The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

thats a lot of pensioners 

There are a lot of pensioners. Indeed, I believe that there are more OAPs than (2015) Tory voters.

[Xann]

Quote

Three centuries of data debunks Osborne’s economic theories

The Chancellor’s record on debt is worse than that of the last Labour government...

The scale of our indebtedness has been the rationale driving every cut made in the past six years – cuts that have and will hurt the poorest half of the country far more than they hurt the richest.

When Osborne took office in 2010, Britain’s debt-to-GDP ratio was 71 per cent, scarcely two-thirds of its long-running average.

It’s now 85 per cent (more than 10 per cent higher than it was ever supposed to be under Osborne’s watch, but that’s another story). Higher, yet still not high...

Either way, nothing in Britain’s history supports Osborne’s thesis. The UK’s debt wasn’t unusual, excessive or imperilling in 2010, and it isn’t now. The Chancellor’s fiscal rules are self-imposed and self-inspired: it’s hard to find data that justifies them.

But all of this – the disingenuous rhetoric, the baseless beliefs – would be forgivable if his plan had somehow worked. It hasn’t. Under Osborne, Britain has borrowed more and grown less than during any other major period since the Second World War....

And perhaps more damningly, Osborne’s record on debt is worse than the last Labour government’s, even though net debt jumped by 29 per cent in both 2008 and 2009: a jump exceeded only five times in the past 300 years...

And still Osborne has fared worse than the predecessors whose record he so derides. On average, he has added nearly 5 per cent to the debt each year so far, a rate that has no historical comparison between the end of WWII and 2008.

As this new data shows, his approach has always been guided more by a stubborn ideology than analysis of facts.

New Statesman

[chrisp65]

We are being shafted by a broken ideology.

Two ideologies actually.

One being the tory obsession with free trade meaning we can't protect ourselves from China dumping subsidised steel on our shores.

The other being China, protecting itself against UK steel by imposing 46% import duties on our steel.

Nevermind, once they are all on benefits they will automatically just be cheating skiving scum and no longer worthy of our attention. They'll be gone soon and we can concentrate on supporting Royal Bank of Scotland for the 8th consecutive year. 

 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

 They'll be gone soon and we can concentrate on supporting Royal Bank of Scotland for the 8th consecutive year. 

 

Wrong thread surely ?

[chrisp65]

18 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Wrong thread surely ?

No, I think it's the tory party currently in power and it's currently the 8th year of nationalisation for royal bank of scotland.

I could be wrong, there could be another secret deal to close something down in the next 6 weeks that I'm not aware of?

[tonyh29]

53 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

No, I think it's the tory party currently in power and it's currently the 8th year of nationalisation for royal bank of scotland.

I could be wrong, there could be another secret deal to close something down in the next 6 weeks that I'm not aware of?

I think you need to read up on RBS and re-evaluate your position 

mind you that will probably result in it being Thatchers fault

 

[chrisp65]

The owner of 73% of RBS shares is UKFI.

UKFI is an arm of HM Treasury.

What reading would you recommend?

[blandy]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

No, I think it's the tory party currently in power and it's currently the 8th year of nationalisation for royal bank of scotland.

I could be wrong, there could be another secret deal to close something down in the next 6 weeks that I'm not aware of?

I'm not sure that selling off the publicly owned shares based on duration they've been owned for is a the best approach. I would have thought getting the best return possible is a better option. If that means hanging on to them for longer, then that's fine by me. In fact I'd say the tories have been selling off shares when they shouldn't (generally, not specific to RBS) to make yearly arbritary Osbourne idio-targets look missed by less.

[tonyh29]

RBS woes were down to a flawed purchase of ABN Ambro , the FSA report specifically named Blair , Brown and Balls as partly to blame

the £49bn bailout that Chris referred to was carried out by Darling

 

and yet it's the Tory's fault ... Unbeleivable Jeff

[chrisp65]

I have seen the light.

Protect the city. Protect the rich. Protect the tory voters. Protect me. Market forces for the scum.

