Spending Review

[latic12345]

MPs were claiming their expenses in accordance with the rules at the time, they have done nothing wrong....

 

Wrapping debt up as assets, re-entering in the balance column and re-selling in an avaricious manner was complete and utter madness. Whilst it might have been nice and legal you will never convince me that just because the regulation was lacking then it was fine and dandy.

 

You refer to Northern Rock without quite hitting the nail on the head. The FSA accepts that it didn't like the Northern Rock business model. I'm fairly sure, in the reports that followed, it acknowledged it should have done more to pre-empt it.

 

The MPs that were chastised did not act within an interpretation of the rules. The rules were for expenses directly relevant to their duty as an MP. A moat was found not to be. This, therefore, is another moot point.

 

To go to your standpoint on burglars. It has absolutely no parallel to the argument. The only way in which burglars are relevant in this argument is if you play the logic game of having absolutely no property rights. You could have challenged me by asking "in a world of no property rights, there would be no such thing as misappropriation. In this world, would you happily walk into someones house and take their TV?" Unfortunately, you didnt as this would have been an excellent point.

 

 

[mikejh45]

Same argument, just because you are able to do something, doesn't mean you should do it - I'm sure we all have little loop-holes that we could drive a bus through but chose not to.

 

If I don't win work as an estimator, then the companies I work for do not secure contracts. If I don't expoit the situation, another company will and have the benefit of a future workload, and on the strength of no work, redundancies follow....including me. So cut out the "holier than thou" crap attitude.

[beag_teeets]

But they haven't. The bailout was hugely profitable,

 

Not yet it isn't.

 

quantitive easing puts (made up) money into the system, not takes it out,

 

Printing money devalues money already in circulation.

 

 

TARP is American.

 

Really? Well fancy that! You learn something everyday?

 

The only way in which the banking crisis has impacted the deficit in any significant way is the knock on effects of recession.

 

And there were plans in place to reduce the deficit before the banking crisis happened. If your view is that Brown borrowed too much as chancellor and PM to expand the public sector/re-invest in the state after the neglect of the 80s then we would be having a scaled down investment in the state whilst the deficit was reduced. As the initial investments in the state made under Blair came to fruition the state could have handled a reduction in expenditure and a leaner period whilst debts were paid off wouldn't have been too painful. But we would not be seeing the slash and burn we are now seeing.

 

Somehow, I doubt, that the hawks will see it that way.

 

 

 

If someone owes you money, that is an asset. It's not worth as much as cash in the bank, because the person might not pay you, but it is entirely normal and reasonable for debt to be bought and sold. There was absolutely no scam involved in the banking collapse other than people in the US being able to get mortgages they could never pay (due to Bill Clinton's legislation compelling the building societies to give them)

 

No scams? No scams? I'm sure there are manufactures of shredders that are enjoying their third bj of the day on their yachts.

 

Mr 12345 is correct, blaming all the worlds ills on the banks without understanding what happened is not advancing the debate and in fact leaves us open to repeating errors of the past.

 

Like making the Weimar republic pay punitive reparations.....

 

As a result of

..and the failure of people in finance to realise that the debts were worth a lot less than they thought they were..

then every man, woman and child without a trust fund in this country have to pay the price of the largesse of unfettered capitalism. Well, whoopdi-do, aren't we the lucky ones?

 

What makes it worse is that lower middle class oiks have been convinced enough to defend getting shafted by the Bullingdon brigade and to revel in the obliteration of what was left of what made this country one of the better places to live on this planet.

[leeslover]

 

 

Not yet it isn't.

Not sure what you mean then by the bailout. Most of the cash involved was not even spent but was enormous amounts promised to spend in the event of a run on the banks. There were some multi-billion pound loans which the Bank of England made at punitive rates which I believe have all been repaid in full. True that the Gov has yet to sell all of the assets it nationalised, but they remain assets and thus are valid to measure on the balance sheet when working out whether they (we?) have won or lost through this.

 

 

 

 

Printing money devalues money already in circulation.

