TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 03:32 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default Lord Young quits over 'never had it so good' gaffe

Lord Young quits over 'never had it so good' gaffe

Peer did not want to cause government any further embarrassment, Downing Street sources say

* Polly Curtis, Whitehall correspondent
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 November 2010 14.22 GMT


The Conservatives suffered their first embarrassing resignation since the election today when Lord Young quit as enterprise adviser to David Cameron.

Young caused controversy by saying Britons had "never had it so good" in this "so-called recession", prompting frustration in No 10 and provoking a welter of criticism from Labour.

Downing Street sources said Young had been upset by the furore and had thought about his position overnight. He did not want to cause the government any future embarrassment, so he decided to resign.

Cameron was grateful for the good work the peer had done for him, the sources said.

The prime minister initially appeared simply to rap the peer over the knuckles, condemning the comments and saying that Young would be doing a "little less speaking" in the future.

But with criticism mounting, Young offered his resignation which was rapidly accepted. There were questions about why the peer was not asked to resign sooner, allowing speculation about his gaffe to continue.

The fact that Lord Young is a multi-millionaire and former trade minister from the Thatcher era threatened to contaminate Cameron's brand of new Conservatism.

Young was drafted in to advise Cameron, partly as a sop to the traditional right in the party who remember him as an effective, though sometimes unremarkable, minister in the Thatcher government. He carried out a review of health and safety laws for the coalition promising a new "common sense" approach to tackling a growing compensation culture.

On Wednesday night he was awarded "peer of the year" at the Spectator awards by the prime minister.

But today's Daily Telegraph reported Lord Young saying: "For the vast majority of people in the country today, they have never had it so good ever since this recession – this so-called recession – started, because anybody, most people with a mortgage who were paying a lot of money each month, suddenly started paying very little each month.

"That could make three, four, five, six hundred pounds a month difference, free of tax. That is why the retail sales have kept very good all the way through."

Labour frontbenchers Angela Eagle and John Denham had called for the peer to stand down. Denham had called his remarks "crass, insensitive and ignorant".

The prime minister's spokesman was repeatedly asked at today's Downing Street media briefing if Cameron retained full confidence in Young, but refused to say yes, telling reporters: "You are asking a question that you would normally ask about a member of the government. It's a different role."

He said the adviser had produced a good report on health and safety and added that he was now working on a study of government relationships with small business, to be completed within a year. "We have not said what he will do after this," added the spokesman.

The spokesman added that Young's remarks were inaccurate since they underestimated the impact of a recession, which had created much uncertainty.

Earlier, No 10 had made it clear that Cameron was "deeply unimpressed" by Young's comments, made during an interview in the Roux restaurant in Westminster.

Young wrote to Cameron last night to apologise and express his "profound regrets". He described his comments as insensitive, adding: "I am not a member of the government and played no part in the spending review. I deeply regret the comments and I entirely understand the offence they will cause.

"I should have chosen my words more carefully. Low mortgage rates may have eased the burden for some families in this country. But millions of families face very difficult and anxious times."

Tony Woodley, the joint general secretary of the Unite union, said Young had "let the mask slip". He went on: "His Thatcherite claptrap shows that this country has passed into the hands of an out-of-touch, unaccountable elite. But Lord Young has done the people of this county a favour – now we know exactly what this government thinks of them."

But Lord Jones, the ex-CBI chief who was a minister in Gordon Brown's government, said Young had been "partly, in one aspect of the economy, right". He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "He was generalising and the media pick up on a generalisation and it suddenly becomes true or false. It is true that if you went into late 2007, were on a tracker mortgage and you were in a sustainable job, then the next 18 months, you had disposable income and, if you forgive the analogy, you had a good recession.

"He was partly, in one aspect of the economy, right. On the other hand if you were on short time or if you were out of work and if you were a pensioner or another person relying on your savings, then the last thing in the world you want are low interest rates, you had a very bad recession. You can't generalise at all."

Accepting the Spectator award for peer of the year on Wednesday night Lord Young said: "I think this is tremendous but what I enjoyed even more was the email I got that said that the Spectator for 25 years has had a tremendous record of picking future prime ministers and future stars, and I thought well 'this is great'.

"But then I realised that all my colleagues I get on very well with, they regard me with an air of benevolence, [as] someone who survived from the dim and mythical ages of Thatcher, and if they thought I had a future ... then [they] might get worried so thank you very much indeed."

Lord Young quits over 'never had it so good' gaffe | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Bloody typical.

Plus, I do not understand why Young thinks that people have suddenly started paying less on their mortgages. Maybe that is what he thinks "should" happen, but I see no evidence that it is happening. Fanatical market dogma overrides reality yet again.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 06:13 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

"Mister, I haven't had it in years..."

Not to be boringly scientific or anything, but could someone tell me when we had it better? The 60s maybe - everyone seems to have felt good about themselves then, but still, objectively, I'd rather live now than then. The internet and lower sexism/racism counts for a lot. The late 90s perhaps. The dot.com bubble was yet to burst, we only found Tony Blair vaguely slimey, America ruled the world and terrorism was something the Irish did. Yep, life was good. I guess what he should have said was "You've only had it better than this once before."
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 06:52 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

The proportion of wealth in the hands of the many has been steadily contracting for decades. We are not "having it good" in proportion to prior periods. Once again you are substituting productive capacity for proportional wealth; if we controlled the proportion of wealth we had in the 50's, with todays productivity, we would be much better off than we are.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 06:55 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Yes, but "never" is a clear reference to the past, not a hypothetical present.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 07:02 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Quite so. and in that regard, you could say that we had it better in all of the last few decades, when we were proportionally wealthier. After all the bailout was the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the history of modern states. Plus there were all the collective assets we used to own which were sold off in the privitization craze that began in the 80's. This is certainly not the best of times.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 07:48 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

Or back in the caveman days when everyone was equally wealthy. I'd still rather be poor now than rich in the 50s.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 3
contracycle, Gilles de Rais, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0