 

[blandy]

30 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

RBS woes were down to a flawed purchase of ABN Ambro , the FSA report specifically named Blair , Brown and Balls as partly to blame

the £49bn bailout that Chris referred to was carried out by Darling

and yet it's the Tory's fault ... Unbeleivable Jeff

RBS woes, yep. Labour partly to blame, though mainly Fred the Shred and loosening of banking regs started by Thatcher* (see, it was her fault) and continued by others.

Bailing the banks was the lesser of two evils. Darling did pretty well as Chancellor, I thought.

Since bailing them, neither the Labour gov't nor the coalition nor this vile bunch have done enough to reign in their behaviour. That's primarily down to Osbourne. He's let them right back off the leash.

You'll be aware that the UK Gov't (and tory and UKIP MEPs) opposed the EU changing their rules so that it could impose tariffs on Chinese steel.

It's all wash your hands of it when it comes to an industry (march of the makers, we're all in it together) that makes something useful and isn't in the South East, but it's different for City of London types. It's just the priorities of a number of Guvmints have been wrong. They don't care enough about manufacturing and they are too much in thrall of money types. 

[tonyh29]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

RBS woes, yep. Labour partly to blame, though mainly Fred the Shred and loosening of banking regs started by Thatcher* (see, it was her fault) and continued by others.

Bailing the banks was the lesser of two evils. Darling did pretty well as Chancellor, I thought.

Since bailing them, neither the Labour gov't nor the coalition nor this vile bunch have done enough to reign in their behaviour. That's primarily down to Osbourne. He's let them right back off the leash.

You'll be aware that the UK Gov't (and tory and UKIP MEPs) opposed the EU changing their rules so that it could impose tariffs on Chinese steel.

It's all wash your hands of it when it comes to an industry (march of the makers, we're all in it together) that makes something useful and isn't in the South East, but it's different for City of London types. It's just the priorities of a number of Guvmints have been wrong. They don't care enough about manufacturing and they are too much in thrall of money types. 

I can agree with some of what you say , the original post though was that somehow RBS being bailed out all these years is the fault of this government and I think we have to acknowledge it wasn't ( excluding the Thatcher argument  )

At the time I was advocating letting the banks fail and was kinda a loan voice on this view , the argument from people ( the labour type posters on the forum at that time for arguments sake )  was the banks were too important to let fail and there was no choice  ... Fast forward 6 years and the labour policy leaning posters ( I won't say supporters as they always go to great pains to say they aren't  ) are using the bank bailout amounts as part of their case of why we should have let them fail 

go figure ....its almost like we are partisan in our beliefs whether we realise it or not 

[mjmooney]

"loan voice". I see what you did there.

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

the original post though was that somehow RBS being bailed out all these years is the fault of this government

I didn't think it was. Chris wrote "we can concentrate on supporting Royal Bank of Scotland for the 8th consecutive year." which clearly identifies it as something that was started before this gov't. I think it's not a great argument in terms of the tories and the steel industry, but nevertheless the comparison in attitudes to different sectors of the economy is valid (IMO).

Quote

At the time I was advocating letting the banks fail and was kinda a loan voice on this view , the argument from people ( the labour type posters on the forum at that time for arguments sake )  was the banks were too important to let fail and there was no choice  ... Fast forward 6 years and the labour policy leaning posters ( I won't say supporters as they always go to great pains to say they aren't  ) are using the bank bailout amounts as part of their case of why we should have let them fail 

go figure ....its almost like we are partisan in our beliefs whether we realise it or not 

 

That's not my take on it. I think left leaning posters have often expressed the view that the Gov't should intervene more fully to help out industries in strife, whether banks or steel, and the right leaning have tended (as you say you do) to think "no, keep out" - so I think people have been quite consistent (though no doubt there are exceptions).

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

"loan voice". I see what you did there.

Erm Yes , yes i did 

[tonyh29]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

I didn't think it was. Chris wrote "we can concentrate on supporting Royal Bank of Scotland for the 8th consecutive year." which clearly identifies it as something that was started before this gov't. I think it's not a great argument in terms of the tories and the steel industry, but nevertheless the comparison in attitudes to different sectors of the economy is valid (IMO).

That's not my take on it. I think left leaning posters have often expressed the view that the Gov't should intervene more fully to help out industries in strife, whether banks or steel, and the right leaning have tended (as you say you do) to think "no, keep out" - so I think people have been quite consistent (though no doubt there are exceptions).

I guess only Chris would know what he meant but the 2 subsequent posts he made on the subject don't really clear things up other than point out twice that it's the current government ... I was pointing out that the main failure was at the start of that 8 year period hence why it's in the wrong thread 

 

If as you say , the left leaning advocate  we should help industry's in strife , then why do they they go on about the banks and raise it at every opportunity with such  venom 

Edited April 2, 2016 by tonyh29

[mjmooney]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

I guess only Chris would know what he meant but the 2 subsequent posts he made on the subject don't really clear things up other than point out twice that it's the current government .

 

If as you say , the left leaning advocate  we should help industry's in strife , then why do they they go on about the banks and raise it at every opportunity with such  venom 

Because a banker losing his job is not equivalent to a miner or steelman losing his (among other things).

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

If as you say , the left leaning advocate  we should help industry's in strife , then why do they they go on about the banks and raise it at every opportunity with such  venom 

Because of the inconsistency in attitude to bankers v steel workers (and others). Because the tories say "we're all in it together" while giving perks to one lot and the cold shoulder to the other lot. Because, basically they (Gov't) are a shower of twunts.

[tonyh29]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

Because of the inconsistency in attitude to bankers v steel workers (and others). Because the tories say "we're all in it together" while giving perks to one lot and the cold shoulder to the other lot. Because, basically they (Gov't) are a shower of twunts.

How many Steel workers have actually lost their jobs since the Tata announcement ? genuine question as I was under the impression the scotch land plant had been purchased and another one is currently under offer , port talbot i don't know about 

How many bankers lost their jobs ? RBS have lost 90,000 jobs since the 2008 bail out  and It was  reported that 100,000 banker in 2015 alone lost their jobs ( that's European wide to be fair but I'd imagine a big chunk of those would be Uk based )

so why are steel workers jobs sacred and bankers jobs not ?

[blandy]

On 02/04/2016 at 18:21, tonyh29 said:

How many Steel workers have actually lost their jobs since the Tata announcement ? genuine question as I was under the impression the scotch land plant had been purchased and another one is currently under offer , port talbot i don't know about 

How many bankers lost their jobs ? RBS have lost 90,000 jobs since the 2008 bail out  and It was  reported that 100,000 banker in 2015 alone lost their jobs ( that's European wide to be fair but I'd imagine a big chunk of those would be Uk based )

so why are steel workers jobs sacred and bankers jobs not ?

I think you have missed, maybe what I wrote - I'm (and others) are fine with saving bank workers jobs, indeed anyone's jobs, including steel workers, obviously. I think that's what should happen. I support that.

What's happened in the past with banks (and shops) is the internets has led to a shift to using that information superhighway thingummy for people to do their retail banking and shopping. technology and changing lifestyles has led to HMV and Zavvi and so on closing down. It;s led to banks closing branches and then on top of that for the bank workers, the banks which made huge losses in their "casino banking" operations then redundacied loads of clerks and bean counters and all the rest to cut costs. Meanwhile the causes of the banking problems - the city traders, derivatives, hedge fund, financial instrument, trading in high risk mortgages and stupidly given credit, "high flyers" basically escaped more or less unscathed.

In Iceland, they locked up loads of their dodgy financiers when they had their crisis. None of ours have been locked up. Many remain in place, with their bonuses and so on.

The wrong people have paid the price. In the UK and in America, too.

The necessary regulations have not been implemented, and as soon as the tories got back in, free of the lib gems, they eased off what had been put in place. The banking system remains broken and it remains a source of danger to the economy.

Steel plants have and will close. I'm sure google will tell you how many jobs are at risk (40,000 ish) and how many have been lost so far - but it's in the thousands - Scunny, Teeside, Scotland etc. over the past few months.

The other thing with the steel workers jobs is they make something useful, things could and should have been done by the tories to prevent the problems arising. So my criticism is nothing to do wit ha spurious "steel workers jobs are sacred and bankers jobs aren't" nonsense, but to do with a lack of help for one sector (steel) and loads of help for another (banks).