I absolutely agree on this point. It doesn't though mean that £250b or however much has been diverted from other purposes as if it had been raised in taxes or diverted to the Cayman Island bank accounts of secretive bankers. You will also note that the money spent by your mate Gordy, which he didn't have, have exactly the same devaluation effect, raised as it is through the bond issues so beloved of Mr Tulsehill.

 

 

Really? Well fancy that! You learn something everyday?

Well why do you quote an American policy as if it has relevance to the recent events here? Why not mention what Chile or Mongolia have under cover of an acronym not many would be aware of (I had to google, having been a bit out of the loop) yet using it as a stick to attack the current cuts?

 

 

And there were plans in place to reduce the deficit before the banking crisis happened. If your view is that Brown borrowed too much as chancellor and PM to expand the public sector/re-invest in the state after the neglect of the 80s then we would be having a scaled down investment in the state whilst the deficit was reduced. As the initial investments in the state made under Blair came to fruition the state could have handled a reduction in expenditure and a leaner period whilst debts were paid off wouldn't have been too painful. But we would not be seeing the slash and burn we are now seeing.

 

Really? Like the plans to abolish Tory Boom and Bust? I can't, off the top of my head, recall which plans were published by the Labour government to either cut spending or increase taxes. Indeed, despite the so-called cuts spending will in fact continue to rise over the next few years, so I really doubt Gordy would have brought it under control while he had a hole in his arse.

 

 

 

Somehow, I doubt, that the hawks will see it that way.

 

 

 

 

 

No scams? No scams? I'm sure there are manufactures of shredders that are enjoying their third bj of the day on their yachts.

 

 

 

Like making the Weimar republic pay punitive reparations.....

 

As a result of then every man, woman and child without a trust fund in this country have to pay the price of the largesse of unfettered capitalism. Well, whoopdi-do, aren't we the lucky ones?

 

What makes it worse is that lower middle class oiks have been convinced enough to defend getting shafted by the Bullingdon brigade and to revel in the obliteration of what was left of what made this country one of the better places to live on this planet.

 

 

You've been smoking the same :censored: as Tulsehill and have caught the same inferiority complex and paranoia that he suffers from. Arse a bit bad? Bankers. Possible that thinks in your own job might change? Class conspiracy. Some people see that we have been left in a pile of :censored: by a government spunking money up the wall when they thought times were good and would be forever? Fools in league with their overlords.

[opinions4u]

When the banks were lending lots of money, and the housing market was booming, the government was raking it in with stamp duty, inheritence tax, VAT and corporation tax.

 

Blair and Brown were riding high on the back of all these tax receipts and they are the ones who made the appointments at the top of the regulators, dished out the various knighthoods to bankers and encouraged them to carry on lending.

 

Not got any time at all for idiots like Hornby at HBOS who lent tens of billions to residential property developers when his bank was already the biggest mortgage lender (although he never took a cash bonus - so I don't see that "bonus culture" directly led to the banking crash as he lost a small fortune that he took in share options). And the irony of RBS is that it effectively died for buying a dodgy Dutch bank.

 

Out of interest, the minister who signed off Fred Goodwin's pension is a member of which party?

Edited October 21, 2010 by opinions4u

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Sorry, time to wade in. I'd like to firmly put myself in the blue corner for this debate.

 

Surprise surprise.

 

What always surprises me in a debate like this is actually people see the CSR from yesterday through the eyes of the media.

 

I can assure you that there was no one between me and the Cat-in-the-Bin Chancellor on Wednesday. I heard it straight from the horse's mouth.

 

Many on it are debating about parlance within their reference window.

 

What is parlance within a reference window? Is it anything to do with leveraging synergies going forward?

 

For a little bit of clarity, there is an excellent explanation of this on the Telegraph website.

 

'Cause that's where everyone heads when they want clarity. The Telegraph website cannot cope with the volume of people seeking clarity.

