« Where will the biggest decisions affecting Britain be made in the next few years - the White House or Downing Street? | Main | The Guardian-isation of Christmas? »


Blairs meeting with Catherine Tate was pathetic. Ive never liked the Lauren character anyway and found it frustrating. It was a sad attempt for him to gain popularity after the destruction he caused to Britain for 10 years. It wasnt funny.

If politics has come down to videos of people picking their noses, it is a sad state of affairs indeed.

On the Catherine Tate show, both my son and myself swear that on the original broadcast we heard Tate say something like "What about weapons of mass destruction?" and Blair replied "Am I bothered?" Surely we can't both have imagined this because I've tried to find that footage since but it seems to have been removed. Can someone confirm that the original broadcast contained Blair saying he wasn't bothered about WMDs not being found?

You're imagining things Tony.

Umbrella man, it was on the original broadcast on red nose day and was later pulled out of later broadcasts, I remember at the time that both my son and myself were disgusted at the trivial way Blair was treating the deaths of Iraq civilians and servicemen. I'm 100% convinced of what I heard but just can't find the evidence to verify it. It has been deleted from all media it seems.

Picking a nose and eating ear wax. Yo Tim. ;)

The moment of the year must be Blair leaving office after 10 years as PM.

My moment-of-the-year would be NuLab's admission in Parliament that it was going to have to use taxpayers money to prop up Northern Crock. At that point, any credibility they might have had for 'soundly managing the economy' went totally out the window - and the world was watching.

Tanuki, rubbish. Northern Rock was brought down by the sub-prime problems in America and (ultimately) by the greed of the carpetbaggers who de-mutualised it.

Comstock's comments are to a large extent right: but why should Taxpayers money be used to bail it out?

The cynic in me thinks it's because it's a company based in the NuLab northern heartland. If it had been "Southern Rock" based in somewhere like Epsom, d'you think it would have had Brown et al rushing along with quite as much enthusiasm to help it?

Anyway, what's wrong with letting a few companies go to the wall? The economist Schumpeter makes a big thing of 'creative destruction', and letting the world see that markets deal swiftly/expeditiously to kill off failures would IMHO be a good thing. OK, so there'd have been a slew of people whom had their houses repossessed by their creditors - but that's life. Not everyone can win.

My pick of the year was when that morally bankrupt and politically corrupt man saying his last words (The End) as Prime Minister. It was so unfortunate that David Cameron then ordered Tory MPs to give him a standing ovation when total silence would have been more appropiate. Not one of Cameron's best decisions.

I agree Tanuki, that the taxpayer shouldnt be bailing out these companies. Unfortunately all the major political parties supported the move irrelevant of the signal it was sending everyone else.

Mervyn King was right about moral hazard (a slightly different view on creative destruction) and its a shame that he allowed himself to be dictated to by the Treasury. Giving Northern Rock all the money it wants gave the indication to other banks that to have systems not sufficient for running a bank during this current financial climate is acceptable since if it all goes horribly wrong, the public will hand them as much cash as they want with as few strings attached as possible. Due to this the British people practically own Northern Rock. Are we all going to be invited to the next AGM as stakeholders...like hell we will!

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker