Ken Clarke

purch

C_Mababejive wrote: »

What does Ken know about economics?

He managed to be one of the most effective Chancellors this country has had over the last 30 years. (of course following Shuffly Shoes Lamont made the comparison easier)

Loughton_Monkey

chewmylegoff wrote: »

is a non-executive director of a business who is appointed by virtue of his political position a successful businessman? hmmm. not sure i agree with that assessment. he has certainly ridden the gravy train well though.

You're dead right.

Like me, Kenny smokes cigars. What better guy to have on the board of a tobacco company if there's a chance he can "articulate your case" to those with a bit of influence.

Some people call this 'sleaze'.

The rest of us call it corruption. [Although I wouldn't object at all to the point that it lowers the duty on tobacco]. Nothing wrong with a bit of sleaze and corruption by others, provided it benefits you.

A._Badger

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You're dead right.

Like me, Kenny smokes cigars. What better guy to have on the board of a tobacco company if there's a chance he can "articulate your case" to those with a bit of influence.

Some people call this 'sleaze'.

The rest of us call it corruption. [Although I wouldn't object at all to the point that it lowers the duty on tobacco]. Nothing wrong with a bit of sleaze and corruption by others, provided it benefits you.

Surely it would only count as 'sleaze' or 'corruption', if it worked?

The last time I noticed, tobacco taxes were stratospheric, and the legal restrictions on the weed were showing no sign of the hateful old Europhile's supposedly corrupting influence.

Loughton_Monkey

A._Badger wrote: »

Surely it would only count as 'sleaze' or 'corruption', if it worked?

The last time I noticed, tobacco taxes were stratospheric, and the legal restrictions on the weed were showing no sign of the hateful old Europhile's supposedly corrupting influence.

Is there such a thing as 'attempted sleaze'?

But don't worry too much. I buy all my cigars on P&O Ferries, at [technically] French tax rates. They are half price, and I can only assume that the 50% lower price I pay [amounting to about £3,200 a year in my case] is basically all tax. Obviously, there is some tax included in the other £3,200 to pay off the French Government.

I go across about twice a year on purely shopping trips [plus another couple holidays] and when you add in about 20 cases of red wine, and 30 dozen bottles of beer, the loss to Mr Osbourne is probably about £5K a year.

A luscious meal at 'Au Cote d'argent' costs very little by comparison.....

thor

C_Mababejive wrote: »

What does Ken know about economics? He majored in law at Cambridge.

Does it matter? Given that economists are so good are getting their predictions wrong you could replace them all by shaved apes for all the good it will do you. Economics is not a science and all their pseudo-babble will not be able to change that.

chris_m

purch wrote: »

He managed to be one of the most effective Chancellors this country has had over the last 30 years.

Indeed - to the extent that much of Gordon Brown's perceived success as Chancellor was because he sensibly (yes, really) chose to continue with Ken Clarke's policies instead of coming up with his own.

sabretoothtigger

Generali wrote: »

He was also a very good Chancellor back in the day. He knew that he didn't understand economics so got himself the best advice he could find.

Thats the Obama line, I dont know much but I channel the right people.

In my cobwebed brain I seem to remember Lamont or the guy who drank red wine over budget speeches [Lawson] was who did the best in the most severe conditions.
Clarke just mopped up afterwards and got credit, maybe he was good enough not to interfere with a good plan in action

I know Lamont was the black tuesday guy but the ERM and now the Euro was not actually the finest of ideas so its not quite in the Brown league of mistakes

Some experience is good to keep around.

chose to continue with Ken Clarke's policies

It was a manifesto promise and a large part of why they got in

Obviously, there is some tax included in the other £3,200 to pay off the French Government.

Some of the difference would be our exchange rate with Euro which is the best for a long while but still well down on ten years ago

thor wrote: »

Economics is not a science and all their pseudo-babble will not be able to change that.

Its definitely a science because it makes my head spin but at the moment its obscured and subverted by politics which is pure babble.

To me its all equations on market dynamics, its the view from above not pandering to peoples wants just observing the natural flow enmasse.

What we have now is people biased views, deliberately interfering and deceiving marketplace for a particular perceived advantage at that moment.
Its more a resemblance of our old royal chartered economy, they are not practising science and its not economics anymore

[Deleted User]

C_Mababejive wrote: »

What does Ken know about economics? He majored in law at Cambridge.

Why do we appoint talking heads into positions of power and influence over our everyday lives when they have no experience in those roles?

Would you employ a checkout assistant to service your car or a motor mechanic to mend your television?

ken is one of the few tories i could have a pint with,he`s been in frontline politics for 40 years and was chancellor for 2 years at the end of majors govt,when he actuallu undid some of the damage thatcher had done,and importantly for 2 years 97-99 gordon brown stuck roughly to kens spending plans
the more input he has in this shambles of a govt the better imho

[Deleted User]

N1AK wrote: »

I actually think Clarke was a great choice for his previous role as Secretary for Justice, although he was never going to be a popular choice for conservative voters (or the british public in general) as he is considerably more lenient than average.

Bringing Laws back pretty much ensures that this will be a negative news story for the coalition as it'll be reported everywhere and reminds everyone about the expenses abuse. I'm sure the Libs have pushed extremely hard for it otherwise there is no way it'd happen.

Laws hasnt been put back into the cabinet hes there to prop up clegg as one of only a few remaining lib dems who still support clegg and the coalition

A._Badger

woodbine wrote: »

ken is one of the few tories i could have a pint with,he`s been in frontline politics for 40 years and was chancellor for 2 years at the end of majors govt,when he actuallu undid some of the damage thatcher had done,and importantly for 2 years 97-99 gordon brown stuck roughly to kens spending plans
the more input he has in this shambles of a govt the better imho

Yes, that's pretty much it. And exactly why I consider the man lower than pondlife (though you left out his Quisling/Heathite desire to sell the country wholesale to unelected bureaucrats and German bankers).

.