Comments by Mr. Marcus

Good to see that those charged with the government of a populous are concentrating on the vital aspects of this heavy charge.

Reminiscent of enforced secularism elsewhere, forcing people to remove all marks and symbols it comes to represent another form of weak governance.

When you can't fix the problem pick a fight.

Doubtful that he would have an issue with that. As another commentator on this thread pointed out, it is more the fact that millions are excluded. As Marx himself observed in the industrial slums during Britain's urbanisation, the agency of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand doesn't necessarily lead to an improvement for all. Hence the need for a non commercial agent acting between labour and capital. Killing the very thing that is creating the wealth however is no solution. Marx had no problem with mechanisation nor for the most part commercial transaction.

No one is screaming Paradise Lost. They are wondering about the future of their particular enterprise however.

As the Chairman of the Board of the firm I work commented in an industry association this week, the regulator is destroying the industry. There is no one there with any experience of the field. This will eventually lead to a destruction of wealth creating mechanisms and lead to the empovrishment of all. Now Marx would surely be rolling in his grave at that.

Interesting though your set position on education and the class system is, you seem to think that the rich or elite or winners circle or what ever you call it are hell bent on maintaining the status quo at the cost of the rest of society. Yet you have absolutely no interest in understanding why people react the way they do.

My mother, from a very poor background spent her entire income on my education, a debt I can never repay. She did this not to make sure I joined an elite power base but so that I could have advantages in life that she never had. My school was the first independent school to pull completely away from A-levels. The political interference and falling standards of the national curiculum meant that this standard is failing our children.

Now if you wish to fume at my family and others who want a better life then that is your wish. However on the point that I and my ilk wish to squash the working man into high density urban living I'd simply say: grow up. I live in a squashed high rise in London right opposite a council estate. As do millions of others.

You offer nothing but vacuous cliche and I would argue it is you and yours that wish to condemn millions to underachievement.

If you run with the attitude that the Scientists come up with the problem and leave it to others to solve, then what have you got Mr Eldritch? Economists are people who have studied and/or practise the study and application of Economics. They are people. Why should they answer someone else's conundrum? If they have to answer then we must all no?

So I ask you, what have you got?

Wonderful commentary. If you are pretty sure of the status of most English men is this because the farmyard animal you sleep with has told you of this? Hey cliche and insult can go both ways Mr Hick town.

Hi Fel Areas,

On your first comment I understand that it can be very difficult to determine such things. If I have to pay for your health care for example through higher taxes or insurance premiums then clearly that is an impact on my life. However if I am smoking cannabis in my own home and have procured that substance from a legitimate source then I would argue that it is no-one else's business.

Which leads on to your second point. I'm not familiar with US federal law on suicide. If you say it is a felony then I accept that for the purposes of this discussion. I would however also disagree with you on your second point for tow reasons. (I'm aware we are straying a little off the subject but it is interesting). The first argument is entirely practical. How do you punish the dead? Furthermore should an attempted/failed suicide be punishable? Are you saying that someone who is distressed enough to contemplate overriding our inbuilt survival instinct should be treated as a felon rather than assisted? Secondly we go back to the first point. My life is mine and not yours. If I wish to take it then it is alos none of your business. I happen to agree with those that wish to look at euthanasia legislation. Having very recently witnessed a family member with cancer desperate for it all to end I have to say that under certain circumstances yes it is ok for a life to end.

I am aware that I am now probably the target of a lot of hate from certain quarters for that last remark.

Interesting to read the various comment threads here. Most seem from my admitedly ignorant viewpoint in London to be based on some variant of conspiracy theory. Is the military-industrial-policial-federal agent complex moving the secret levers of power from behind the scenes in another attempt to grab power?

It seems doubtful I think. As someone who has lived his whole life under the vague incompentacy of the British State, the idea that a well oiled machine is moving in unison seems faintly comical.

It is probably more a case of some parts of the huge administration have decided for legal, policial, career or personal reasons to use powers that the consitution grants them to do their job. In an election year this becomes a heated discussion.

From this side of the pond the fact that police are entering homes to arrest people for breaking the law seems to be a fairly normal thing no?

I agree with the thrust of the argument that narcotics should be legalised mostly because what I consume is not your business if it does not interfere with your life. But it remains illegal under Federal law. Perhaps someone should take this matter up with the Supreme court and hash out (pun intended) the dividing lines between federal power, state rights and personal liberty.

Unlike say the political class shovelling our money towards their pet schemes to bolster their power base all the while telling us that the reason they are taking our money is because we are evil for a number of reasons. We are indeed cows for the milking but it is the lawmakers who are in control. I know I know. That doesn't chime with what is said on conspiracylovers.com and doesn't make for as interesting a read but there we have it.

I agree with the thrust of what you say.

I am an "evil banker" or at least someone who works in Financial services albeit not on the equity and derivatives side. Venting against the industry is understandable especially from the media who need to sell copy and the politicians faced with angry voters and large public bills. It is a shame though that we have no courage at the top from anyone on either side of the political divide. It is all merely naval gazing as they lurch towards the next poll ratings.

During the boom financial services paid two thirds of corporation tax receipts funding the huge increases in state expenditure under old New Labour.

