<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Shadow Chancellorship</title>
	<atom:link href="http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/</link>
	<description>Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today&#039;s issues and tomorrow&#039;s problems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 13:47:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: APL</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/#comment-10024</link>
		<dc:creator>APL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2625#comment-10024</guid>
		<description>E. Elliot-Pyle: &quot;How about writing a post, with your views?&quot;

JR: &quot;Yes I favour disclosure.&quot;

May I second E, E-P suggestion for a post, I am sure it would be appreciated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>E. Elliot-Pyle: &#8220;How about writing a post, with your views?&#8221;</p>
<p>JR: &#8220;Yes I favour disclosure.&#8221;</p>
<p>May I second E, E-P suggestion for a post, I am sure it would be appreciated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lord Elvis of Paisley</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/#comment-10023</link>
		<dc:creator>Lord Elvis of Paisley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:26:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2625#comment-10023</guid>
		<description>Something I blogged about just the other, but not in such an eloquent and thought-out way as yourself. Bringing back Clarke would be a disaster.

http://lord-elvis.blogspot.com/2009/01/dont-do-it-dave.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Something I blogged about just the other, but not in such an eloquent and thought-out way as yourself. Bringing back Clarke would be a disaster.</p>
<p><a href="http://lord-elvis.blogspot.com/2009/01/dont-do-it-dave.html" rel="nofollow">http://lord-elvis.blogspot.com/2009/01/dont-do-it-dave.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Reynolds</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/#comment-10022</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reynolds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:27:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2625#comment-10022</guid>
		<description>I am not suggesting that you yourself have made any rude comments about our beloved former chancellor but sadly some less than civil types have written defamatory things about one of the Conservatives more popular MP&#039;s.

I do understand that it takes time to edit things out as your blog being excellent is thus very popular and so you have much to sift through. I am very grateful to you for publishing my remarks and I always enjoy your common-sense views &amp; ideas.

Please keep up the good work and thanks once again!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am not suggesting that you yourself have made any rude comments about our beloved former chancellor but sadly some less than civil types have written defamatory things about one of the Conservatives more popular MP&#8217;s.</p>
<p>I do understand that it takes time to edit things out as your blog being excellent is thus very popular and so you have much to sift through. I am very grateful to you for publishing my remarks and I always enjoy your common-sense views &amp; ideas.</p>
<p>Please keep up the good work and thanks once again!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: richard lilley</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/#comment-10021</link>
		<dc:creator>richard lilley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:59:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2625#comment-10021</guid>
		<description>An impeccable argument: loyal and honest. I think George Osborne is doing well and sacking him, however it is dressed up, would be a very bad move. Replacing him with Ken would be your opponents dream outcome. Electorally George has the benefit of the doubt; there is no doubt what you&#039;re getting with the admirable Ken.

I was pleased to see from your reply that you are happy with the role of economic adviser. I have tended to assume that the exclusion of your obvious intellectual and political talent from a front rank role also illustrated hostility to your analysis and ideas. I sincerely hope the word happy means that those you advise are engaged with both.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An impeccable argument: loyal and honest. I think George Osborne is doing well and sacking him, however it is dressed up, would be a very bad move. Replacing him with Ken would be your opponents dream outcome. Electorally George has the benefit of the doubt; there is no doubt what you&#8217;re getting with the admirable Ken.</p>
<p>I was pleased to see from your reply that you are happy with the role of economic adviser. I have tended to assume that the exclusion of your obvious intellectual and political talent from a front rank role also illustrated hostility to your analysis and ideas. I sincerely hope the word happy means that those you advise are engaged with both.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Wheatley</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/#comment-10020</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Wheatley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2625#comment-10020</guid>
		<description>Margaret Thatcher in her excellent book, Statecraft, reports on her unsatisfactory experience of negotiating with the EU. She makes it clear that there is not much prospect of the UK ever bringing about a change of EU direction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Margaret Thatcher in her excellent book, Statecraft, reports on her unsatisfactory experience of negotiating with the EU. She makes it clear that there is not much prospect of the UK ever bringing about a change of EU direction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Atlas shrugged</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/#comment-10019</link>
		<dc:creator>Atlas shrugged</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:38:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2625#comment-10019</guid>
		<description>John

You always speak with common sense IMHO.

