snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 what the Tories would or wouldn't do is irrelevant. You really believe that? The main oppostion party in this country with almost two hundred elected MPs, elected by god knows how many millions of people, and you say that what they would or wouldn't do is irrelevant. I couldn't agree less. They are surely there to not just slate what the current government may be doing wrong, as quite franky in times like this that is easy prey, but they surely have to offer viable alternatives as when the time comes for people to vote again what the **** will we be voting for if we vote for the Tories as I have not got a clue what they are all about. I think, Mark, you miss the point that I am making. What they would do is not irrelevant in terms of debate and in terms of the future. What they would do has absolutley no bearing on now, on today. As an exercise in politics it is important. As part of a debate about how one deals with these problems, it is important and interesting. But who is responsible for policy today? On friday the thirteenth, who makes UK government policy? The Tories could advocate the rimming of every hole from Stratford to Bradford but it really would have no substantive effect upon public policy NOW. Are Brown and Darling the right people to lead this country = Debateable Are Cameron and Osbourne the right people to lead this country = Laughable ( as I don't have a clue what the **** they are about ) If we were likely to have an election tomorrow (or in the near future) then it might mean something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 no chance snowy and the peopel are the worse to decide we know fuk all on why this has happened I suspect if there was a vote on what to do most would say let the banks fall (deposits are of course saved) but the public would not understand the consequences of that Look at the damage just one - Lehmans did when ti collapses, if RBS collapsed as one of the world's biggest banks the fallout would be depression and no one wants that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 no chance snowy and the peopel are the worse to decide we know fuk all on why this has happened Does anyone know? I am guessing that the no chance was in reference to my suggestion that we might take into account all of the people. Frankly, I'm quite astonished, Ian, Really, I am. I suspect if there was a vote on what to do most would say let the banks fall (deposits are of course saved) but the public would not understand the consequences of that a)Perhaps the public wouldn't be that wrong? Perhaps they would? Maybe we need to educate everyone to understand what occurs in the world to which they contribute. Give them the opportunity to make an informed decision rather than saying that most people can't make the call so we need to leave it up to the 'clever people'. BTW, some of them are the **** who got us into this mess (and are going to get us into the next mess because we are still giving them too much pissing credit and power). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Are Brown and Darling the right people to lead this country = Debateable Are Cameron and Osbourne the right people to lead this country = Laughable ( as I don't have a clue what the **** they are about ) If we were likely to have an election tomorrow (or in the near future) then it might mean something. Snowy in a years time when the elections come round I am sure the Tories will have plenty to say about what they would and wouldn't have done during this very difficult time we are going through. Hindsight will be a wonderful thing. I personally would have much more respect for them if they stated what they would do now. I doubt very much right now they'll commit themselves to anything and that can only lead me to believe that Cameron and Osbourne are clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 snowy remember when I keep sayig ALL to BLAME that includes the people they wanted the houses, they allowed thatch to sell off council housing, they accepted 7 timesmultiple mortgages, 110% mortgages etc. the peopel want the good times but moan at the bad of the free market Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Are Brown and Darling the right people to lead this country = Debateable Are Cameron and Osbourne the right people to lead this country = Laughable ( as I don't have a clue what the **** they are about ) If we were likely to have an election tomorrow (or in the near future) then it might mean something. Snowy in a years time when the elections come round I am sure the Tories will have plenty to say about what they would and wouldn't have done during this very difficult time we are going through. Hindsight will be a wonderful thing. I personally would have much more respect for them if they stated what they would do now. I doubt very much right now they'll commit themselves to anythig and that can only lead me to believe that Cameron and Osbourne are clueless. Quite possibly, Mark. The point that I was making, though, was not about next year (in my view next year may as well be a decade down the road for the economy) but that the decisions being made today were the government's decisions. If errors are being made today then I don't see why culpability (or stupidity) is lessened by saying that others would be more or equally culpable (or stupid). p.s. My hope for the next year is that someone comes and deletes 'hindsight' from our vocab. It will be the next done to death word by all who seek to absolve themselves from any responsibility and/or culpability for anything (I think I heard it at least twenty times during the questioning of the bankers - even though a good number of the comments related to opinions given years ago). How the **** can one criticise someone for what they said five years ago by saying 'with the benefit of hindsight, what they said was right'? Morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 snowy remember when I keep sayig ALL to BLAME that includes the people they wanted the houses, they allowed thatch to sell off council housing, they accepted 7 timesmultiple mortgages, 110% mortgages etc. the peopel want the good times but moan at the bad of the free market Yeah, yeah, yeah. All to blame. Gordon Brown to blame? Easy to say, just have a go, just one post, just say Gordon Brown is to blame as are we all, apparently (I disagree, btw). I don't count myself to blame. I didn't want the houses. I never have. I have always been against the obsession with home ownership; I have always been against the obsession with consumerism. If you are in any doubt then check out the Oliver James link I posted earlier. I didn't sign up to this shit so don't blame me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 