Talk:Norman Lamont

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Scottish Islands Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moved from article, a bit pointed to be left in unattributed.

Following on from Lawson, Lamont also ducked the issue of giving autonomy to the Bank of England to set interest rates. As a result the tax incentives and other measures Lamont brought in for the 1991 and 1992 budgets as 'bribes' for the general election worsened the recession. Lamont did manage to wrongfoot the Shadow Chancellor John Smith during the election campaign as it was impossible for Smith to outflank Lamont on Tax incentives as the Conservatives own measures were unsustainable.

Pcb21| Pete 10:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This section:

Whatever the political problems his policies caused, it was during his time as Chancellor that the basic principles which led to Bruitain's economic success in the past 10 years were first spelled out. Conventional wisdom said that without membership of the ERM, there could be no successful counter-inflationary policy in the UK. In fact, within a remarkably short space of time a formal inflation target had been adopted, monetary policy had been given intellectual rigour and restoration of public finances had begun. All these measures caused great unpopularity at the time. But they became the building blocs of economic policy under his successors, who were able to reap the gain from the pain which he had inflicted on consumers.

appears to be a POV atack on Gordon Brown. I haven't changed it, but it needs backing up/referencing that Lamont is essentially to credit for the UK economy since he left office.

I agree, this is hagiography.1Z 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm

What a partisan, biased photograph! There should not be a photo showing David Cameron more in the limelight, just Norman Lamont! It should be changed immediately. --Dovea 17:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it being reported at the time; It was a wonderful example of tabloid journalism - a story aparrently based on no evidence being printed because it was salaciously ammusing and involved a senior politician. It also demonstrates the power of the libel laws in the UK to supress any mention of a story and the power of the press in that an untruth, once printed, can be denied and retracted, but never totally eradicated.

A Journalist interviewed a Mr Onanugu who was said to have served Mr Lamont. He was possibly paid by the journalist for the interview. The story sounds rather ammusing - but was it true? The evidence shows that it was not. NL denied the story. I seem to recall that no evidence was produced. I also recall that no other journalist could find a item combination for sale at the said shop totalling the ammount claimed. All reporting of the incident stopped, as it became aparrent that the story could not be proved. While lack of evidence would not normally get in the way of a good story, in this case, as NL had denied the incident, further reference to the incident would result in a libel suit with perhaps tens of thousands of pounds being awarded against the newspaper.

The aftermath, even unto the present day:

Mr Onanugu left the employment of Threshers soon after this. Some time later Labour politician Dennis Healey appeared in a television advert for a credit card brand and was pictured standing in front of a branch of Threshers raising his trademark eyebrows and making remarks referring obliquely to the incident. NL sued for Libel as a result of which the advert was withdrawn.[1] The Paddington incident, particularly Mr Onanugu, is still to this day referred to by Private Eye Magazine e.g. in this spoof review for a Dictionary of Biography:[2]

"Warren Onanugu (1962–1999), who 'earned his place in history' as 'the Paddington-based wineshop manager who once sold a plastic bag of clinking bottles to a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer';"

Impact of potential Libel suit:

Any repetition of the refuted allegations would leave the publisher open to libel.88.111.135.215 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Threshergate", along with all the other Lamont scandal stories, is in print in Major's memoirs (pp678-9), Seldon's biography of Major (p346) and Lamont's own memoirs (pp313-6), most of these books published nearly a decade later. Lamont does not mention suing for libel, merely that he later took it up with the Press Complaints Commission, only to be told that it was "out of time".

I remember Lamont being criticised for telling the House Of Commons that unemploymment was "a price well worth paying" for bringing inflation under control. This should be mentioned somewhere. Pawnkingthree 11:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors might wonder why there is no positive comment on NL's support for

Any reason why this section was deleted?1Z 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were they not cheap cigarettes etc? -- maxrspct ping me 01:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were "Raffles", a brand of which Lamont claimed never to have heard.

This fine chap is now appointed by the former spyware and current illegal wiretapping company Phorm. May he apply his wonderful skills in economics and PR to bring his new friends (and himself) where they belong: down under (market-wise -of course-).

It's good to know that "... his friend the former Labour MP Woodrow Wyatt caused further merriment by claiming that Lamont could do an excellent impersonation of a Scops-owl". Did Lamont just make the sound or did he dress up too? Any recordings or pictures to verify this? --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He dressed up too. I seen him.

Lamont mentions it in his memoirs (referring to his friend wearily as "good old Woodrow"). Not sure if there is any evidence that Woodrow Wyatt was telling the truth though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Norman Lamont which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —

I'm not convinced about the use of this photo in this article. The non-free media use rationale is given identically for use in this article and for use in Black Wednesday, but I don't think that's suitable. The answer given to the "Replaceable?" line is "Irreplaceable (only known footage of the announcement)". That is probably fair enough for "Black Wednesday" - though even there, the fair use exemption only covers commentary on the programme, not on its subject in general - but I think it's really pushing it to use it here. The non-free image guidelines say (Images section, no. 12) that "Pictures of people still alive" do not qualify as acceptable non-free use. Therefore, I would suggest that the photo on this article as it stands is non-compliant, and needs to be replaced with a freely licensed photo if possible, and removed altogether if not. Loganberry (Talk) 15:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this image, and I am responsible for its (former) use in this article. I was aware that the rationale for its use on Lamont's biography page was shaky, but I hadn't expected it to be deleted entirely, given that the image is taken from a BBC documentary. The BBC being a public service broadcaster whose charter obliges it to broadcast informative material to the wider public, it is surely in its interests for its material to be broadcast to the wider public via another medium. Who deleted it? Might I ask why it was deleted, since the English-language wikipedia specifically permits the uploading of non-free files with fair use rationales? As for the distinction (with regard to the Black Wednesday article) between commentary on the programme and commentary on its content, why would anyone wish to comment on an unremarkable BBC documentary? It is surely obvious that its only possible use is to illustrate the subject of the documentary, rather than the documentary itself. Black Wednesday was clearly a subject of the documentary; I take the view that Lamont, by extension, was also a subject of the documentary.

Simply stating that the photo shows Lamont, who is still alive, would clearly not qualify as fair use, for the reasons given. This is why I went to great lengths to demonstrate that this image illustrated a specific event (the announcement), of which it was the only known coverage recorded, and which is highly pertinent to and illustrative of both Black Wednesday and Norman Lamont. BartBassist (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro reads:

• He was created a life peer in 1998.

Is this a common phrasing? It seems awkward for me (an American).

It is normal British phrasing.Paulturtle (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just modified one external link on Norman Lamont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201200645/http://www.princeton.edu/svensson/papers/PalgraveIT.pdf to http://www.princeton.edu/svensson/papers/PalgraveIT.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]