I do wonder who the specialists are who are advising this govt on its policies to deal with these issues. It seems to me they are relying on party loyalists (Campbell?) with an instinctive hatred of capitalism rather than people who know anything about the world of banking or economics in general.

That said nothing seems to stick with this govt. They implement one of the laxest monetary polices ever known in this country (in peace time) causing the problems we are now suffering from and all Gordon has to do is smile that smile of his, spout rubbish that might make sense in a sixth form economics class but doesn't stand scutiny beyond that and repeat the words "'cos its the right thing to do" and everyone falls in love with them again.

Edd Balls' wife (sorry I can't remember her name) was on PM the other week in her capacity as a Treasury Minister. She was talking about the bailout. She was asked where the money to fund it would come from. One word answer – the markets. That was it. She then just repeated the refrain "it is the right thing to do". Really – whatever question she was asked she started and finished her reply with the phrase "Its the right thing to do". I sat there in the car screaming at her – "For goodness sake grow a brain woman", But no. She didn't and hasn't done so since as far as I can tell.

That said the interviewer didn't press the point about the borrowing and what the implications would be for the economy. Guess there aren't any then!

P.S. What ARE the Conservatives doing? Can we have some strong action against the warm glow that seems to have appeared around Gordon Brown – is it make-up or does he appear 10 years younger than 2 months ago? Is it a vampire type effect where the more blood he sucks the healthier he gets?

P.P.S. John, please do something about the dozen-or-so typois in your post!

Whilst at the time I didn't agree with the declining of a loan that I asked for, in hindsight it was for the best.

This goverment, really does need to place itself into a hindsight position, looking at ALL of the implications of their policies. The need to avoid the irreversable is what my bank manger described as binding one's hands, when a simple helping hand is the prefered. The point being, leaping too far with something so important requires a more structured measure, one where you can add to if need be, but non-commited until such time dictates this extra spend.

To recover effectively, the rot needs to be stopped and the repair needs longitivity factored in, anything else is a bandage,upon a bandage, upon a bandage. Each added bandage does not do anything for the original problem, but mearly covers the latest incident. Fixing the problem means stripping back the stuff you don't need, creating a planned treatment regime and TIME. It is without doubt, a requirement that there must be time allowed to hurt, hurting because the right treatment demands that a quick fix is seldom ever that, there's always a cost to any form of indulgence.

My bank manager was right, I appreciate the pain of yesteryears refusal, it hurt then but without doubt saved me from a far more painful (and prolonged) future repaying debt. It also taught me to look after money during good times, because when bad times come along, I'm better placed to deal with them.

We do not have the equivalent of a Warren Buffet; a David Walker; a Peter G Peterson or a Bill Novelli. We do have a population under the age of fifty, that knows nothing about its government or the damage it is doing to our nation's future.

We do have a large government client state that is so thick that it believes only what comes out of a television, particularly its major spin machine, the BBC. Dumbing down the education system and turning the populace into welfare junkies has been the greatest success of NuLabour in the last eleven years.

I despair at the lack of intelligent opposition in this country. Where are the likes of the Cato Institute; the Heritage Foundation and AARP in the UK, they don't exist. Whatever our government does, we just keep taking it up the rectum and paying for the privilege.

John, you must have a lot of old mates from your banking job that can supply the real facts of our nations finances. I find it much easier to get information on the state of US finances than I do the UKs, why is that? You can't believe anything that comes out of the ONS.

I challenge you, John Redwood MP, to make the movie I.O.UK. If you want someone to carry your bags while you make it, I am available at no cost. I suspect there are a lot of other Redwoodians who will join me.

The following links are US specific; but there is a section in this movie that shows the US as 224 worst in the list of world trade imbalances. But take a look at who is number 223; the UK. Keep in mind that the UK economy is about one seventh the size of the US economy; who has the bigger problem?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E5X8TrqCMQ&fe…
http://www.iousathemovie.com/

My problem is that there doesn't seem to be an alternative strategic direction currently being offered by the Conservatives, which can be seen to be a powerful counterpoint to the ducking and diving that Brown and his confederates are currently engaged in. It is to the Conservatives' detriment that an equivalent to the Blair list of 'pledges' does not appear to exist, or indeed immediately come to mind.

Would you be able to summarise in a paragraph (or even in a brief article !) what Cameron's Conservatives stand for, so that we can all assess the (hopefully obvious) benefits of a Conservative Government.

REPLY:
A referendum on the EU Constitutional treaty
Power back from the EU
Return of civil liberties wrongly taken away by this government
Less unelected regional government
Lower taxes
More freedom and delegated power for schools and hospitals
more choice in public services
welfare reform to promote work

Six months ago, if the Labour government had proposed to respond to what was already then the impending economic downturn by introducing a subsidy of £2,500 for any company taking on someone unemployed for more than three months, and claimed that this measure would not cost the Exchequer money – indeed, would be more likely to save a bit of money – what would you, Dear Readers have said? What would right-wing bloggers have said? What would the Telegraph, Times, Daily Mail etc. have said?

I'll tell you. We'd all have said that this was the Labour Party reverting to socialist type. We'd have said that such a measure would introduce distortions – encouraging firms not to hire people unemployed for less than three months and not to renew the contracts of staff on short-term (say, six month) contracts. We'd have said that the claim that such a measure would "pay for itself" was exactly the sort of thing Socialists always claim for government interventions, but that the reality is that in the medium term, as with the New Deal, few real jobs would be created whilst there would be large deadweight costs of the measure by subsidising lots of jobs that would be created anyway. We'd have said that it should be for private businesses to work out for themselves which are the best staff for them to employ, not for the government. We'd have said that this was further evidence of the trashing of Blairism, and designed to appeal to Gordon Brown's backbenchers and his heartland voters.

Post-bank-bailouts, however, we live in a new age, and having supported the bank bailouts that ushered in the new socialist settlement the Conservative leadership is being flexible, adaptable in responding to this new age. Having said that this new Socialist settlement (though it could and should have been avoided by opposing the banking bailouts) was now inevitable, and recommended some principles by which the Conservative Party could operate in this new paradigm, I suppose I can hardly complain when our policy proposals are nakedly socialist. Fair enough. A socialist solution for a socialist age. But in twenty years' time (if I'm spared) I'm going to be campaigning against these sorts of policies. Until then, I hope we rule competently, even if ruling well is, perhaps, infeasible…