Have you ever wondered if this is the reason why you are not the shadow chancellor, and will most likely not ever be The Chancellor either?

IMO you would knock the spots off of both Ozzy and Old  Hush Puppies.

Have you ever wondered why it is that others around you seem to have common sense when it comes to almost everything else but government finances, and especially government borrowing?

Do you believe it could have something to do with the way our current banking system has always &#039;operated&#039; within the corridors of parliamentary power?

In your opinion why do we not simply issue and control our own money. Instead of allowing the Central Bank to do it for us, and change us all interests for the monopoly rights to do so.

Why is it I can not issue my own money notes or coins. If not myself, why can no other bank other then The Bank of England issue currency.

Is this country not as free a country as it says on the tin John?

If private and state monopoly is bad, which as a Conservative I hope you will agree with myself,  that they most surly are both very bad indeed.  while being potentially very much worse then that.  Why is it that the most important monopoly of them all, which is the issuing of any national or international currency,  is not being currently investigated by the Monopolies Commission?

These are serious questions that really do need well researched answers, not knee jerk misinformed reactions. If you still believe that The Bank of England is a truly nationalized independent or morally controlled institution, please think again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John</p>
<p>You always speak with common sense IMHO.</p>
<p>Have you ever wondered if this is the reason why you are not the shadow chancellor, and will most likely not ever be The Chancellor either?</p>
<p>IMO you would knock the spots off of both Ozzy and Old  Hush Puppies.</p>
<p>Have you ever wondered why it is that others around you seem to have common sense when it comes to almost everything else but government finances, and especially government borrowing?</p>
<p>Do you believe it could have something to do with the way our current banking system has always &#8216;operated&#8217; within the corridors of parliamentary power?</p>
<p>In your opinion why do we not simply issue and control our own money. Instead of allowing the Central Bank to do it for us, and change us all interests for the monopoly rights to do so.</p>
<p>Why is it I can not issue my own money notes or coins. If not myself, why can no other bank other then The Bank of England issue currency.</p>
<p>Is this country not as free a country as it says on the tin John?</p>
<p>If private and state monopoly is bad, which as a Conservative I hope you will agree with myself,  that they most surly are both very bad indeed.  while being potentially very much worse then that.  Why is it that the most important monopoly of them all, which is the issuing of any national or international currency,  is not being currently investigated by the Monopolies Commission?</p>
<p>These are serious questions that really do need well researched answers, not knee jerk misinformed reactions. If you still believe that The Bank of England is a truly nationalized independent or morally controlled institution, please think again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Reynolds</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/#comment-10018</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reynolds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:26:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2625#comment-10018</guid>
		<description>John please stop sniping at Ken Clarke ! You have allowed some critical comments about Ken that are just not true- he is not a socialist at all and words like collaborator align him with French people during The Vichy Regime who backed their evil policies. This is just stupid &amp; over the top !

For an intelligent man allowing some of these idiotic &amp; offensive statements is just wrong plain &amp; simple.

I understand your support for George Osborne but just to be clear Ken backed the VAT reduction  only if  there was a concerted plan to balance the books. He is very popular with a great many people and as someone who backed him in the last three leadership elections I do wonder if we would have done quite so badly in 2001 or 2005 had that fine chap been in charge. The Liberals would have won less of the anti-government protest vote as decent fair-minded people would have had a home in a sensible Tory Party that talked about better public services rather than ranting a la Alf Garnett about immigration in a disgusting fashion.

