91Èȱ¬

Emily and Gavin don't read these blogs do they? If they did Gavin would not have done the pigeon joke already on here and emily wouldn't be talking about cds like they were something not talked about on here for at least a month?

given many on bank boards are not even bankers but the usual Lord Airhead and Sir Bufton Tuftons its not surprising they crashed their banks into the wall?

The petulance of the banks and shareholders and ungratefulness is astounding. The Uk govt could have refused them loans against their zero worth assets and let them go into administration then buy the deposit and good loan book for a song and dump the rest. The shareholders would have got nothing.

Still the old greed lingers. And Peston seems to be their[his old school chums] PR frontman?

If you want to know where the markets and banking index have a high probability of going going watch Anthony M. Cherniawski, segment on Yorba TV for tues 14th.



nearly every technical trader reckons the market is going lower so it shouldn't be a surprise. As more dire news comes out so the stock will go lower till good news starts to be seen in the figures. Yes there will be relief rallies but that is not the same as an uptrend.

And how did the Scandinavians rescue their failed banking system in the 1990's?!!!

THE TWO BIG QUESTIONS OF OUR TIME

How did Mankind get to 'Zero AD' without the inspiring certainty of being saved?

How did Mankind get to Zero BD (Before Debt) without the inspiring risk of losing his savings?

Answers on a physical transmission manual script medium . . .

You might also like to take a look at the evidence given by
The British Council today to a
Commons Select Committee on
Foreign Affairs ...

It was all very bland (as usual)
until Lord Kinnock conceded that
the Russians were 'technically'
correct in saying earlier in the
year that British Council had
been operating illegally. It
was of course Kinnock's son
Stephen who was the BC
Director in St Petersburg.

Kinnock Jnr has now been
posted to Sierra Leone ....
a country where The British Council has, the Committee
were also told, sacked 10
staff who were apparently
'colluding' in a fraud case!

Sadly the Committee ran
out of time - so viewers
were left a little bemused
by all that and also by the
question put by John Horam
MP about anti-competitive
sharp practice allegations
on which the National Audit Office had also commented.

Horam mentioned evidence
submitted by 'Education
Connect Ltd' that British
Council had co-operated
with them for five years
and then launched what the company claimed was a virtually identical 'cloned' product ...

Kinnock gave a classic
'non-denial denial' to
the effect that BC will
not complain if anyone
rips them off in the future in similar fashion .........

Frankly this all stinks. Their Finance Director promised
'anti-fraud training' for staff
as his answer to corruption.

SERVICE WITH A SMILE

What do you get when you mix Brown with 'the right stuff'? Poor wee J Gordon finally wrenches the Blair-Light onto himself (look at me Mummy) only to insert that damnable, ill-advised, false grin into a long peroration about how he is saving the world. He reached: 'getting funding into the system' and THERE IT WAS! Has no one the nerve to tell him? Surely Sarah can see the damage it does (on top of the nails) to his new image as, sans-pareille, monetary genius? It is bad enough that he took to grinning (on a par with Mork's alien attempts at laughter) but that he is being allowed to go on doing it, to self and us, is hard to fathom - unless those around him enjoy him looking a fool.

Emily asked a straight question, and repeated it a few times, relating to dividend payouts, and Mr Darling answered it, albeit indirectly. I am sure that the cynical market will punish the Govt by driving the FTSE down again tomorrow. There is a merry go-round between the City and the Government. As Sir Humphrey once asked, who is the hostage and who is the terrorist?

Having just got back from France a few hours ago, it was interesting to see Christine Lagarde presenting a very eloquent bit of PR support for President Sarcozy, that well known financial expert, and downplaying the contribution from our guys in the UK who first led from the front, and then encouraged a good team atmosphere to expedite necessary action, and get the job done. She seems a very smart person but rather obviously "partisan"!

I don't support any particular political party and over the years have voted for various parties after looking at the individuals and policies presented at time.
In aviation, we appreciate the importance of teamwork in many areas- safety, communications and operations. Our efforts in each area affect our performance and of course, customer and market perception.

I have recently taken a deeper look at our two key individual "captains" namely Gordon Brown, and Alastair Darling, and am content that we have: 1) educated and dedicated men, experienced, competent and keen to do a good management job. 2) Good "leading" innovative thinking and performance from both men at a difficult time, taking sensible decisions first to steady the economy and do the best for all of us (a difficult balance) and secondly to be careful about their media interviews, to present the facts, but also staying flexible to revisit their tactical plans, and change them to cope with day to day changes - exactly the strategies we try to apply when we are faced "the unexpected" on the flight deck.
It is refreshing to see that all 3 main parties seem to have moved towards more sensible and constructive debate over the recent days, rather than the punch and judy stuff which turns many people away from politics.

So a bit of a "well done" to all parties for doing some background chat together, and presenting more of a united front in support of whatever "current" policies are considered expedient. Let's have more "teamwork UK" and less jibes about individual personalities.
"Vive la difference" :)

Newsnight was exceptionally interesting tonight.

