economic situation is dire

[snowychap]

Is it likely, or possible, that those 'awful lot' also have a similar axe to grind against the FSA?

Just go and speak to...

Chuckle.

That's a yes, then.

[Awol]

Fact is that Maggie Thatcher an the Tory right has been proven totally correct over this issue...

Wrong on so many counts its hard to know where to start.

AWOL you are not a EuroScpetic - more of a Euro hater.

Thanks for telling me what I am - not that thinking you know my mind better than I do is ridiculously arrogant or anything...

Thatcher and the other Ultra Right wing Euro Haters are / were living in a isolationist nationalistic world that is actually quite sinister if you follow it through to its possible conclusion.

Interesting that you feel the need to invent views and apply them to your ideological enemies, isn't it? Thatcher wanted to trade with Europe as part of a Common Market, which funnily enough is what we had a referendum on 40 odd years ago. How you see that as sinister isolationism is beyond me but let's face it, you have dished out similar tosh ('little Englanders' etc) for years, suggesting that anyone who thought the fundamentals of the Euro were unworkable was some kind of racist.

I think the course of events has convincingly proved that you were 100% wrong.

The BNP and UKIP parties, both which share similar policies over Europe are hiding behind financial crisis that is nothing to do with the euro but more of a World issue to try and force their frankly obnoxious views as being the acceptable and correct ones.

UKIP and the BNP are nothing like each other, the BNP are far left for god's sake!! However, the crisis in Europe is everything to do with the Euro and denying that is a departure of reality.

Yes the financial sector blew itself up, in the UK and US because poor regulation allowed them to act like arseholes, and in Europe because their banks acted much the same, but that was compounded in the Eurozone because interest rates suitable for the German economy were made available via the Euro to countries that shouldn't have had them. That resulted in huge and unsustainable public and private debt bubbles and a property market that went crazy.

The resulting crisis exposed the fundamental flaws in the Euro itself, the flaws that us "eurosceptics" have been banging on about forever. I know you hate it but on the question of the Euro, Maggie, Hague and the rest have simply been proved right by events.

It's funny how Thatcher's economic policy that caused utter panic and massive impact with the Pound are now being lauded as some sort of salvation. I remember being abroad at the time when foreign banks refused to accept pound notes for conversion, maybe they were "the good old days"?

You mean the ERM disaster when the £ was pegged to the DM? If so then think you make my point perfectly, one size doesn't fit all and EU economies need currencies that can float freely according to their national need - otherwise you eventually end up with the situation we have now.

The simple reality, and conveniently avoided by those whose backers are so clearly the financial sector, is that this is a world issue. The people with little or no real social conscience are those in the financial sector who's sole aim is to make as much money at any cost.

Yes there is a global economic crisis, primarily made in the West for the reasons set out above and yes, traders (as distinct from the "financial sector" that the haters of anything capitalist seem to generalise about) will do whatever they can to make money, it is after all what they get paid for. The trick is to regulate them properly.

Remind me is it the coalition gov trying to seperate high street from investment banking? Why didn't Labour do that, surely they didn't support the hated financial sector?? Maybe even those cretins were aware that the financial sector is a massive part of our economy and we can't put everyone to work in tractor factories and collective farms?

[JulieB]

Is it likely, or possible, that those 'awful lot' also have a similar axe to grind against the FSA?

Just go and speak to...

Chuckle.

That's a yes, then.

Waste of time discussing with you Snowy. IIRC you don't work in the sector...

I DO!!

Part of the reason our economy is in such a mess is because of the double standard regulation that has been applied by regulators.

As others have said... the FSA have been an expensive catasprophe. As confirmed by one former employee I happen to know whose just left Canary Wharf, totally disillusioned.

[snowychap]

Waste of time discussing with you Snowy.

When you don't understand what you are posting, it's probably a waste of time for each of us.

You were running the line that the bloke at the FSA was instructing (or 'nudging') the staff there to vote a certain way and used an awful lot of people in the financial services industry as some sort of supporting evidence that this opinion was correct (that other people may share the opinion doesn't make it correct).

I asked whether they may also, like you, have an axe to grind which may have helped them come to this conclusion - you answered, effectively, yes.

IIRC you don't work in the sector...

I DO!!

What has that to do with the price of a cup of tea? Sod all, that's what.

[tonyh29]

What has that to do with the price of a cup of tea? Sod all, that's what.

I took it to be that Julie speaks to people within the industry and knows people within the industry ... in a thread where a bloke who buys and sells shares seems to have become the voice of the entire financial sector ( for a few people , well ok 2 people :winkold: ) , I'm sure Julie can be given the luxury of being ITK when it comes to her side of the argument in this particular instance .. of course that also means you can quote the various people in the Financial industry you have directly spoken to to support you side of the argument as well ....

