?

Log in

No account? Create an account
harriet talks bollocks - The Villages

hutch0
Date: 2009-03-01 13:46
Subject: harriet talks bollocks
Security: Public
Location:home
Mood:irritatedirritated
Music:news 24
I was going to mention this in a reply to calcinations, but I think it deserves a post of its own.
Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, was on television this morning and Andrew Marr asked her about Fred Goodwin's little nest-egg. I'm still trying to get my head round her reply.
She said, in part, "The prime minister has said that it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted."
When Andy mentioned that Fred's pension was actually part of a legal contract, she said, "It might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that is where the government steps in."
Excuse me?
So all of a sudden the `court of public opinion' trumps a court of law? Gordon decides what's acceptable and what isn't?
My memory might be playing tricks, but I seem to remember the court of public opinion being largely opposed to a certain overseas adventure we got ourselves mixed up in a couple of years ago, and our views didn't count for a whole lot then.
Actually, I doubt whether the court of public opinion gives a flying fuck about Fred Goodwin - we all have our own problems to worry about. I think what's more important to the government is the court of media opinion.
You can bathe yourselves in the opalescent radience of Harriet's insane gibberish here.
Post A Comment | 8 Comments | | Link






mylefteye
User: mylefteye
Date: 2009-03-01 14:04 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
That's got to be one of the daftest things I ever heard from a politician, and that's saying something.
Reply | Thread | Link



hutch0
User: hutch0
Date: 2009-03-01 14:12 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Isn't it? Utter nonsense. That thudding noise you heard in the distance this morning was my jaw hitting the floor when I heard her say it.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



jmward14
User: jmward14
Date: 2009-03-01 16:27 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Wow, Sarah Palin has an English twin. Who knew?
Hugs and headshakes,
Jean Marie
Reply | Thread | Link



hutch0
User: hutch0
Date: 2009-03-01 17:37 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
The difference is, this one is Deputy Leader of the party. Although the way Gordon's rigged things it's not a position that comes with a great deal of power.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



calcinations
User: calcinations
Date: 2009-03-01 16:30 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
That reminds me, did yous ee this Monbiot article:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/02/10/you-stand-for-nothing-but-election/#more-1177

Not to mention Gordon Browns attempt at covering his arse in last weeks Observer, which is now up to 781 comments, and when I last read them all but one were attacking Brown.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/22/gordon-brown-comment-banks?commentpage=10

Reply | Thread | Link



hutch0
User: hutch0
Date: 2009-03-01 17:36 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Oh dear. Hazel doesn't come out of that one very well, does she? And of course she's only a representative sample; the chances are they're all at it.
As for Gordon, well, it's more bollocks, isn't it?

"Banks must act in the long-term interests of their shareholders and therefore of the economy as a whole, not in the short-term interests of bankers. That has to be the foundation on which a new system must be based. This starts with a rejection of the old short-term bonus culture. So, starting last week with RBS, we are changing the bonus system in the industry - with long-term incentives and claw- backs if future performance is poor."

Which is like saying, "If our car breaks down we'll start by cutting down on the amount of Turtle Wax we buy."
It occurs to me that the Government is making such a big thing about this because it thinks it's an area where it can make real changes. It obviously has no idea what to do about the global credit crisis apart from blaming everyone else, but it may be able to change legislation to stop big bonuses and pensions. By demonising Fred Goodwin they've given us someone to hate, so that when they take him down along with the other bankers, we'll all applaud. All Hail Gordon The Crusader.
Of course, the car still won't work.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



calcinations
User: calcinations
Date: 2009-03-01 19:05 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
But the thing is, all but a tiny, negligible minority actually blames Gordon as well. Sure, the fulminate about bankers, but they all hate Gordon. If you read random blogs, the guardian comments, the BBC comments on their blogs, and indeed anywhere else I have looked over the last few months, they all hate Gordon. The only reason he isn't dead yet is because this is the 21st century not the 14th.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



hutch0
User: hutch0
Date: 2009-03-01 19:19 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Sure. That's another reason why the Government are doing this. If Gordon slays the Monster Banker, they reason, his popularity goes up. Of course, to those of us looking at it from the outside the wonder is that anyone ever thought it could work.
I mean, look at it. They're talking about changing legislation, just to get some money back from Fred Goodwin. I think they thought media pressure would be enough to get him to roll over and make Gordon look good. What they didn't expect, I think, was that he'd basically tell them to fuck off and leave his money alone, and now they're stuck with this runaway policy and Harriet Harman going on television and warning that Fred "shouldn't count" on keeping all his pension, as if she were some third-rate Mafia wiseguy.
The only thing that's going to save them some face now is if Fred caves in and gives back some of his pension. I'm not sure he's going to do that - not after the mauling he got in front of the Finance Committee on live television a couple of weeks ago - unless the Government cuts some kind of deal with him.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



browse
the villages
the links
December 2013
the promo