Congratulations France!

[secret squirrel]

I disagree: we are all responsible for our actions, irrespective of how we came to the decisions behind them. After all, right is right, wrong is wrong and stupid is stupid.

By way of a parallel: was the Govt 'responsible' for last summer's riots or was it those who were rioting?

They may have every grievance under the sun with the Govt / status quo but that does not make their actions acceptable and the Govt should not have resigned en masse as a result.

I agree with you re feeling 'let down', but I take my frustrations out via the ballot box.

So back to the lady in York: while she may have felt her actions were necessary off the back of Mr Maude's comments, I maintain that she alone was responsible for how she went about them, not him. Had he told everyone to decant petrol indoors near a naked flame, then yes; but he didn't!

SS

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well let us hope that Mr Darling takes some personal inspiration from M Hollande's success ....

there are a lot of French people living in the UK and the dog does not bark .... the Poles build and Plumb, Italians wait etc ... what do Les Francais get up to? we should be told!

M Hollande claims to be an enemy of Finance ...we shall see if he is and if he can survive the bond markets .... the right wing cobblers 'reckless spending' has already started

[teamsaint]

well let us hope that Mr Darling takes some personal inspiration from M Hollande's success ....

there are a lot of French people living in the UK and the dog does not bark .... the Poles build and Plumb, Italians wait etc ... what do Les Francais get up to? we should be told!

M Hollande claims to be an enemy of Finance ...we shall see if he is and if he can survive the bond markets .... the right wing cobblers 'reckless spending' has already started

It would be good if what Mr Hollande does is accurately portrayed in the media.

The myth survives that labour spent recklessly,compared to the tories
Not holding my breath.

Incidentally, re Maude, its a pity those in power don't take a bit more responsibility for their actions.

[Simon]

How good to be able to agree again with Flossie and Co.

It is indeed a fantastic result for Britain, and I hope it won't take long for that to become apparent.

[JimD]

Sorry to spoil the party, but I think joy should be confined. The new President can pay for his non-austere policies in three ways: he can tax the rich; he can borrow; or he can print money. By the first most people usually seem to mean, not themselves, but anyone earning significantly more than them. It will be interesting to see how that develops politically. The second involves interacting with the markets, presumably on their own terms, and which in any case the left affects to despise. And isn't that where we came in in any case? As for the third...Zimbabwe here we come. None of these seems much like the route to the sunlit uplands of socialism. That magical growth of which we hear so much had better come quickly, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Those who think any of this is likely to be good for the UK are of course living in a dream world. Batten down the hatches, it's likely to be rough!

[teamsaint]

it already is rough !!(pity nobody told the sales director at my workplace). It will get worse.

As JimD suggests, I think the markets/banks will triumph, as ever.

Who knows, perhaps that Gallic spirit will win through.

[aeolium]

And it's noticeable that few people on these boards are talking about Greece where the elections have shown one inevitable result of the Merkozy European policies of austerity, the collapse of centrist and consensus politics under the pressure of social ruin and economic devastation. I suspect the French National Assembly elections later this year will show increased polarisation with centrist parties doing much less well, and the rise of extreme parties throughout Europe will continue.

[scottycelt]

Sorry to spoil the party, but I think joy should be confined. The new President can pay for his non-austere policies in three ways: he can tax the rich; he can borrow; or he can print money. By the first most people usually seem to mean, not themselves, but anyone earning significantly more than them. It will be interesting to see how that develops politically. The second involves interacting with the markets, presumably on their own terms, and which in any case the left affects to despise. And isn't that where we came in in any case? As for the third...Zimbabwe here we come. None of these seems much like the route to the sunlit uplands of socialism. That magical growth of which we hear so much had better come quickly, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Those who think any of this is likely to be good for the UK are of course living in a dream world. Batten down the hatches, it's likely to be rough!

Print money? ... he might love to, but I don't think he can, as that is entirely up to the ECB and not in the power of any Eurozone politician, conservative or socialist.