The government must be firm with banks. It must not give in to their demands. If shareholders don't like the deal they can vote against it. But if the majority vote in favour then the shareholders must accept the government's terms.

Shareholders who aren't happy with the situation can sell their shares now. If they do so they are likely to lose money. If enough of them sell then either the bank will collapse or it will be fully nationalized and they will lose everything either way. Or they can keep their shares and do without dividends for a few years in the hope that the share price will rise. Beggars can't be choosers.

More reports and information about Somalia please.

Teamwork is a good idea.

So is responsibility and asking "how did we get into this mess?".

It didn't happen by accident and we don't want it to happen again.

There was an excellent clip the other night with Blair saying to the effect "Why are perfectly respectable companies being regulated so tightly by the FSA?".

Well now we know.

Lets have an inquest, thorough and with no spin and get THE answers - not some answers.

Otherwise it all just happens again and maybe we don't avert the meltdown next time.

IN THE INTEREST OF BALANCE (#7)

One can only make a proper judgement of politicians by careful study of transcripts. They disguise a lot of devious utterance with showpersonship.

Political parties ONLY collaborate to gain advantage. Altruism is not in their repertoire.

Jibes, where they illuminate weakness of personality in a leader, are justified; counteracting point 1 above. The intense 'force field' of Browns neediness, easily overwhelms the weak magnetism of his Moral Compass. Its needle then points according to his will. Personality is paramount.

jetconrolmaker *7 totally agree as I am getting tired of the automatic knocking of Brown and Darling, neither of which I care for for other reasons, much to do with Barrie's blog in *5 and that smile! Just be yourself Gordon a dour scot, the smile adds nothing to your policies.

As to Darling's answer (or non answer) over shareholders, I got the message,-- that talks are going on which MAY MEAN sharehoders getting a dividend at the end of 12 months or maybe not. The haggling goes on and we wait and see. A definite answer either way may have scuppered the "Deals" and we would be back to square one. For once I agree with a politician being evasive.

One can take the view as hattie(*8 )does that shareholders know the risks and this is one, so why are they moaning? That is why I can't afford shares and never will as I see them as risky, that is if I ever had any spare cash to put into shares.

#7 jetcontrailmaker

Hello, newbie. I couldn't disagree more with your analysis of "Duff" Gordon & Capt. Darling and fear you're suffering from francophobia in your analysis of the astute French lady who refused repeated attempts by the interviewer to get her to praise those two saviours of the world.

The UK company that says it was ripped off by the state-sponsored
British Council (chaired by Lord Kinnock who was quizzed about this (by John Horam PM) in The Foreign Affairs Select Committee yesterday) has now commented:

#12 Brownedov

I agree.

It sounds as though Gordon himself wants to see more "teamwork". Could this be code for "the buck is not stopping here"?

But sooner or later, and its probably sooner, people will start having to answer questions.
Who knew, what and when?

As more than one person has commented on its not just the crisis itself its that a full year after the sub-prime hit - and when there had been worries expressed about sub-prime before that - nobody saw the knock on effects.

As an aside I think Obama has underexploited the fact that he raised questions on sub-prime impacts over a year ago with the Fed.

The problems are still rumbling on and it says a lot about the shameless nature of "those pretty straight guys" in New Labour that they are still trying to spin their way out of one of THE great crises of the last one hundred years. Their fingerprints are all over this.

If it really is a "global problem" and they could not be expected to handle it then they are not much use.

They also were then wrong to take credit for the economy in good times and should have told people it was all "nout to do with them".

As a further refutation of the slippery-eel, Campbell is back, Labour spin to avoid any responsibility for this economic debacle a select committee looked at the Japanese stagflation experience.

One of the big lessons they said was that the public had to be given the facts so that public confidence could be restored. Without the confidence nobody would spend and the economy stayed depressed. Nobody believed the government.

So the clear appearance of Labour trying to say it was the bankers and a global issue and then trying to merge into the wallpaper won't last.

If they do truly believe that they are innocent of all wrongdoing and mistakes then why not do the right thing.

A public inquiry where every facet of this crisis is examined in detail.

If not the truth will come out in dribs and drabs. Perhaps Labour will not take quite the hammering in the polls it would have done.

But then people will remember Labour as Party-First, Country-Second.

Perhaps they could call an election and then retire to their city non-executive directorships?

Could the link for "Todays programme" do that or should it be pointing to Wednesday?

IT'S WORSE THAN THAT (#15)

'Westminster first Voters last.'

Westminster is more unified than divided. They are united against US. Why else would no party reform Parliament FUNDAMENTALLY while in power? (Even though they might have waited years in the wilderness for their 'turn'?) Westminster is a citadel where the self-serving privileged, term themselves 'honourable', line their nests, and ride their gravy train while presiding over iniquity.