ianrobo1 Posted February 28, 2009 Author Share Posted February 28, 2009 HSBC are now having to raise £12bn but surely that is normal in a recession are they looking for the government to bail them out too ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I tell you what, Labour will not get my vote again if they make the wrong decision here. eh? Sorry Trim I don't get you. From the BBC article above it shows that someone in RBS lied. How is that the Gvmts fault again? The PM has said that now they are going after Goodwin with as much legal force as there is out there. I bet the RBS board room shredder will be busy I haven't seen anything anywhere, but are they going after Tony Blair to claw back his pension? I assume that the PM has relinquished his pension rights already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 HSBC announce PROFITS of 6.5 Billion pounds this morning!! Just on Sky News! EDIT: Initially announced as 14 Billion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I haven't seen anything anywhere, but are they going after Tony Blair to claw back his pension? I assume that the PM has relinquished his pension rights already? eh? Sorry TT that makes no sense and interesting comments from all of the political parties at the weekend. Only one decided to make it into a total anti-Gvmt tirade - guess who? The party that depends on the banking world for its major support - anyone for lunch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I haven't seen anything anywhere, but are they going after Tony Blair to claw back his pension? I assume that the PM has relinquished his pension rights already? eh? Sorry TT that makes no sense So UK plc is doing okay is it? The whole government spin machine pushing Goodwin out as the only 'baddy' is sickening. As far as I am concerned he is a 'baddy' , but some of those pointing the finger are at least equally culpable, some far more. Brown has orchestrated the biggest financial mess that this country has ever seen, and for most of the time Blair was his boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I haven't seen anything anywhere, but are they going after Tony Blair to claw back his pension? I assume that the PM has relinquished his pension rights already? eh? Sorry TT that makes no sense So UK plc is doing okay is it? The whole government spin machine pushing Goodwin out as the only 'baddy' is sickening. As far as I am concerned he is a 'baddy' , but some of those pointing the finger are at least equally culpable, some far more. Brown has orchestrated the biggest financial mess that this country has ever seen, and for most of the time Blair was his boss. ^^^^ this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 The whole government spin machine pushing Goodwin out as the only 'baddy' is sickening. So the Lib Dems are part of the Gvmt are they? The only "spin" here is from the Tory party who are trying their damndest to provide support for Goodwin and that whole banking group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Brown has orchestrated the biggest financial mess that this country has ever seen, and for most of the time Blair was his boss. and the whole world has carried on with no mess - what a flawed and biased argument - mate you could be Gideon with rhetoric like that :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Labour and spin, who'd have thought it, they should be wanted Dead or Alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Labour and spin, who'd have thought it, they should be wanted Dead or Alive.Nick the only person who initially mentions spin here are the Tory party supporters of VT. Remove your blinkers and ask why Gideon has not criticised Goodwin here to the same levels as the other politicians of all other parties? Could it be that he is trying to deflect things? Condemnation of some of its party's biggest benefactors, i.e. the banking fraternity You were right on Spin, unfortunately it's "your boys" that are doing the deflection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Labour and spin, who'd have thought it, they should be wanted Dead or Alive.Nick the only person who initially mentions spin here are the Tory party supporters of VT. Remove your blinkers and ask why Gideon has not criticised Goodwin here to the same levels as the other politicians of all other parties? Could it be that he is trying to deflect things? Condemnation of some of its party's biggest benefactors, i.e. the banking fraternity You were right on Spin, unfortunately it's "your boys" that are doing the deflection The Masters of Spin FC The only one with blinkers on is you my friend. And yes I know the age of the article, but it was the first one on google... there are millions more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Nick - I rest my case - you cannot / or will not answer the point made - bringing up a BBC article from 2002 is not a valid response other than from someone who is trying to deflect from the point being talked about. And an article that has bugger all to do with the banking pensions topic When we see the same condemnation from Gideon that other political parties - and again you conveniently miss the fact that it was people like the Lib Dems etc - then we can see what people really care about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Case being made that the worst economical crisis occurred under you lot, that did naff all to prevent it, in fact exacerbated it by selling off all the countries gold at rock bottom prices, wasting billions of tax payers money on white elephants, pointless civil servents and red tape, but no, it's the tories fault for pointing these things out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 2, 2009 Moderator Share Posted March 2, 2009 Brown created the toothless FSA, why will no Labour supporters ever admit that this was the fundamental building block to disaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Brown created the toothless FSA, why will no Labour supporters ever admit that this was the fundamental building block to disaster yes Bicks, this is the key but it was the finacial service industry and the world markets wanted. In order to keep trade we effectivtly had to deregulate or the money would have gone to the NYSE which was also the same. So as I keep saying ALL are to BLAME because WE (in a general sense) wanted 'free trade' and liberalisation, back then there were only a few calls for heavier regulation and these were sirens in the wind. Do you think the Tories would have done any different ? nope or the lib dems ? nope the free marker demanded it, you know the economy is run liek that but it failed, 'laissez faire' would never work and even the Tories have now stopped called for 'less red tape' you may have noticed. Free market will never be successful