p.s. My hope for the next year is that someone comes and deletes 'hindsight' from our vocab. It will be the next done to death word by all who seek to absolve themselves from any responsibility and/or culpability for anything (I think I heard it at least twenty times during the questioning of the bankers - even though a good number of the comments related to opinions given years ago). How the **** can one criticise someone for what they said five years ago by saying 'with the benefit of hindsight, what they said was right'? Morons. Couldn't agree more. I can guarantee though we will hear plenty from all Politcal parties on what should and shouldn't have been done. Whatever happens now it is clear to me that there will be no quick fix for what is currently happening. It is now just about the degree to which how bad things get. I am sure the Labour government are aware that regardless of what they do now they are already out of the door come the next election. It would be stupid to think that given what as already happened and what is lkely to happen prior to the next election that any government could survive that. To what extent Labour are to blame for what is happening now I am unsure. I do genuinely fear for this country though as it is a given to me that the Tories will be in power in 2010 and with Cameron and Osbourne leading them that is a far more frightening prospect than we currently have leading us. For the record I am not a Labour supporter I just don't see the Tories, with there current leadership, as a better option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 ... Couldn't agree more. I can guarantee though we will here plenty from all Politcal parties on what should and shouldn't have been done. Whatever happens now it is clear to me that there will be no quick fix for what is currently happening. It is now just about the degree to which how bad things get. I am sure the Labour government are aware that regardless of what they do now they are already out of the door come the next election. It would be stupid to think that given what as already happened and what is lkely to happen prior to the next election that any government could survive that. To what extent Labour are to blame for what is happening now I am unsure. I do genuinely fear for this country though as it is a given to me that the Tories will be in power in 2010 and with Cameron and Osbourne leading them that is a far more frightening prospect than we currently have leading us. For the record I am not a Labour supporter I just don't see the Tories, with there current leadership, as a better option.I can't say that I disagree with any of that, mate. I would not be in favour of a Tory economic solution as I disagree with the economic solution posed by both sides (though one or two of the labour apparatchiks would therefore have you believe that I am a Tory because I don't accept the New Labour policy). The only potential benefit of a tory government, in my view, might be the civil liberties issue. I'm not convinced that any government in this country will start to make the right decisions, though. It has become easier and easier to throw one's lot in with freeborn John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I'm not convinced that any government in this country will start to make the right decisions, though. It has become easier and easier to throw one's lot in with freeborn John. What a sad state we find ourselves in given that the above statement is so true. The government we have now apears to be unable to get us out of the shocking mess we now find ourselves in yet we do not genuinely have an alternative to cling our hopes onto. The Conservatives will be elected in 2010 of that I am sure. People will vote for them, but not with any belief that they will change things for the better, but more in blind desperation. How far we have sunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 I'm not convinced that any government in this country will start to make the right decisions thats the problem no one knows what the right descions are to nationalise banks or not ? let them collapse or not ? tax cuts or soial housing ? no one has a clue and only history (note not hindsight) will tell us I jsut want from a politial poit of view the Tories to tell us what they would do and they can not say this at the moment because unless they have really changed the rights answer to recessions has always been to leave them to the free market the advisors of thatcher will not turn agaist this but can not say it either which for me is abysmal. just wished the libs were a more credible force to give a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 [i jsut want from a politial poit of view the Tories to tell us what they would do and they can not say this at the moment because unless they have really changed the rights answer to recessions has always been to leave them to the free market Ian I would love to know what the Tories would do but I genuinely don't think they have a clue. Even if they did I don't think they want to say too much at the moment as they are happy letting Labour dig there own grave and then piping up every now and again and slinging a bit of mud. The Tories wll continue to criticise Labours handling of the economic situation, not offer any viable alternatives, safe in the knowledge that come the election in 2010 out of desperation people will have turned to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 Mark, I doubt you have read all of this thread but Richard and Tony have both keot going about the huge amount of borrowing, most of it to prop up the banking system. so has Cameron and Osbourne my gut feeling is that actually the tories would do **** all except small things like £20b to guarntee business loans but what is the poit of this when one bank has debts of at least 10bn and we have 3 nationalised banks thats why we don;t hear what they do because they would not do a lot for me with no evidence to the contary it is that simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I think what the Tories have done Ian, by saying **** all, is left the door open for people to come to their own conclusions of what they would or wouldn't do. They could easily nip that in the bud by actually giving an alternative to the action being taken now. They won't though as they know, due to peoples desperation, they are almost guaranteed to be in power come 2010 and the only thing that could probably **** that up is by Cameron and Osbourne engaing their clueless brains and opening there mouths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Who would credit the word of banking's knights-erroneous? It seems mad and quaint, yet Labour really asked its motley Sirs to apply their genius to public policy as