[JimD]

Oops!
Well maybe not yet.

[Simon]

Sorry to spoil the party, but I think joy should be confined. The new President can pay for his non-austere policies in three ways: he can tax the rich; he can borrow; or he can print money. By the first most people usually seem to mean, not themselves, but anyone earning significantly more than them. It will be interesting to see how that develops politically. The second involves interacting with the markets, presumably on their own terms, and which in any case the left affects to despise. And isn't that where we came in in any case? As for the third...Zimbabwe here we come. None of these seems much like the route to the sunlit uplands of socialism.

Spot on, of course, JimD. But you won't get much agreement on here, I don't think. Most of our friends on the FoR3 left still think that you can borrow and spend your way out of debt... One of them still refuses to believe that the last lot left the coffers bare.

Those who think any of this is likely to be good for the UK are of course living in a dream world. Batten down the hatches, it's likely to be rough!

I agree that it will be rough, but those like me (and many of my colleagues) who are pleased with this result are taking a longer-term view. And we work too hard and are probably paid too much to have the luxury of dreams!

[Frances_iom]

.. the collapse of centrist and consensus politics under the pressure of social ruin and economic devastation. ..

the omparision with the late 1920's + '30s gets closer.

[Serial_Apologist]

The second involves interacting with the markets, presumably on their own terms, and which in any case the left affects to despise. And isn't that where we came in in any case?

You'll have to expain what you mean by that second sentence, JimD, or my answer to that one is no.

Speculators are the other part of the parasite economy - banks and moneylenders being the first. And the first person who comes up with a solution as to what to do about/with speculators has my vote, and if necessary a fair proportion of my savings, because ever since Harold Wilson in the 1960s correctly named speculators as his Labour Government's worst enemy, I have not heard a single opinion by the commentocracy about what to do the evils of speculation, which is taking the wealth created by hand and brain and gambling and wasting it, whether the gambler is an idiot or Nick Leeson, another form of idiot and criminal. Always it is those who fight to protect their jobs and living standards who are targetted and blamed for economic woes - until the banking crisis makes it bleeding obvious to some, possibly for the first time because it's right in front of them and not wishable away with tabloid platitudes, that they can't be blamed or forced to pay. In Russia in the 1920s and '30s they shot speculators - just about the only thing the Communists got right. In Portugal, during the 1975 revolution, bank workers seized the bank owners trying to escape the country with suitcases full of escudos and said, this money belongs here. Today, at the instant click of a mouse, billions can change currency. A socialist government would quickly need to close down the institutions where this takes place, and the individual means of doing it. How is the practical question. I for one would feel much happier knowing that my money had not been made, unbeknownst to be, off the backs of workers on poverty pay in stinking living and working conditions in China; even if this meant material impoverishment it would not be spiritual and moral impoverishment, and I would know we, literally, were all in this together.

Rant over.

[teamsaint]

Spot on, of course, JimD. But you won't get much agreement on here, I don't think. Most of our friends on the FoR3 left still think that you can borrow and spend your way out of debt... One of them still refuses to believe that the last lot left the coffers bare.




I agree that it will be rough, but those like me (and many of my colleagues) who are pleased with this result are taking a longer-term view. And we work too hard and are probably paid too much to have the luxury of dreams!

The coffers were bare MOSTLY because of the bail out of the banks. Check the facts, and look at when public spending under labour really started rising.
Here.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt

The peak of public spending, before the bail out, was under the tories.(and started falling once labour won in 97.)
In am not defending labour, because some of their public spending was a disgrace, just pointing out the actual facts.

[John Skelton]

I agree that it will be rough, but those like me (and many of my colleagues) who are pleased with this result are taking a longer-term view. And we work too hard and are probably paid too much to have the luxury of dreams!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caUaRVTBfRU

[Serial_Apologist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caUaRVTBfRU