The "socialisation of losses", it must not be forgotten, was done under the previous administration, fearful of further contagion and worse consequences.

Finally as you say, lets stop this nonsense about the "real" economy. Don't forget people that manufacturing, as a percentage of GDP, was and remains larger than financial services. So ideas of rebalancing the economy must presumably be based on taxing the rich into bankruptcy and throwing the hundreds of thousands of people in Financial services out of work. What a clever and courageous idea folks. Not to mention original.

Right - my rant is over. Back to my desk to sit in my tar pit covered in feathers.

Anyone who has been to Hyde Park in London will know that the grey squirrels there have been addicted to cigarettes for ages. Surely an example of a tool use there no?

Little Lord Fauntleroy mixed metaphors aside (unless you are saying that Cameron is an American teaching his English benefactors lessons in humanity, which seems unlikely) there are deeper forces impacting Westminster.

The West Lothian question woke from a brief slumber to roar at the constitutional cage. If the UK survives as a political entity and the economy is back on its feet then perhaps the Tories will squeak through. Or Labour can try to build a "Coalition of the Progressive" as Gordon tried. Watching four (perhaps five) parties in coalition survive a full term would be fascinating although like many soap operas hardly healthy.

Otherwise the UK starts to break up and the New Tory Army hunkers down in its English redoubt with a natural majority. Then we might start to see a concentration of policy often distracted by coalition and the politics of these islands. Then you might start to look wistfully back on the days of "PR lead government" that rustled gently in the political breeze.

What happens then? Anyone remember Too big to fail? Besides different pools of capital requirements in different areas will strain global management at the behemoths. It will also conversely put a brake on the next rank down from entering a new market if it has a serious impact on RWA.

As my learned preceding commentator, sanmartinian, has said this is indeed a tricky subject and those attempting to cut this gordian knot should at least be offered support in their actions.

Two people have already mentioned the problem facing anyone brave enough to take this challenge. Some of the legislation and processes are already in place. They just failed in a spectacular fashion. Another point that I feel that no one has mentioned is that we are all in a sense guilty. I might abhor the voice mail tapping of a young murder victim but I love watching politicians squirm under a barrage of allegations of impropriety. If people are consuming this media we have to ask ourselves why.

Political failure, poor education, unreformed police mechanisms. These are some of the wheels of state that are not running balanced at the moment.

What's celebration without a little violence to cheer things up?

You see the reason we celebrate Christmas is that a fizzy drink's version of a Germanic tradition surrounding a Bishop from Turkey comes down the chimney to either give you presents or kidnap your children - latter service normally available in the Netherlands. This is because a magician was born on the same day as the Roman Winter festival and visited by three Iraqis bringing metal, embalming fluid and a herb. All clear? Excellent.

Not really. The article starts off, in the traditional Economist way, of stating one position; the country has made strides since the breakup of the Soviet Empire. Then the blows come. Rigged elections, crony capitalism and unrest in certain quarters. For more details of that unrest see this article above.

There is nothing contradictory in stating that a leader can have made progress while arguing that his means are undermining that end.

Local government revenue retention wouldn't necessarily accelerate or decelerate social concentration. In London new developments are required to put up 10% social housing such as the lovely block that has opened opposite my building.

Local councils can already encourage business and residents in to bolster revenues. The problem is that there is no planning, authority, money or even political concern to provide the supporting infrastructure. As a very simple example the road I live on has turned in the last six years from reasonably quiet into a nightmare of roadworks, traffic, broken surface, accidents and double parking everywhere. The problem is that the road is the same one that has been there for 100 years. This is repeated all over the city as councils desperately rake in much needed cash from the only source they can, property deals. This is also the reason the green belt is being steadily eroded.

He's not dead. The mothership took him home. Fair warning though. The mothership is still sending signals to others.

Comments about leaving the EU, the nation state, former status as a super power, financial services and influence in the Euro zone are all terribly useful in the current debate.

For the UK's part we have been quite frankly useless at playing the European diplomatic, political game. Take our cherished financial services. We are lampooned for trying to protect an economic sector from people who are experts are doing this themselves. It is a shame that this is seem as trying to leverage "unfair competitive advantage". So Germany's industrial might is fair, as is France's attachment to giant agro-business but the UK is unfair?

Fair enough. We failed to get a deal and have been sidelined. Whether or not the Euro survives and whether or not we "regain our place at the table" so to speak is immaterial at this point. 50 years have not moved the tectonic plate of political and economic viewpoints that sits astride the Dover Calais gulf.

How does Santa give himself a present? Does he use the same time loop technology on the stealth sleigh to create a mobius strip in time? Where did he get the technology from? Did he come from Area 51?

Furthermore what sort of security precautions is he taking that this advanced technology doesn't get hijacked by Halloween and used for nefarious purposes?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty people? If I accuse you of perjury, corruption, theft or something worse I better have proof. The fact that a minister in a coalition government resigned is not proof.

Many people work with "off the record assets" so to speak. It is apparently fine that a former PM's wife can purchase property with alleged aide of a convict but heaven forbid that a member of parliament seek outside opinion. I agree that perhaps the degree of access was a tad off but Cui Bono?

Perspective? Nah. That would be too much for most people these days. Far more fun to have a wee rant.