well as finance When historians come to judge the least edifying patronage scandal of recent years, it will not be cash for honours, which anyone with half a brain realised has been happening since time immemorial. No, they will surely settle on financial collapse for honours, the enchanting outreach programme whereby bankers were given baubles, government jobs and taskforces to chair, on the basis that extremely rich men must be right (I paraphrase slightly). I am as shocked as the next person that extremely rich men have turned out to be wrong, and this week watched the Treasury select committee grill those four senior bankers: see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil, and please-no-call-me-evil. Which did you think was the ghastliest? I thought ex-HBOS man Andy Hornby, because he was the youngest-looking one, while the others already resembled fully fossilised city gents. It's a bit like why Davros was the most disturbing Dr Who villain. You could still glimpse the humanity. And indeed, even looking at the desk place-names in that committee room there was a poignant sense of promise cut off at the knees, when comparing plain old Andy's card with those of his co-defendants - "Lord Stevenson", "Sir Tom McKillop", "Sir Fred Goodwin". Poor Andy has yet to get his title, and one suspects it will not be the inevitability it once was in his line of work. But what a feeder club the City has been, with Labour having given 23 bankers honours since 1997. Four of them scored life peerages, and seven were knighted. Three were made government ministers, two appointed to senior posts within Downing Street, 10 have been placed on eminent councils, seven on agencies and quangos, while just the 37 have been drafted in to head up taskforces, or sit on commissions and advisory bodies. How errant were these knights - and how erroneous. Indeed, as we survey the wreckage of the banking system, the worry is rather less that they were given titles than that they were given responsibility in so many areas of government policy. These were not sinecures. Goodwin headed up taskforces examining both the New Deal and credit unions. Yesterday I unearthed his 2006 appearance before the Treasury committee, which praised him for opening basic bank accounts. "There seems to be coming through quite a strong strand of public accountability and social conscience rather than profit," they fawned. Sir Fred's reply? "I think they work hand in hand ..." It would be funny if it weren't so bleeding tragic. Fred's social conscience appears to have been a demented expansionist dream that brought about the biggest losses in UK corporate history. It does rather make one wonder if his work on the New Deal and credit unions should be rehoused in a government file marked Do The Opposite Of This. Then of course there was former HBOS chief Sir James Crosby, who had done so much to drive mortgage insanity that he was naturally charged with reviewing the ailing mortgage market. He also headed the ID cards taskforce. And let's not forget Sir Derek Wanless, assigned the even littler matter of mapping the future of the NHS. Among his conclusions were a recommendation to tax junk food (amazing how non-laissez faire these bankers are when it comes to people other than themselves), and lots of lectures about the public needing to "take responsibility" for themselves. We all have our limits, and I think being invited to consider the risks of a second portion of chips by a bloke who sat mutely on the Northern Rock audit and risk committee is probably mine. Alas, there isn't the space to continue this roll call of banker-public intellectual hybrids. But we must just salute investment banker turned government adviser David Freud, who authored the white paper on welfare reform, and came up with the ur-justification for all bankers seeking to persuade people of their eminent suitability for these complex public roles. "I didn't know anything about welfare at all when I started," he breezed to reporters, "but that may have been an advantage ... In a funny way the solution was obvious." Unpicking the vast and meaningful influence this lot have had over every aspect of government policy in recent years would be a Piranesian nightmare. But you'd hope we've been shocked into caution, and that getting bankers to formulate social policy will one day seem as bizarre and unthinkably embarrassing a custom of bygone times as The Black and White Minstrel Show. Then again, don't hold out too much hope. When Gordon Brown took over as PM, his now somewhat compromised reputation for caution was mocked by one Westminster wag who said: "When a bomb goes off, you can't call Derek Wanless to set up an 18-month review." Can't you? The banking system's implosion would seem to be a matter of similar emergency, and this week we learned that Brown has only gone and called a banker, Sir David Walker, to chair a review into the way bank boards operate. If and when Sir David comes to choose his seat, let us hope he opts for Lord Walker of Cloud Cuckoo Land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 just as we discussed last night clarke has saud this about the Lloyds/Hbos merger "They should never have been allowed to merge," he added. "Lloyds TSB was a boring bank, it was a steady bank, it hadn't done silly things." well the reason it happened wa because HBOS was very close to collapse so as usual I think it is a valid thing to ay but what woul he have done instead ? only 2 options I see 1- let it collapse and the huge liabilities, not least the safeguarding of deposits 2 - or totally nationalise it taking the liabilities on board he gives us neither same as what we said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 he gives us neither same as what we saidThis really boils down into the point that they (blue) don't know what they would do - and we don't know what we (pretend red) are doing either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 yes that is the case Gringo but if you have no idea what to do how can you feasibly criticse what Labour are doing, especially has results won't be een for months if not years the key qustion to be debated I suppose is hthe rlabour made things worse in the last 12 months and if so how ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 if you have no idea what to do how can you feasibly criticse what Labour are doing Quite easily. I'm not sure you understand the nature of criticism, Ian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 I do snowy but in these desperate times pure critiscm has to be backed up with ideas, to at least have a proper debate and how us some alternatives again therefore I can only conclude they would have let the bank slide into bankruptcy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts