Talk:Norman Lamont

Financial policy

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)

No mention of the hundreds of thousands that lost their homes thanks to him.

hmm

Change the photo

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)

Supposed Paddington incident

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)

"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".

Unemployment

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)

Pinochet: POV?

Editors might wonder why there is no positive comment on NL's support for Pinochet. It's because I couldn't find any.1Z 13:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Business interests

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

Threshers visit

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

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

Now hired by Phorm

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-).

Scops-owl impersonation

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)

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)

Move discussion in process

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. —RFC bot 01:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move, redirect and hatnote per Sussexonian's suggestion. Bencherlite^Talk 11:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) ~~~~

---

Norman Lamont → Norman Lamont (disambiguation) — The modern politician should be the primary topic — AndrewHowse (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Norman Lamont (1942) → Norman Lamont

• Primary topic — AndrewHowse (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Revise to Sussexonian's solution. The modern-day Lamont is far more frequently mentioned and meets the bar set at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Scots MP could simply have been hatnoted, but if we are to have a dab page then it should be at Norman Lamont (disambiguation). --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Nuetral: As the one who moved the page to the disputed locations, I have no argument against the revert. I was just trying to help.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, but... I have seen minimal disambiguation pages like this slated for deletion. From what I have seen, the canonical solution would be this:

Norman Lamont (1942) renamed to Norman Lamont, Baron Lamont of Lerwick to comply with common practice for titled persons

Norman Lamont to redirect to that entry

A hatnote on that entry to the effect "This article is about the former Chancellor Lord Lamont. For the MP for Bute 1905-1910, see Sir Norman Lamont, 2nd Baronet" Sussexonian (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral. I would support Sussexonian's solution - Norman Lamont as a redirect to Norman Lamont, Baron Lamont of Lerwick, which would become the title of that article, and the addition of a hatnote about the Edwardian MP to that article. With only two articles to disambiguate, a full dab page isn't required. Tevildo (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Revise per Sussexonian - the Dab police will certainly delete a page with only two entries. My only caveat is the title, "Norman Lamont, Baron Lamont of Lerwick" which strikes me as absurd although I have no reason to doubt it meets the said common practice. The only remaining question would be whether to link Tammie Norrie to his page or to Atlantic Puffin. Ben MacDui 08:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC) (PS This last remark is what is known to non-wikipedians as a "joke" and may be safely ignored by those unfamiliar with the Shetland islands.)
• I agree with Tevildo, the page "Norman Lamont" should be on the ex-Chancellor with a hatnote to the Scottish MP.--Britannicus (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Recent British chancellor is clearly the primary topic. Unfortunately another Trans-Atlantian has since gone through and revised all the links. Motmit (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Agree completely with Sussexonian's suggestions.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per above. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Norman Lamont the chancellor should be at Norman Lamont the name by which he is best known, not at his titled page. cf. Margaret Thatcher. Tim! (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo - not compliant with non-free media guidelines?

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)

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)

"created a life peer"

The intro reads:

• He was created a life peer in 1998.

Is this a common phrasing? It seems awkward for me (an American). Kellen^T 09:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Norman Lamont, Baron Lamont of Lerwick → Norman Lamont – Per WP:COMMONNAME. As the lead notes, he is best known for his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he was created a life peer. It was agreed in a previous discussion that this article should be the primary topic, and Norman Lamont is currently a redirect to this article. January (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and hatnote already in place. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support; Norman Lamont is the COMMONNAME, by far. bobrayner (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

Portillo moment

A section needs to be added about Lamont's loss of Harrogate. The huge swing against him, or the Tories in that seat in 1997. 88.97.108.45 (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)