i From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:38 PM

And just what hard evidence did she adduce, Ivor, to convince you that her interpretation was of greater merit than Sapper's?

After all it was you that rubbished his opinion without adducing any hard evidence yourself, then had the cheek to say he was not a gentleman.

Don T.

Well, Don, I don't know what you know about Ruth Lea. I know from oft hearing her on the Beeb that she is fairly off to the right, and has been Chief Economist for Lehmann Brothers and similar, and is currently at the Institute of Directors (i.e.the Directors of large companies and corporations.)

If anyone is going to disparage the state of the UK economy, she'd be an excellent choice to do so. As I said, she said otherwise; and thereby took the Labour government member of the prog. panel by surprise with her optimistic view.

Consequently if someone in her position is not sharing Sapper's view of the economy when I would expect her to, no problem, then I'm led to believe that she knows stuff I don't.

As for 'rubbishing' Sapper's view, I was pointing to situations we're all aware of (sub-prime, Northern Rock etc)to explain the difficulties some people are in. So I offered evidence for the difficulties). I was expecting Sapper to counter with evidence for his own assertion. There was none except to say that my evidence was really down to the government. And he offered no evidence, data, prooof at all for his opinion of the state of the UK economy.

So i think I have offered evidence for doubting the truth of his statement.

Guest Appaloosa Lady,

I don't hate anyone here or anywhere.

i can be annoyed by what someone says without disliking that someone in the slightest. I distinguish between the view and the opinion-holder, no prob.

I look forward, too, to a time when it's "WE". A situation I, too, look forward to.

While we have separate organisations for directors (IoD), business (CBI), and working people (TUC); and when there are tax havens and tax exiles; and other things; then we might start to be able to talk of "WE". And when we don't have a party-for-businee and a party-for-working-people.

While we all have international investors who move their money about the world in a way independant of the interests of any but themselves (no "WE" there), then I, alas, see little prospect of "WE".

Ivor