[JulieB]

I do not see any point to this discussion at all. One only has to read the comments following both articles to see that a fair few people thought Sants email unwise. Money Marketing only a couple of weeks ago exposed FSA executive staff expenses under a freedom of information. Notwithstanding that they confessed last year to freely spending £600K a year on hospitality - Tea & biscuits at Canary wharf anyone?...Which is why the TSC has called for more accountability for costs and actions for the new FCA. At the moment Canary Wharf can do exactly as they please and Parliament can do naff all about.... and it's not right!

Mr Sants earned £742,000 last year, including a performance-related bonus of £108,000

From From Money Marketing

Sants announced in February that he was to stand down as FSA chief executive this summer after three years in the role. He has previously clashed with the Tories over their proposal to scrap the FSA, move prudential regulation to the Bank of England and create a consumer protection agency.

A source close to the Conservative party says: “Sants could have waited until the next day, he did not have to send this email on election day. Our policies are well known.”

Philip J Milton & Company managing director Philip Milton, who stood as a Conservative candidate at the general election, says: “This was wholly inappropriate. It was obviously done to encourage a particular perspective to be taken by his staff.”

He also told staff that he will reveal his leaving date and the arrangements for a successor by the end of May.

The FSA refused to comment on the email.

It would not be appropriate for the head of a civil service dept to send a clearly political email to 3,300 members of staff on the day of an election and IMHO nor should it be in the remit of the head of an independent quaisa judicial organisation.

[snowychap]

It would not be appropriate for the head of a civil service dept to send a clearly political email to 3,300 members of staff on the day of an election and IMHO nor should it be in the remit of the head of an independent quaisa judicial organisation.

It's an email which you believe to be 'clearly political' along with the Tory party and a load of people in the financial sector who don't like the man.

It does not make it unquestionably 'clearly political'.

At the moment Canary Wharf can do exactly as they please and Parliament can do naff all about.... and it's not right!

That sounds like the fault of moron politicians and how the political system has evolved over the last three decades or so.

Notwithstanding that they confessed last year to freely spending £600K a year on hospitality

What do other organizations with around 3,300 staff in Laarnden spend on hospitality per year?

And what exactly was this hospitality?

Are you sure that figure (£600k per year) is correct as this Torygraph article would suggest otherwise:

Britain's financial regulator has spent more than £600,000 on Christmas parties since the credit crunch began, it admitted yesterday.

...

The regulator’s ‘party budget’ peaked in 2007 when regulators spent just over £270,000 on staff entertainment.

This is enough money to buy about 9,350 bottles of Moet & Chandon champagne at a price of £29 each.

In 2008 – the year that Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland came close to collapse – the spending continued.

During that torrid, unforgettable year, the FSA said it spent £228,461 on partying. The actual figure could be even higher because it excludes the amount that was spent on flights and accommodation.

In 2009, when Britain was in the depths of a recession, the spending continued, with £107,814 laid out on entertainment.

Yesterday the FSA said it hands out a budget of £60, including VAT, per head for each of its 3,307 staff.

The figure used to be £100, including VAT, per head, but was cut in 2008 in response to the economic crisis.

...more on link

[JulieB]

Oh yawn I can't be bothered to discuss the topic with you anymore Snowy....

What's more I said hospitality budget ie tea and biscuits...... not their Xmas party budget that was another chunk of the £450M they cost the industry every year..........go do some more research on Google!

The Biscuit Budget £638500

All you are doing is nit picking over posts so it ends up as stupidly bickering over daft points.....which IMHO contributes nowt..... so quote and snipe all you wish... I'm not rising to the bait!

If you truly wish to support the FSA and all it stands for..... then be my guest!

[snowychap]

What's more I said hospitality budget ie tea and biscuits...... not their Xmas party budget that was another chunk of the £450M they cost the industry every year..........go do some more research on Google!

The Biscuit Budget £638500

That's fair enough. I just asked if you were sure as the first thing that I found (and I didn't bother looking any further than the first result) suggested otherwise.

Again, though, what would any other organization, in London, with that many staff and holding the number of meetings that they did, normally spend on it?

That would put it in to some kind of context as to whether it is extortionate spending or not.

All you are doing is nit picking over posts so it ends up as stupidly bickering over daft points...

Oh, god's sake - not this nonsense again.

You posted something originally about an email someone sent and made a claim about it which I questioned (I wasn't the only one, either).

It was a claim you made - if that claim was a 'daft point' then don't bring it up.

If you truly wish to support the FSA and all it stands for..... then be my guest!

Why would I do that? I haven't done.

I've questioned a couple of your comments about them (one of which you've pointed out above was a correct figure - though, again, is the sum unusual?) and you've had a paddy.

[snowychap]

What has that to do with the price of a cup of tea? Sod all, that's what.

I took it to be that Julie speaks to people within the industry and knows people within the industry ... in a thread where a bloke who buys and sells shares seems to have become the voice of the entire financial sector ( for a few people , well ok 2 people :winkold: ) , I'm sure Julie can be given the luxury of being ITK when it comes to her side of the argument in this particular instance .. of course that also means you can quote the various people in the Financial industry you have directly spoken to to support you side of the argument as well ....

