Saw a little of Cameron's impromptu performance at Tory conference today. (They've had to rejig the Conference schedule - how many cheesy stunts, months-in-the-making, have had to be pulled so they can look 'serious' and grown-up? Cameron is apparently going to deliver his big Conference speech from a podium, with notes, not walking around with his shirt sleeves rolled up like last year. But isn't that just as much a stunt? He's doing it to 'look' serious and statesmanlike, just as last year he was doing it to 'look' like the sort of guy you wouldn't mind having a pint with. And while we're on the subject, I hope you all saw the story about him going for a jog at Conference, walking when the cameras weren't there, then starting to run again when he saw them?)
I think the Tories are probably doing the right thing, in saying that this is no time for party political point-scoring, and they'll support the Government's rescue package. Of course, this is partly because they haven't got a clue what they'd do in our situation - not least because they're not involved in the high-end discussions, so couldn't really be expected to - and this way they can simply sit tight, try to impress us with their gravitas (which will be difficult for the devil child) and secretly hope for it all to go horribly wrong so that they can blame us.
Actually, that might be slightly unfair. Let's not forget that many of the Tories will be victims in this too. As I never tire of saying, half of the Tory 2005 intake were millionaires. (And that's just the new boys). Not all of them made their fortune in the City, but even those who didn't will probably have their money tied up in property or shares or other investments. Some of them are still combining a bit of financial wheeling and dealing with being an MP. Not sure if they're going to toe the party line. I expect there will be an emergency statement on this on Monday when Parliament returns, either from the PM or the Chancellor. Will be interesting to see how the rank-and-file Tories respond.
On a more serious note, obviously many ordinary people, with modest savings and investments, or their money tied up in their homes, are worried about what's going on. I had a call yesterday from a constituent, a pensioner who gets his pension paid directly into his bank account. He wanted to know what would happen if his bank went under. Of course, up to £35,000 savings would be protected by a Government guarantee, but I guess that takes time to arrange and he's worried that he wouldn't be able to withdraw the money he needs to live on from week-to-week. So when people argue against rescuing failing banks, on the grounds that they (meaning the financiers) have brought it on themselves and have only their own greed to blame), they should bear in mind that we're not doing it for them but for their customers. And to prevent a knock-on effect on other banks, and other customers.
5 comments:
Kerry
Are you really Nancy Pelosi? Why don't you stop whinging and do what's best for the country, Pelosi played games yesterday and look what happened. Is it just you women that get so catty?
Terry, what an absolute charmer you are! Easily enough to make me feel sympathy with my opponent!
glenn
If you take care to read the content of this thread you would conclude it's a nitpicking thread about Cameron. If Cameron is prepared to work with the govt to help the financial crisis why does Kerry make sarcastic digs, it seems very childish. This is basically what Nancy Pelosi did yesterday.
I think one can make a point without the constant use of sarcasm KERRY!
The public are sick to death of gamesplaying and cheap jibes.
Having watched a good deal of the American situation, Cameron is far from espousing some natural Conservative message and seems to be a composite of both American candidates. I have noted the similarities between the American candidates' political exploitation of the financial crisis and Cameron's, for example Cameron's offer of bi-partisan co-operation (McCain stunt) and 'now is not the time for blame' (Obama uttered these very same words). Since American politics is widely regarded as representing the two parties of business it is hardly surprising then that Cameron is a mash-up of both. Anyone who sees anything vaguely genuine about Cameron should be sent for CBT right now. Or Something.
good point about the pensioner. it can take months for the FSCS to pay out to depositors if a bank fails. that's why they go to such extremes to avoid it. if people think that the government are just going to let the banks collapse, they'll take their money out and start putting it in socks. if that happens, 'recession' will be an understatement.
cameron has found himself on the wrong side of the argument on this one - realised that people actually *want* the government to do something about the banks collapsing on us, instead of the whining about using taxpayers' money to prop up banks. the more vocal they got, the more it put people off. that's the reason he suddenly made the u-turn.
Post a Comment