if you just let it get on with it. hopefully this may change but is unlikely to when the head of Lansdowne (major hedge fund and thus beneficary of this) is a major contributer to the Tories and part of Camerons 100 lunch club. and unfortnatuly it appears the Tories may win the next election. So to the Tory supporters on here (not you Bicks !!) do you support the calls for tougher regulation and red tape for the city and free market ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 yes Bicks, this is the key but it was the finacial service industry and the world markets wanted. In order to keep trade we effectivtly had to deregulate or the money would have gone to the NYSE which was also the same. Be careful, Ian, because you are halfway to the argument which is against further regulation still (i.e. the one that says that they'll all be off to Frankfurt unless we play ball). So as I keep saying ALL are to BLAME because WE (in a general sense) wanted 'free trade' and liberalisation, back then there were only a few calls for heavier regulation and these were sirens in the wind. I'm sorry this 'all to blame' stuff is pretty wishy-washy and really fails to address the problems which may have got us to where we are. You might like a look at this - it's 37 pages long so I'll only quote that part which relates to this catch all upon which some now wish to rely: In the final family of bullshit explanations, responsibility settles on us all in a fine, even dust. All of us are to blame, and so none of us can be singled out. We all borrowed too much and brought the crisis on ourselves. This is a line that is very popular with those who are otherwise very happy to take a leadership role. Again, what pretends to be explanation induces a kind of vertigo. Instead of distinguishing between causes, and identifying the ones that matter, we are invited to lose ourselves in the sublime of a million and one decisions of indeterminate importance. I’d say that that is bullshit, too. Maybe we were all at the party, but hardly any of us could have known what was in the punch. We were encouraged to leave supposedly complicated and technical matters like the management of the economy to experts. Professionals with intimidating credentials were on hand to dismiss anyone who presumed to express doubts. Those who did express concern were largely exiled to the internet where they struggled to be heard in the Babel of infotainment. When we had an opportunity to vote, the main parties in Britain and the United States unanimously offered the policies that have brought us to disaster. hopefully this may change but is unlikely to when the head of Lansdowne (major hedge fund and thus beneficary of this) is a major contributer to the Tories and part of Camerons 100 lunch club. and unfortnatuly it appears the Tories may win the next election. The party in government has not tied itself by the apron strings to the City and bankers, then? There might not be much, if any, funding going to the labour party from these, largely discredited, people but the idea that bankers are not close to both major parties is bizarre. You might worry (and are right to do so) about where we go after the next election but I'm just as worried about where we go before the next election and about why we are still listening to this lot of bankers at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Brown has orchestrated the biggest financial mess that this country has ever seen, and for most of the time Blair was his boss. and the whole world has carried on with no mess - what a flawed and biased argument - mate you could be Gideon with rhetoric like that :-) He was happy to take the plaudits for 'no more boom and bust' with his 'prudent' handling of the economy, which was presumably taking advantage of a 'global' economic boom. But as it all turned out to be built of straw, he doesn't need to take any responsibility for the outcome, which is of course entirely due to the 'global' problems? I am far too simple to understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Snowy, the thing is the argument for losing business is used in every attempt to tighten up regulation Min wage - would lose jobs to toher cheaper countries tighter regs - lose business to NYSE it is the typical free market argument as you know,for the free market to work it needs somehwere to be cheaper and less deregulated yes we all wanted that because we wanted £2 pairs of kids jeans from ASda, eh guess what they are produced in far east sweat shops we wnate all the benefits of a free market and not the negative, take house prices for example now at least we have a chance to redress that, but we won;t because as soon as a new reg is published we will hear screams from business on how it will cost them money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Snowy, the thing is the argument for losing business is used in every attempt to tighten up regulation Min wage - would lose jobs to toher cheaper countries tighter regs - lose business to NYSE it is the typical free market argument as you know,for the free market to work it needs somehwere to be cheaper and less deregulated yes we all wanted that because we wanted £2 pairs of kids jeans from ASda, eh guess what they are produced in far east sweat shops we wnate all the benefits of a free market and not the negative, take house prices for example now at least we have a chance to redress that, but we won;t because as soon as a new reg is published we will hear screams from business on how it will cost them money Seriously, I am so glad you're not chancellor with opinions of that nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Brown has orchestrated the biggest financial mess that this country has ever seen, and for most of the time Blair was his boss. and the whole world has carried on with no mess - what a flawed and biased argument - mate you could be Gideon with rhetoric like that :-) He was happy to take the plaudits for 'no more boom and bust' with his 'prudent' handling of the economy, which was presumably taking advantage of a 'global' economic boom. But as it all turned out to be built of straw, he doesn't need to take any responsibility for the outcome, which is of course entirely due to the 'global' problems? I am far too simple to understand That's about the size of it or so the government would like you to believe.Fortunately all but a few zealots can see it's total bollox. As for Fred the Shred and his pension he should try the Jacqui Smith defence: "I've broken no rules", it seemed to work for her. The government threatening to change the law to persecute an individual retrospectively having already okayed his pay off is an act of farcical populism, designed as ever to divert attention from themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts