Nick agrees with George – and fails to defend his constituents

[Stoatwobbler]

Thought I'd best post this for discussion before the usual suspects get hold of it. Make of this what you will.

 

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/07/nick-agrees-with-george-and-fails-to-defend-his-constituents/

 

Nick Clegg today sat shoulder-to-shoulder with George Osborne in defending the axing of the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters – in his constituency - forcing the plant to stop work on a new press for nuclear power plants which would have resulted in the creation of 200 jobs. In his constituency. The deputy prime minister spent the entire election campaign, and the TV debates in particular, that he was in it to represent his Sheffield constituency, constantly repeating the refrain.

 

Yet today, he floundered over the justification for the decision when questioned by Jack Straw at prime minister’s questions, taking his cues from George Osborne, to all the world looking his chief political strategist, the organ grinder, nodding away like the Churchill dog, on hand to brief the monkey.

 

Having had his pep talk, Clegg failed to answer Straw’s questions over Forgemasters – in particular the point raised in yesterday’s Financial Times; the FT had reported that Graham Honeyman, Forgemasters’ chief executive, told the deputy prime minister he was willing to dilute his share, something admitted in a private letter to the businessman

[alchresearch]

Hmmm. Sheffield Forgemasters location - Attercliffe.

 

Nick Clegg's consituency - Hallam.

 

Ignored the rest of the article if its as inconsistent.

[mj.scuba]

Left foot forward. Says it all.

[espadrille]

When oh when will people accept this. There never was any money available to lend to Forgemasters. No money = No Loan, no matter what constituency it is in.

Dont you see what the manipulative Mandelson did. He promised a loan knowing full well that there would be no money when the next Govt came to power, probably guessing that there may be a coalition. He wanted to make the next Govt look stupid and so many people have fallen for this typical Labour spin.

[John1954]

When oh when will people accept this. There never was any money available to lend to Forgemasters. No money = No Loan, no matter what constituency it is in.

Dont you see what the manipulative Mandelson did. He promised a loan knowing full well that there would be no money when the next Govt came to power, probably guessing that there may be a coalition. He wanted to make the next Govt look stupid and so many people have fallen for this typical Labour spin.

 

That's a ridiculous argument.

 

Of course there is money, over £500 billion of annual income plus whatever the government borrows. It's just a matter of how it's allocated that is contentious.

[truman]

That's a ridiculous argument.

 

Of course there is money, over £500 billion of annual income plus whatever the government borrows. It's just a matter of how it's allocated that is contentious.

 

It'll be allocated to paying off the ridiculous amount of debt we have......

[John1954]

It'll be allocated to paying off the ridiculous amount of debt we have......

 

Would you have let the banks go under?

[truman]

Would you have let the banks go under?

 

Are you trying to say that because it was the banks then the money can also be spent on something else? You can only spend it once...some things have to give..Mr Brown chose the banks over other things..

[Vague_Boy]

plus whatever the government borrows.

 

I could be wrong but I believe that the government is trying to cut down on its borrowing (reduce the annual deficit).

 

 

Would you have let the banks go under?

 

Speaking as a saver, yes and I'm not alone.

 

Why we should have let the banks go bust

 

But the trouble is, this bailout isn't over. The banks will have to return to the taxpayer for more and more money as the economy worsens and bad debts continue to mount. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reckons there's at least another $1,500 billion to write off at US and European banks. As Neils C Jensen points out in The Absolute Return Letter, "it will take longer than 18 months to unwind the excesses of the past 25 years."

 

But by engaging in what is effectively a cover up, and accepting that the banks are too big too fail, the authorities have now ensured that they can't let any more banks go bust. That means our economy will be held back by lumbering, "zombie" banks, just as Japan's was. And it also means a lot more public money being spent. Jensen, using IMF statistics drawn from previous banking crises, reckons that the 12 most industrialised countries (including the US, UK and Japan) could need to issue a total of $33 trillion in debt to cover the costs of the crisis. And that's not even a worst-case scenario – that's based on the average rise in public debt in the three years following a banking crisis.

 

LINK

 

Ultimately the banks (and the world, eh Gordon?) weren't saved. This crisis hasn't been solved, merely deferred. And where's the money coming from for the next bailout?

[astraflash]

money for expensive wine restocking downing street no money for forgemasters enterprise clegg you disgust me your deeper in the trough in 13 weeks than the entire labour party got in 13 years its time you removed yourself from government in shame