As above, what does any of that matter when discussing whether or not that bloke's email was some kind of direction to the FSA staff on how to vote or 'clearly political' or 'an abuse of his position'?

Were we discussing the regulatory actions (or inactions) of the FSA and this guy's performance in that context then a first hand knowledge of the performance of the regulator in that sector (or particular part of the sector) would be very much of an advantage as would the opinion of moneymarketing. It wouldn't mean that their opinion was unquestionably correct, though it would probably be better informed than most.

[Risso]

It wouldn't mean that their opinion was unquestionably correct, though it would probably be better informed than mine.

Fixed that for you.

[snowychap]

It wouldn't mean that their opinion was unquestionably correct, though it would probably be better informed than mine.

Fixed that for you.

Were we discussing the regulatory actions (or inactions) of the FSA and this guy's performance in that context then a first hand knowledge of the performance of the regulator in that sector (or particular part of the sector) would be very much of an advantage as would the opinion of moneymarketing. It wouldn't mean that their opinion was unquestionably correct, though it would probably be better informed than most.

As my opinion on the matters referred to in the above would be part of that group 'most' then it would only appear to be necessary to 'fix' it in the way you have if one were to have a problem with understanding things which are implicit (a problem with basic english comprehension perhaps :winkold:).

[Risso]

English, dear boy, English!

[snowychap]

English, dear boy, English!

Indeed.

My tendency towards a lack of capitalization in those circumstances is a grammatical failing; I put it down to a subconscious wish not to accentuate any potential nationalism inherent in that capitalization.

[blandy]

The last government created the conditions whereby the banking sector in the UK grew to be the biggest in the world. It's a global problem, but we played one of the to biggest parts in that along with the US. We had 5 of the top 10 biggest banks in the world under Labour, including the very biggest. Labour created a monster that promoted a false feeling of wealth for the nation, and now everybody is paying for it.

I half agree, but I think that in itself creating a large banking sector is/was a good thing. The problem was that they did so at the expense (literally, it turns out) of all other industries. Too many eggs in one basket, rather than just having a lot of eggs.

[TheDon]

It's an email which you believe to be 'clearly political' along with the Tory party and a load of people in the financial sector who don't like the man.

It does not make it unquestionably 'clearly political'.

Just so I'm clear here, you're arguing that an email which contains reference to a political parties policies is capable of not being political?

I'd love to see the explanation of how that one works out.

Surely by pure definition mentioning the policies of a political party, regardless of if it was the eve of an election or not, is clearly political.

[snowychap]

It's an email which you believe to be 'clearly political' along with the Tory party and a load of people in the financial sector who don't like the man.

It does not make it unquestionably 'clearly political'.

Just so I'm clear here, you're arguing that an email which contains reference to a political parties policies is capable of not being political?

I'd love to see the explanation of how that one works out.

Surely by pure definition mentioning the policies of a political party, regardless of if it was the eve of an election or not, is clearly political.

I was using the specific phrase that the other poster used in one post. I don't believe that her meaning was the same as your's above or that suggested by my comment, here, I'm not sure that any quango type organization can be non-political.

These were her initial words on the subject and set the context in which the above phrase should be read:

Hector Sants emailed every employee of the FSA to remind them of which political party had vowed in it's manifesto to get rid of them just before the day of the last general election. It was a clear instruction to Canary Wharf to vote labour.

In essence, the poster's 'clearly political' was synonymous with clearly party political.

[tonyh29]

Nope think id have to agree with Julie and Don here....I'd say that Hectors meaning was crystal clear and think you are fighting a losing battle in any argument otherwise tbh

[snowychap]

Nope think id have to agree with Julie and Don here.

Good for you. Not sure what the 'nope' is for.

[TheDon]

It's an email which you believe to be 'clearly political' along with the Tory party and a load of people in the financial sector who don't like the man.

It does not make it unquestionably 'clearly political'.

Just so I'm clear here, you're arguing that an email which contains reference to a political parties policies is capable of not being political?

I'd love to see the explanation of how that one works out.

Surely by pure definition mentioning the policies of a political party, regardless of if it was the eve of an election or not, is clearly political.

I was using the specific phrase that the other poster used in one post. I don't believe that her meaning was the same as your's above or that suggested by my comment, here, I'm not sure that any quango type organization can be non-political.

These were her initial words on the subject and set the context in which the above phrase should be read:

Hector Sants emailed every employee of the FSA to remind them of which political party had vowed in it's manifesto to get rid of them just before the day of the last general election. It was a clear instruction to Canary Wharf to vote labour.

In essence, the poster's 'clearly political' was synonymous with clearly party political.

How is it not party political though? It's an obvious "we seriously don't want these guys to get in" comment. It's a comment against the policy of a political party, ergo it was party political.