Who will be the next leader of the labour party ?

[Richard]

on top of this you have the oil price (abeith some 30% lower than peak) at still mopre than $100 a barrell, as I discussed many times this again was outside government influence ...

Again not strictly true given that OPEC is an intergovernmental organisation created in 1960 by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela

Do you think OPEC has an influence on oil prices Ian?

[ianrobo1]

oh Boy Richard nothing has changed I asked you waht you would do, and yet nothing, I am quite aware of OPEC so if you was in power how would you deal with them ?

I mean all they have to do is to stop the flow ...

I have no answers really that would not involve a massive change in the way we live ...

nor do you it seems so no matter whcih party was in power this would have happened, it was inevitable

[Richard]

oh Boy Richard nothing has changed

I agree with you there as you keep refering to something that frankly has nothing to do with you and while you do that you'll get nothing from me.

[rjw63]

Hello, hello, I'm back againin a Gary Glitter styleee

hallo stranger!

[Richard]

Hey up Rob, I'm like the warm weather.

[snowychap]

well that sort of happened when peopel voted labour and depsite what the Right wing press say the NHS and other public services have improved I have seen that in my own life but the overall impression they want to give is of a failing situation.

I don't agree that it was a reaon for most people voting Labour.

I'm afraid that I would also argue that certain aspects of the NHS have most definitely not improved (where I live, at least).

Mental health provisions, for one, have continued on the downward trend begun by the Tories.

[snowychap]

they do Richard, total and utter, the Stock market is allowed to do what it likes, finacial rules which do exist are to loose and even after the collapse of Barings little has been learnt.

In the States the government can not intervene the NYSE has far too much power and influence

but I guess from your comment you advocating a pure free market in which there are no government rules at all and somehow you think that would better ???

jeez and people want the Tories in, god help us

So you have a problem with how financial institutions have been regulated and believe that this has had an adverse impact upon the economic situation.

Does the current government have no responsibility for the system of regulation of financial institutions? :shock:

Can you explain to me how different the Tories' management of these institutions will be from Labour?

[ianrobo1]

none at all Snowy much more the shame

but it would be at the margins because where this started was not int he UK and we could have regulated as much as we like because the buisnessw ould have simply gone to the NYSE

even now I do notice from commentators how little critisicm there is of the actual system and continually just reselling debt, never mind of free markets and regulation

[ianrobo1]

oh Boy Richard nothing has changed

I agree with you there as you keep refering to something that frankly has nothing to do with you and while you do that you'll get nothing from me.

why comment on a lot of things then ?

surely you came on here to make a poltical point and yet in a wider debate you refuse to have a view onb how to solve issues. We all have views, some informed some not but what is the point of a debate if you are not prepared to join in but to make snide poltical points ?

[Richard]

why comment on a lot of things then ?

Again, it's free choice Ian. Do you have to have political affiliations to be able to comment?

Would those snide points be similar to the ones you are making or dfferent? And just because I refuse to answer you does not make my opinion any less valid by the way.

[ianrobo1]

amazing just amazing

I think whether you have a poltical affliation is irrelevant but surely if you criticse you must suggest a solution otherwise, whether it is agreeing with Osbourne or not or whether a Gringo styleee BIAD

you must have ideas on how things should have been handled differently, what could be put into place to prevent this or even a totally different system of living

strange to think you can absolve yourself of this when you specfically after weeks of absence come onto this thread to make a point.

that is point scoring or making snide comments no matter how much you protest

yet you refuse to say but make remarks

[Richard]

strange to think you can absolve yourself of this when you specfically after weeks of absence come onto this thread to make a point

Absolve myself of what? Like I said in my first post today I couldn't not comment on this thread. So I chose to make a post for the first time in three months on this thread. Big deal Ian.

If I was going to post on this site again I would have had to chose one thread or another, it happened to be this one.

Do people have to have a solution to be able to criticise? I do not think so. Enough of us criticised Ellis over the years and our only solution was Ellis out, not who else or what would we do differently. It didn't make the criticism any less valid.

[snowychap]

I think whether you have a poltical affliation is irrelevant but surely if you criticse you must suggest a solution

Why on earth must one suggest a solution in order to justify a critical position (or even the very act of taking a critical position)?

By being critical, it is probably implicit that one is suggesting that the action which one is criticizing ought not to have been done.

Of course, it is great to ask people if they have any suggestions about alternatives but to invalidate criticism because it doesn't come charging into the debate in the saddle of an alternative policy is not only wrong but, frankly, barmy.

[nrogers]

on top of this you have the oil price (abeith some 30% lower than peak) at still mopre than $100 a barrell, as I discussed many times this again was outside government influence ...

When trying to make a point it would be good to get your facts right, because when you don't it can render the rest of your opinion on a subject as bollocks

PETROLEUM ($/bbl)

PRICE* CHANGE % CHANGE TIME

Nymex Crude Future 94.28 -6.90 -6.82 16:53

Dated Brent Spot 90.12 -4.93 -5.18 16:48

WTI Cushing Spot 95.71 -5.47 -5.41 15:48

[ianrobo1]

hats fine Nick it is even lower than Friday when I last looked

much much lower

any loer price I think not, yet

[nrogers]

It's a 6% and 10% reduction in 5 days on your quoted figure, which is considerable, if it continues to reduce at this rate, it will be back to $50 PB in no time at all.

[ianrobo1]

which willmean a world wide recession

[Doug's_Missing_Wallet]

which willmean a world wide recession

You can't have it both ways. If the oil is too expensive it causes a global ecconomic problem, no fault of any government and certainly not of 'the formidable chancellor'/wretched prime minister. And yet if oil prices drop to $50 PB then that too causes worldwide recession. :?

Which is it?

Or does Gordon Brown have to take some responsibility for his awful decision making (when he actually does make a decision, of course).

[ianrobo1]

no

Oil was at $150

if it goes down to $50 can only mean less demand and thus a worldwide recession

[Doug's_Missing_Wallet]

I'd imagine if it went down to $50 PB there would be more demand. Airlines for example. People being able to afford to fill their cars up, which in turn leads to people going out for the day and spending money etc.

And anyway, earlier in the thread, you stated that one of the main two reasons for the ecconomy being so fooked is the price of oil. So if it keeps coming down then surely at some point it will get to this magical price which will stabilise the eccomomy - being a fine balance of demand and cost.

Also, if Brown can take no blame for us being in this mess then presumably he can take no credit if it all gets better. After all it's a global problem and one that will sort itslelf out globally isn't it?