Gringo Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 well Cameron is o R5 now, of course no real policies but with statements he just uttered like 'opening up the market for education' oh dear nothing learnt eh ?Oh. Has gordo rolled back the market reforms it has introduced and is trying to expand in education and health markets? Didn't notice it. Therefore rather difficult to attack 'dave' for something gordo is keeping on, keeping on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 what would happen the day firm were allowed to opt out ... wages would fall, directors get bigger bonuses and hey ho the captialist system shits on the weak againWhich is about as a big an over reaction as the one before the minimum wage was introduced which said that the economy couldn't sustain it and would lead to unemployment, has proven to be. rally Richard are you saying employeers woul keep the wages at the present levels ? because you have far more trust in managers than I ever would so do you support then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 well Cameron is o R5 now, of course no real policies but with statements he just uttered like 'opening up the market for education' oh dear nothing learnt eh ?Oh. Has gordo rolled back the market reforms it has introduced and is trying to expand in education and health markets? Didn't notice it. Therefore rather difficult to attack 'dave' for something gordo is keeping on, keeping on. he wants to go much further tha Labour did (a policy has you know I disagreed with from the start) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 well Cameron is o R5 now, of course no real policies but with statements he just uttered like 'opening up the market for education' oh dear nothing learnt eh ?Oh. Has gordo rolled back the market reforms it has introduced and is trying to expand in education and health markets? Didn't notice it. Therefore rather difficult to attack 'dave' for something gordo is keeping on, keeping on. he wants to go much further tha Labour did (a policy has you know I disagreed with from the start) You may well disagree with it but it doesn't change the fact that priviatisation of education IS part of Labour's policy. Therefore attacking the Tories for backing it is surely the same as condemning the party you support - but I've never ever heard you doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 well Cameron is o R5 now, of course no real policies but with statements he just uttered like 'opening up the market for education' oh dear nothing learnt eh ?Oh. Has gordo rolled back the market reforms it has introduced and is trying to expand in education and health markets? Didn't notice it. Therefore rather difficult to attack 'dave' for something gordo is keeping on, keeping on.he wants to go much further tha Labour didTosh - tony took it further thatn the tories ever dreamed. How did it get through parliament - with the tories proping up the govt against the labour rebellion. If it wasn't for all the groundwork that labour have put in for the tories on privatising health and education, education, education for the past 12 years then dave wouldn't be in any position to push forward. (a policy has you know I disagreed with from the start)yet you use the policy to attack one party that are proposing to carry it on, yet ignore the fact that your party are currently implementing it. That's the problem with two centre right parties - the things that differentiate them are marginal compared to the things that unite them. And supporters of one party or other attack their opponents for things they would do / would have done anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Granting B of E independnece was deemed a good idea at the time ..then years later it is deemed a folly of the highest order ... The same BOE independence that Cameron said of And also Bank of England independence - in fact we'd enhance it. It is about the only decision Gordon Brown has taken to reduce interference from ministers in the economy, and it's not a coincidence that it's the decision that's worked the best. BoE independence is one of the best things (along with the minimum wage) that Labour has done. Stripping them of regulatory powers over other banks is one of the stupidest things Labour has done*. *Obviously not including the Iraq debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 CVByrne's fellow Irish govt employees take to the streets Huge protest over Irish economy About 100,000 people have taken part in protests in Dublin city centre to vent their anger at the Irish government's handling of the country's recession. They oppose plans to impose a pension levy on 350,000 public sector workers. Trade union organisers of the march said workers did not cause the economic crisis but were having to pay for it. In a statement, the Irish government said it recognised that the measures it was taking were "difficult and in some cases painful". The pension levy was "reasonable", the government said. It reflected "the reality that we are not in a position to continue to meet the public service pay bill in the circumstances of declining revenue", it added. Reports say the plan could cost the 350,000 public sector workers between 1,500 euros and 2,800 euros (£2,500) a year. One for all, all for one. Unions, dontcha just luv em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Don't worry - the Banking Act will save us. No more secrecy, eh. :crylaugh: :crylaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 One for all, all for one. Unions, dontcha just luv em. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 Granting B of E independnece was deemed a good idea at the time ..then years later it is deemed a folly of the highest order ... The same BOE independence that Cameron said of And also Bank of England independence - in fact we'd enhance it. It is about the only decision Gordon Brown has taken to reduce interference from ministers in the economy, and it's not a coincidence that it's the decision that's worked the best. BoE independence is one of the best things (along with the minimum wage) that Labour has done. Stripping them of regulatory powers over other banks is one of the stupidest things Labour has done*. *Obviously not including the Iraq debacle. they los the power because they **** up so much over BCCI, the question is would be any benefit it they had had it, I doubt it would have made a difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Granting B of E independnece was deemed a good idea at the time ..then years later it is deemed a folly of the highest order ... The same BOE independence that Cameron said of And also Bank of England independence - in fact we'd enhance it. It is about the only decision Gordon Brown has taken to reduce interference from ministers in the economy, and it's not a coincidence that it's the decision that's worked the best. BoE independence is one of the best things (along with the minimum wage) that Labour has done. Stripping them of regulatory powers over other banks is one of the stupidest things Labour has done*. *Obviously not including the Iraq debacle. they los the power because they **** up so much over BCCI, the question is would be any benefit it they had had it, I doubt it would have made a difference Sorry mate but not entirely clear on your meaning. Are you saying that if the BoE had retained strong regulatory powers the same culture of reckless lending would have grown up? Let's suppose you're right, why do you call for much tougher regulation if you don't think it makes a difference, and at the same time directly blame it's absence for the situation we're in now? Doesn't make much sense to me unless I've misunderstood you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 well that strong so called sets of regs were obviously working for BCCI, that is why the BofE lost it two regs I would bring in 1) No retial bank allowed to do investment banking, if they want to do that it must be totally seperate ad not as now 2) no mortgage to be give out of more than 90% value and multiple of income limited to 3.5 or 4, now obviously that would limit house price growth, good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Ianrobo So the case off BCCI in 1991 was the reason regulatory powers were taken from the BoE seven years later? If that's the case shouldn't the FSA have been defunct when Northern Rock went down, and if not then why not if the same standards are being applied? And you still haven't really explained why you call for stronger regulation on one hand and then suggest that such measures wouldn't have made a difference anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 because AWOL the Tories were in power for 6 years thats why it took some time and yes the FSA shoudl be changed/gotrid of and replaced with much much stronger regulation it would have made the difference you seem to be presuming that regulation in the past was somehow stronger if it was how come BCCI and Barings occurred Do you support the call for less Red tape on other subjects BTW ? thats why it never happened because business screamed it would lose them billions of course the reverse is true the stronger the regualtion the better, hopefully the era of lassisz-faire in all areas is over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 No retial bank allowed to do investment banking, if they want to do that it must be totally seperate ad not as now So not what Gordo suggested today? We do not envisage, as some have advocated, a rigid divide in future between "narrow banking" - retail and corporate deposit taking - and investment banking and trading conducted at an international level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 No retial bank allowed to do investment banking, if they want to do that it must be totally seperate ad not as now So not what Gordo suggested today? We do not envisage, as some have advocated, a rigid divide in future between "narrow banking" - retail and corporate deposit taking - and investment banking and trading conducted at an international level. well simple that I disagree with him we have never had rules to seperate the two the US did until it was repealed some years ago, either Bush or Clinton and look what happened times have changed now and if the kind of trades that went on are not to be banned then the seperation has to happen or aybe people should move their bank accounts to better run insitutions like Building societies or building socities it is no coincidence the ones in real shit trouble were the demutalised ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 and it seems the heads of state of the G20 and going down the route of stricter regulation so it semes if these are tough things will change, the call for 'less red tape' to cut costs will be seen as a false and wrong call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimandson Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 You know what, I don't care what happens, as long as I get my bonus. I've worked my bloody oar off the last 12 months, it ain't my fault the banks have gone to shit. I want my money, in money, not in shares. This time next month I shall know for certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 You know what, I don't care what happens, as long as I get my bonus. I've worked my bloody oar off the last 12 months, it ain't my fault the banks have gone to shit. I want my money, in money, not in shares. This time next month I shall know for certain. well who do you work for and will they make a profit ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimandson Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 You know what, I don't care what happens, as long as I get my bonus. I've worked my bloody oar off the last 12 months, it ain't my fault the banks have gone to shit. I want my money, in money, not in shares. This time next month I shall know for certain. well who do you work for and will they make a profit ? Now I work for LBG, but previously HBoS. And I don't care if we lose 100bn, I worked bloody hard last year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts