Saturday, Oct 25, 2008
How much of Gordon Brown's Economic failure is Blair's Legacy.
daily mail: Lord Mandy, his murky friends and the debasing of our democracy
The influence over the British political system by a relatively small and, in some cases, corrupt group of super-rich individuals is the single most poisonous legacy of Tony Blair's decade in government.
It is well-documented that he allowed the corporate elite to dictate government policy and buy access to senior ministers - including the prime minister himself.
Shamefully, Blair's priority was to put private greed above public duty.
Until 1997, standards of public life in this country were a model for the rest of the world. Traditionally, meetings between business tycoons and ministers were carefully monitored by civil servants. Detailed notes would be taken of these encounters in order to ensure that nothing irregular happened.
Posted by malct @ 02:21 PM (571 views) Add Comment
16 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. japanese uncle said...
Comment-
Not regarded as "the Prince of Darkness" for nothing then? Why did Crash Gordon invite him back? And then gave him a grand title in double-quick time. Why?
- albert hall, hove england,
----------------------------------------------------
'Crash Gordon' !! 'One of HPC regulars? Anyway CG did claim credit to the fictitious hollow prosperity without any substance at all, as attained at the cost of the gigantic debt and future poverty, brought by his bubble-bound non-policy, so he must reap what he seeded. The earlier he ousted the Silky Teflon, the longer he could have enjoyed this bogus credit.
Here is the repost:
---------------------------------------
Crash G seems stupid enough not to have ousted Silky Teflon in time, before his (or his real master's) 'mother of all boom-and-busts' economic non-policy reveals its full effect. He will be remembered only as Crash Gordon (may I humbly claim my credit as godfather?), who unknowingly (yes, he knows nothing, sadly. Had he known any little about economics, he could not possibly have been complacent without rushing to oust the Silky at much earlier date, with the deadline of his bogus policy quickly approaching) unleashed the biggest economic bubble since the dawn of history. Bad timing indeed.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008 06:58PM
2. braindeed said...
Where was the Mail, when Lady Thatcher was heading a government that 'privatised' publicly owned assets, utilities, and banks for a song?
Where was their outrage when cronies, and Bullingdon Buddies, creamed off to the tune of hundreds (thousands in today's toilet paper)
of millions?
The thing that sticks in my craw, is this rag pretending to be an independant member of the fourth estate - rather than a propaganda arm of the Tory Establishment's banker and hereditary elite.
3. Fjcruiser said...
The US are lucky they will have Obama. We haven't got anyone, we are truly fuc***
4. mken said...
"Until 1997, standards of public life in this country were a model for the rest of the world"
About as likely as Britain being better placed to weather the creditcrunch
5. renting2 said...
Personally I think it's a TB/GB joint legacy, but TB got the boom and GB gets the bust.
6. braindeed said...
renting2....I think it's more the legacy of the British peoples obsession with property, and the absolute disregard for young peoples' housing needs, by the comfortably off. No party would ever dare piss on that fire....that's what made everyone 'rich' - we got the government we deserved.
I personally think the Tories would have been worse - they don't pretend to care about the poor's welfare, and would have cut taxes and inflatede the ballon more
7. mken said...
Laissez-faire economics and self "regulated" finance are legacies of Thatcherism.
8. braindeed said...
Agreed
9. enuii said...
Well thats all bases covered then, New Liebor = Tozzers, Tories = Tozzers.
Self serving career politicians have ruined this country and there is little prospect of it changing for the forseeable future.
10. jack c said...
@braindeed - "Where was the Mail, when Lady Thatcher was heading a government that 'privatised' publicly owned assets, utilities, and banks for a song?" - more to the point few people (A) recognised what was going on - duped by “if you see Sid, tell him” (B) Spoke out about it - the only two I can recollect were Tony Benn (they've sold the public something they owned in the first place) and Scargill - both were repeatedly branded "looney left"
11. Icarus said...
In 1982 Thatcher was low in the polls - unemployment and inflation were high and she had lost the first round in her battle with the miners. She admired Pinochet's dictatorial fight against unions and his privatisation policies on behalf of the rich and foreign investors but she was stymied by her poll ratings. She wanted also to sell off council houses so that the new owners would become Tory voters. Then the Argentinian dictators grabbed the Falklands, purely in order to divert attention from the corruption and indebtedness of their regime. The reason they felt able to do this was that Thatcher had cut spending on the islands and on the navy patrols around the islands - she wasn't interested in them. She saw the Argentinian move simply as an opportunity to go into Churchillian mode and recast herself as tough and decisive instead of just mean. She fought the war purely to gain support for the kind of radical capitalist transformation that only dictatorships had managed until that point - she parlayed the jingoism into fighting the unions, putting up council rents and forcing through council house sales and then selling the country off in a mass privatisation auction.
And yes, the Mail didn't oppose any of her policies.
12. malct said...
Rothschild Goes to Labour’s Aid
The Sunday Times – July 27,2003
Once the Rothschild dynasty represented everything Labour most reviled. Now Lady de Rothschild, the American-born entrepreneur and socialite who counts royalty and rock stars as friends, has offered her services as a fundraiser to the party, writes Jasper Gerard.
De Rothschild — known as Lynn Forester before she married the banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild in 2000 — was one of the Democrats most successful fundraisers. She also paid for and organised all President Bill Clinton’s third way conferences, having made more than £100m from the sale of two communications companies she started.
Since her marriage, de Rothschild, 48, has been based in London. Her 71-year-old husband is head of the merchant bank NM Rothschild and his family has a fortune of £500m. (It's probably far more than £500m, the Rothschilds like to play down their wealth and so minimise the extent of their political power. Ed)
Recently she hosted a party for her friend Hillary Clinton. She has also become close to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Peter Mandelson is said to be “smitten”. Many Labour stalwarts are likely to be worried at the prospect of the party consorting with grandees such as the de Rothschilds.
But with Labour short of funds to fight the next election — membership and donations from unions are both down — de Rothschild’s intervention could be crucial.
“Whatever Labour wants, I would be happy to help in any way I can,” she says in an interview in today’s Sunday Times News Review.
“Fundraise? I would. I think a lot of this government.”
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=958
oopsie
13. icarus said...
And Thatcher used the Falklands war purely to gain popularity to push through a radical anti-union, mass privatisation policy. She wasn't the least bit interested in the islands and she and the Argentinian dictators (who also needed the war to divert attention from their unpopularity) made no attempt to negotiate. About 1,000 people lost their lives because of this
(This is part of a longer post delayed because I didn't send my admin password.)
14. icarus said...
@ malct - R's family fortune - I suppose it depends on how extended a family they have in mind. There's no public record so we can only guess. Trillions ain't impossible.
15. braindeed said...
enuii said...
Self serving career politicians have ruined this country and there is little prospect of it changing for the forseeable future.
The point is, they were elected = if Tony Blair had not diluted (abandoned?) the leftist agenda he would not have been elected. The sale of council houses started the rot, created a shortage of affordable housing - but it was a populist, beggar-the-neighbour abandonment of social concensus, that people loved. As I said - we got what we deserved.
jack c...." more to the point few people (A) recognised what was going on" not true - lots of people did, but see above(opposite side of same coin)
16. jack c said...
@braindeed - of a population of roughly 55m (at the time) not many (IMHO) were aware of what was going on