Nigel Lawson’s three wishes

Posted: July 20, 2015 by tchannon in Politics

Nigel Lawson the former Chancellor has been interviewed with the broadcast on BBC Radio 4, 20th July 2015 at 21:30 BST

Interviewer was according to a web page someone named Peter Hennessy.

At the end Lawson gave three wishes (I’m going from memory)

  1. Sort out the bankers, particularly the separation of merchant banking from high street banking
  2. Repeal the Climate Change Act
  3. Get out of the EU.

The broadcast might be available for some. Best I can do after 30 minutes of searching the BBC web site is a web page with a hash code so it might break http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b062jsmv

Post by Tim

Comments
  1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b062jsmv is where I could listen to it with no problems. It was definitely one of the best programmes I have heard on the BBC for a long time and definitely worth the 45 minutes. I’m amazed that the BBC allowed it to be broadcast.

  2. And for any lurking Canucks, I was able to listen to it as well. And I heartily second Phillip’s commendation. I often subject myself to listening to CBC’s broadcast of what they call BBC Overnight … which is where I suspect CBC may well glean many of its own inane sound-bytes.

    Not to mention the typical CBC’s all climate change all the time irresponsible – and thoroughly un-researched – often completely non sequitur plugs (planted by ignorant producers and script-writers?!)

    So many thanks tchannon and Phillip for brightening my day with this recommendation🙂

  3. oldbrew says:

    ‘Sort out the bankers, particularly the separation of merchant banking from high street banking’

    Did he mention this was done over 80 years ago in the States, but they repealed it in the end with the inevitable (2008) results?

    ‘This article deals with only the four provisions separating commercial and investment banking.’
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Legislation

  4. stewgreen says:

    The interview was very challenging
    But he was quite different from the snarl and dismiss style the GreenBlob loons would have liked.
    – So they took to Twitter about 50 times, but without any intellectual arguments. Even before he mentioned global warming it was all angry snarling like this :
    “Nigel Lawson being a climate change denying moron on Radio 4 right now”
    And Remember that Lawson only mentioned Climate in the last bit for 3 minutes
    Direct audio link to minute 35-38
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b062jsmv#playt=34m50s
    PH : very long question
    NL “No the conventional wisdom is policy based evidence.
    I am on the evidence-based policy side.
    You talked about the overwhelming majority of scientists,
    , that is NOT true there maybe a majority,
    but some of the best scientists in the world including Friedman Dyson
    of Princeton..who is widely regarded as the greatest living physicist
    is on the academic advisory council of my thinktank
    ..an’ I have other great scientists
    PH : “Having said that Nigel, there’s a great many very senior scientists who believed and been very concerned about this increasingly for a very time….and you’re implying that they are sufferring from A Grand Delusion with a capital G and a capital D”
    ..”Well they are not economists
    and there are 3 dimensions ..4 dimensions really to the global warming issue,
    which is one of the reasons why I was attracted to it :
    : There’s the scientific.
    : There’s the economic, what policies make economic sense, which are cost effective and so on.
    : There’s the. There’s the political dimension..Can you get a global agreement
    and if you can’t get a global agreement, then what sense is there in the United Kingdom going ahead,
    when we’re responsible for less than 2% of global carbon emissions.
    : And then there’s the ethical dimension, which I think I’ve come to think most strongly about…..
    …The only reason we use fossil fuels is that
    they are by far and away the cheapest and most reliable source of energy..
    ..That may not always be the case, but it is the case now and it will be the case for the forseeable future..
    ..That’s why we use them
    ..and this has a huge bearing on the alleviation of poverty, which is particularly important in the developing world
    ..although there are pockets of poverty in the developed world as well.
    And therefore you want to get people out of poverty.
    You need to use the cheapest
    and most reliable form of energy.
    and to say that you don’t give a damm about the people ..who are alive today
    … yourself your children ..in my case your grandchildren,
    but in hundreds of years hence people who will be in any case be richer because of economic growth than people alive today
    In order to be ‘possibly’ helpful to them ..you’ve got to harm to people..and the poor people alive today.
    That strikes me as profoundly unethical.”
    PH.. Y”ou’ve got another great cause aswell which is Europe …”

  5. stewgreen says:

    The interview was very challenging
    |..interviewer I meant

  6. A C Osborn says:

    My 3 wishes would be the same.

  7. PeterMG says:

    Bank separation is going to happen by default. Currently the big banks cannot make a profit out of their investment (US speak) or Merchant (UK speak) banking operations due to the cost of compliance. Look to see all the retail banks scale back and sell off much of these operations by default. Regulatory compliance charges are currently ridiculous by any normal measures of sensible operating. But this will not change at the behest of the big retail banks but will by necessity change once they are no longer the main players as it was before.

    Just my 2 pence worth but I’m seeing this at first hand so watch this space.

  8. stewgreen says:

    As I say Global warming was hardly mentioned apart from that 3 mins and this in the intro
    On NL “His radicalism on the economy and Europe extends to what he sees as a misguided consensus on global warming policy, of which he is a trenchant critic.”
    Yet we had all this snarling from Greens on Twitter
    If you check the Peston and Mair Interview show you’ll see their last 3 guests were
    Chris Huhne, Alan Rusbridger, and Mrs Clegg the Spanish Windfarm director
    that looks like BBC pro-green bias to me

    Against Lawson we got normal mad anti-freespeech stuff , from mad greenblob on Twitter
    “Why are you giving airtime to climate denier & pro-fracker N. Lawson?”
    “Nigel Lawson believes it unethical to stop burning fossil fuels. He is an numpty. @BBCRadio4”
    “How very disappointing to see Nigel Lawson trending for some reason other than him being dead.”

    BTW Guess which tw*t said this 9 months ago?
    “The BBC has continued with its goal of always including someone associated with the Global Warming Policy Foundation in any segment on climate science. “…..begins in A ends in P
    Shows he lives in a fantasy universe..I listen to BBC all the time, and hear unopposed alarmist nonsense all the time

    And the BBC provides a regular platform/income to comedian Jeremy Hardy; a review of his show in Lerwick from 5 days ago
    “over two hours of classy stand-up comedy” “The Greens, who Hardy voted for in May’s election, didn’t escape his gaze. Why, he wondered, did they replace highly respected, well-known MP Caroline Lucas with an “unknown Australian amnesiac” in Natalie Bennett?
    He rightly chided the mainstream media for CONSTANTLY inviting climate change sceptics (“usually shrunken former chancellor Nigel Lawson”) to debate the issue with experts when there is consensus among 98 per cent of scientists that it is a manmade phenomenon.”
    Him and his reviewer both living in a fantasy universe where “constantly” means something else.

    oops I am posting too long aren’t I ? ..sorry