obama is definite. "Yes we can". As he speaks his arm is slightly raised, bent at the elbow with curling wrist movements. There is an air of familiarity, of deja vu".



I note with interest from your clip Obama did exactly the same wrist movements. When he was comparing HIV infection rates.

When Obama is not in oratory mode and is having to think about what he is saying, he appears to use the curling wrist movement.

Well after that sad anorak observation.

Celtic Lion

CIVIL RIGHTS/EQUALITIES: ANTI STATUS QUO/STATISM?

It doesn't matter how hard one tries to point out the obvious, 'there are none so blind as won't see'.

What a joy to see Obama elected.

Don't the Pretending-Not-To-Be-BNP posters have a field somewhere where they can hold an important rally and pretend that they have profound intellects?

BROWNED OF WITH INEVITABILITY.

Some are Brown to start with, others achieve brownness (having started whiter than white) and others have brownness 'thrust upon them' (by fate).
But they all buy power, bamboozle and obfuscate.

Beyond the rather depressing tribalism on display, I also am saddened by the continued erosion of every aspect of democratic process I used to hold dear.

At no stage does this seem to have anything to do with the actual MPs and their abilities. They are reduced to mere human puppet representations of their party machines or, more worrying still, their 'leader'.

So, it would seem, we continue to follow America's lead.

'21. At 6:01pm on 07 Nov 2008, barriesingleton'

At least we can't match their ad spend which, as I understand it, was $11 per vote for Senator Obama and $2 for Senator McCain.

As an ad-man I am gratified to see such faith in advertising bearing fruit, though I might crank an eyebrow at the ROI.

Now, policies. Where were we...?

thegangofone (#20) Why not look at the statistics and ask some instead of making indefensible snide, smearing remarks?

You might like to watch the last couple of hours from the when Clause 19 of the Employment Bill, plus Amendments were debate during its Third Reading as it might help you better appreciate some of the points which I have been making. Note the remarks made by the opposition on selective exclusion. Start about 2 hrs in.

I take it you have noted that the Transition Team are not African Americans? What else do you note?

My personal views-

#14

There was great concerns about banks behaviour (including the BofE attitude) and the level of personal debt back in early 2005.



What was Labour saying at the time ?

"No return to boom and bust"
"Golden fiscal rules"
"Mr Prudence"
"Iron Chancellor"
It all seems rather pathetic now.

We will never know if things could have turned out better than they are now.I guess it's something for future historians to debate over.

SOFT TOUCH LEGISLATORS

Apaprt form that, what do Blair, Saakashvili and Obama all have in common?

After decades of deregulation (aka non-government amply demonstrated by recent events) exactly is it that these politicians and their parties are there to 'legislate' for?

Some may need to put their thinking caps on for that one, even the ones who think that they are smart, as there's been lots of dysgenesis, paradoxically as a consequence of the brighter women going into higher education and then the workforce since the 60s.

RUG, FEET, PULLED.

Steve-London (#24) But they develoved what control they had (aside from making legislation whiuch is a longdrawn out post-hoc process in a Liberal-Democracy) to the BoE. With all due respect to Paul Mason for having looked up what powers the government has retained via the Bank of England Act 1999:

"I have been looking at the Bank of England Act 1998. It contains the power a) for the Treasury to restate its price stability (ie inflation) target at any time and b) the reserve power for the government to set monetary policy directly:

"if they are satisfied that the directions are required in the public interest and by extreme economic circumstances".

What can they do? What are they *competent* to do given their assault oin the Civil Service as part of their assault on the state?

Most people can't/don't/won't grasp what they voted in with Thatcher and then Blair: Domestic anarchism.

My personal views-

#26

Hi Jean

Thanks for responding

Labour made the BofE independent in 1999.
Stripped the BofE of it's regulatory powers and made the FSA.

BofE-
In Dec 2003 Labour changed the inflation figures the BofE has to use from the RPI to the CPI measure. They also changed the BofE inflation target rate from the 2.5% (RPI) to 2%(CPI).

Quote ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

"However, in his pre-Budget speech in December 2003, Chancellor Gordon Brown said the inflation target would be switched to the CPI measure with immediate effect."

No new law or amendments were needed at all, just a House of Commons statement it seems.

FSA-
The FSA is not independent and has never been proclaimed to be (to my knowledge), so there is even less of a reason for the Government not to have acted to regulate the way Banks were doing there business.

Was there a legal blockage for the Government to change banking regulations in 2005 onwards?
If there was and they needed to amend a law they certainly had or have the majority in the House of Commons since 1997 to do it.

So saying the Government was helpless in controlling either the BofE or the FSA doesn't add up , in my personal view.

DARK THOUGHTS

Steve-London (#27) "However, in his pre-Budget speech in December 2003, Chancellor Gordon Brown said the inflation target would be switched to the CPI measure with immediate effect."

No new law or amendments were needed at all, just a House of Commons statement it seems."

It may well SEEM that way, but as Michael Howard said not too many years ago (when he became Home Secretary at a time when the Home Office WAS a bit more capable - remember the famous Paxman interview was about Howard removing Lewis when he had allegedly devolved power to HM Prison Service as Agency) he was told (accurately in my view) by Civil Servants that he couldn't do anything about the rising crime rate (essentially because it's not in anyone's gift when the IQ demographs are driving this in a Liberal-Democracy), all he could do was manage 'public expectations'.

So, the government changes it measures here and and there.....So what? Does that change empirical reality, or does it merely change people's perceptions/expectations of reality?

I'm always trying to explicate empirical reality, not perceptions.

Psychology is generally a catalogue of error.

I'm not painting a pretty picture, I know, but the alternative is far uglier.

When regulations are relaxed/repealed those with no 'morals' succeed at the expense of those who naively (nicely?) fail to appreciate that morals have nothing to do with any of this and that those who know this delight in pointing out that ignorance of the law is no excuse (there's a sucker born every minute) given that many can a living out of representing the ignorant.

Regardless of what some of us know to be true, one has to be mindfull of increasing diversity and our demographics. Note how few can grasp what is true if it is unpallatable, and how many exploit this financially, albeit stealthily......... or, more frequently, unwittingly to be 'helpful'.

Hence predatory lending and predatory law?

#28 a few typos above, but the message should be clear: We've elected non governments in favour of spin (perception management).

Unfortunately for all, Marx was not alone in asserting that 'history does not walk on its head' (don't quote Merleau-Ponty in response as it's just a way of saying that spin doesn't cut it - Miliband ilk please note). The problem is that most political rhetoric plays not to the intelligentsia who are a tiny minority, but to the population mean +/- 1SD *about 2/3 of the population) which is growing, but which is also dumbing down.

It's why democracy is doomed.

Obama Nation?

I'm intrigued at the choice of subhead, which has been used elsewhere... not in a good way.

Maybe better, and more reflective of actual national views as opposed those some would like to imagine, would be...

'Between love... and madness... lies... OB-session'

'course, in some cases, it's not so secret, really.

Party Poitics
I heard Ruth Kelly say today that the remarks made by David Cameron made her stomach turn.
Sadly I am old enough to remember the Labour Party in opposition at the time we were last in deep trouble. I cannot remember a single member of the opposition doing anything other than driving the pound down and out of existence.
Why do Journalists not read the old Hansard minutes?