By all means back George Osborne - but indulging in petty &amp; divisive rudeness is just uncalled for. Come on John leave the spin alone and stick to the substance
Reply: I have said nothing rude about Ken nor will I. I try to edit out personal comments against anyone, and am a bit overwhelmed at the moment by the numbers of responses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John please stop sniping at Ken Clarke ! You have allowed some critical comments about Ken that are just not true- he is not a socialist at all and words like collaborator align him with French people during The Vichy Regime who backed their evil policies. This is just stupid &amp; over the top !</p>
<p>For an intelligent man allowing some of these idiotic &amp; offensive statements is just wrong plain &amp; simple.</p>
<p>I understand your support for George Osborne but just to be clear Ken backed the VAT reduction  only if  there was a concerted plan to balance the books. He is very popular with a great many people and as someone who backed him in the last three leadership elections I do wonder if we would have done quite so badly in 2001 or 2005 had that fine chap been in charge. The Liberals would have won less of the anti-government protest vote as decent fair-minded people would have had a home in a sensible Tory Party that talked about better public services rather than ranting a la Alf Garnett about immigration in a disgusting fashion.</p>
<p>By all means back George Osborne &#8211; but indulging in petty &amp; divisive rudeness is just uncalled for. Come on John leave the spin alone and stick to the substance<br />
Reply: I have said nothing rude about Ken nor will I. I try to edit out personal comments against anyone, and am a bit overwhelmed at the moment by the numbers of responses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brigham</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/#comment-10017</link>
		<dc:creator>Brigham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2625#comment-10017</guid>
		<description>One thing I can&#039;t forget about Ken Clarke is that he was the first one to mess up the NHS, closely followed by Virginia Bottomly. Of course neither of them were as bad as the lot in now, but the internal market was started by Ken.

Reply: We needed sensible change in the NHS, and Ken did well in that brief.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing I can&#8217;t forget about Ken Clarke is that he was the first one to mess up the NHS, closely followed by Virginia Bottomly. Of course neither of them were as bad as the lot in now, but the internal market was started by Ken.</p>
<p>Reply: We needed sensible change in the NHS, and Ken did well in that brief.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mikestallard</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/#comment-10016</link>
		<dc:creator>mikestallard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2625#comment-10016</guid>
		<description>Some positive remarks here:
I admire your generosity, Mr Redwood, in supporting the shadow Chancellor. Well done!
Ken Clarke is one of the very few politicians who has the knack, on Newsnight, of telling me, in words that I can understand, what is going on. Also, I like the fact that he smokes with pleasure and loves jazz.
One of the best reasons for supporting the present shadow Chancellor (Gids in the Spectator: &quot;Tamsin Lightwood&quot;) is that Lord Mandelson (who is currently riding for another fall over his mortgage) wants to split him off from the Conservatives in revenge for being shown up with Mr Deripaska (Spectator gossip here!)

All I beg is this: PLEASE don&#039;t lose the next election. I do not want to die in a Saudi Old Peoples&#039; Home!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some positive remarks here:<br />
I admire your generosity, Mr Redwood, in supporting the shadow Chancellor. Well done!<br />
Ken Clarke is one of the very few politicians who has the knack, on Newsnight, of telling me, in words that I can understand, what is going on. Also, I like the fact that he smokes with pleasure and loves jazz.<br />
One of the best reasons for supporting the present shadow Chancellor (Gids in the Spectator: &#8220;Tamsin Lightwood&#8221;) is that Lord Mandelson (who is currently riding for another fall over his mortgage) wants to split him off from the Conservatives in revenge for being shown up with Mr Deripaska (Spectator gossip here!)</p>
<p>All I beg is this: PLEASE don&#8217;t lose the next election. I do not want to die in a Saudi Old Peoples&#8217; Home!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Freeborn John</title>
		<link>http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/01/16/the-shadow-chancellorship/#comment-10015</link>
		<dc:creator>Freeborn John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:26:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=2625#comment-10015</guid>
		<description>ed: Should have said &quot;75% certain i will NOT vote Conservative in 2010&quot;!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ed: Should have said &#8220;75% certain i will NOT vote Conservative in 2010&#8243;!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

