Bad behaviour

can someone, please, explain why the BBC is paying Jonathan Ross £18,000,000 for being rude on TV. Don't they realise that there appears to be hundreds, if not thousands of other uncouth individuals in this country willing to take his place for no more than the fact that they are "on the telly". And judging from recent reports they can be equally as "funny". It certainly is now the case that bad behaviour rules, whether it is those in the banking industry, earning huge bonuses for immoral business and MPs milking the system for their own greed, to the so called celebrities that appear on the TV at monotonous regularity. There hardly seems to be a TV programme that does not celebrate bad behaviour. No wonder so many children end up in trouble. What role model do they get?
And what a cowardly act on the part of Brand and Ross. I can't say that I have ever though that Brand was anything other than juvenile but the more I have heard of Ross's performance on TV and radio has made me realise that he is just an arrogant egotistical second rater.

le crunch

Headline news yesterday was that mortgage lending had dropped by over 40% and the number of mortgages taken out was at its lowest level for three and a half years. Well that latter bit of news is hardly staggering on its own. But if that relates to a 40% drop it means that mortgage lending over the last 3 and a bit years had nearly doubled. Now I can't see that the degree of home ownership had doubled in that period so why all the borrowing. Seems to me that it is likely to be folk extending their mortgage on the basis of rising house "values" and spending the money on other things like south sea holidays, and of course the rapid increase in people entering the buy to let market, with interest only mortgages being covered by rents. I am afraid that I have no sympathy at all for either of these groups of people if their little south sea bubble has burst and they are now left with mortgages that they can't pay back. Why the rest of us are having to bale them out I just can't see.
The blame for all of this sits fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those that believed in this money for nothing lifestyle but there is a a fair amount of responsibility to be levelled against a Government that has sat back and, if not encouraged it, done nothing to check such excesses, no doubt believing that such affluent, on paper, voters are their passport to everlasting Government.

Les Miserables

The fate of Gordon Brown has, perhaps, taken on new interest to those of us in the once green and pleasant land. At least it makes a change from worrying where your savings have disappeared to. The return of Lord Mandy at least introduces into the cabinet someone less liked than Gordon. However, if Michael Howard could be described as something of the night then what description does that leave for Mandelson. The question posed in one leading Uk newspaper yesterday- How many times can someone be wrapped in chains and dropped into the depths of the River Volga without popping up again, hit the nail on the head. But whereas Rasputin was seen as a Holy man, can the same end of the spectrum be sought for Lord M. 

And the once canny Scot is acting more like Corporal Fraser (we're doomed) by inviting his worse best friend back into his inner sanctum. Not only will the only member of the cabinet strong enough to oust him be given a position in which to plot an assassination attempt but, not being a member of the House of Commons, Lord M will not have to face question time in the house. I have read that Mandelson has a reputation for being a back stabber, I don't know whether that is true, but the old saying goes that there is no smoke with out fire, and Mandelson has been fired more times than most. I can only imagine that Blunkett, who thought that it was a masterstoke, is sitting by the phone awaiting his recall this very minute.