 

I'm am not going to comment on the 'blame the bankers' sentiment in this thread. Bankers are the 21st century Jew. It's that straight forward. It's easy to blame them. They helped pereptuate the symptoms, they are not the root cause. Deep down everyone knows it, however, blaming the bankers is easy and fairly populist.

 

That is truly outrageous. Some people say that the over-reliance on banks and banking - and necessarily in that respect, bankers - has caused a little bit more trouble than anyone would like. To accuse them of having opinions that are analogous to anti-Semitism is just plain rank, and you should take it back.

 

I'll get around to some of your more sensible tripe when I've got the time.

[leeslover]

That is truly outrageous. Some people say that the over-reliance on banks and banking - and necessarily in that respect, bankers - has caused a little bit more trouble than anyone would like. To accuse them of having opinions that are analogous to anti-Semitism is just plain rank, and you should take it back.

Spare us the feigned indignation - just reading this thread gives you plenty of evidence of people blaming bankers personally for everything under the sun, and the anti-Semitism analogy is especially apt as Jews in the middle ages and later were several times used as the scapegoat for incompetent financially screwed governments. Like the one you loved so much.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Spare us the feigned indignation - just reading this thread gives you plenty of evidence of people blaming bankers personally for everything under the sun, and the anti-Semitism analogy is especially apt as Jews in the middle ages and later were several times used as the scapegoat for incompetent financially screwed governments. Like the one you loved so much.

 

Eat me.

 

Latics12345. Would you mind helping us to put your diatribe in context by answering a few simple questions?

 

1. Are you a management consultant, a consultant or other type of bluffer?

 

2. Is it in your personal interests to ensure the trade unions no longer have any input to working conditions of any type?

 

3. Would it suit you just fine if there were no minimum wage or health and safety at work regulations?

 

Just asking.

 

[opinions4u]

1. Are you a management consultant, a consultant or other type of bluffer?

How much did those types earn out of the New Labour bull:censored: revolution? Paid for by the taxpayer.

 

2. Is it in your personal interests to ensure the trade unions no longer have any input to working conditions of any type?

It isn't impossible to be a member of a trade union and not agree with the iditoic spending of the last government.

 

3. Would it suit you just fine if there were no minimum wage or health and safety at work regulations?

I buy minimum wage. I buy health and safety. I don't buy excessive health and safety that's used to stop people enjoying themselves when the risk of accident are miniscule.

[oafc0000]

I don't buy excessive health and safety that's used to stop people enjoying themselves when the risk of accident are miniscule.

 

You usually find that is down to people misunderstanding H&S rules and implementing it wrong...

Edited October 22, 2010 by oafc0000

[mikejh45]

You usually find that is down to people misunderstanding H&S rules and implementing it wrong...

 

 

............or covering their backs!!!

 

On Radio 5 a couple of weeks ago, the Head man of the Institute of Occupation Health & Safety stated that the implementation of health & safety in all walks of life was down to spurious claims of injury by members of the public via 'no win-no fee' legal shysters.

[oafc0000]

............or covering their backs!!!

 

On Radio 5 a couple of weeks ago, the Head man of the Institute of Occupation Health & Safety stated that the implementation of health & safety in all walks of life was down to spurious claims of injury by members of the public via 'no win-no fee' legal shysters.

 

Yup, I listened to that... He also mentioned about people wrongly applying H&S as well...

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Con-Dem Future Jobs Strategy Explained

[mikejh45]

Con-Dem Future Jobs Strategy Explained

 

 

QUALITY.....do you think there's a place in the cabinet for Holly Hunter as a special advisor?

[opinions4u]

You usually find that is down to people misunderstanding H&S rules and implementing it wrong...

Yup. But by then the damage is done.

[Horlicks]

Con-Dem Future Jobs Strategy Explained

 

The Maggie Thatcher article is a work of genius

[OldhamSheridan]

Yup, I listened to that... He also mentioned about people wrongly applying H&S as well...

 

 

Our latest H&S email was about the dangers of walking and texting at the same time.

 

I figured that'd be at least one person in the 'buffer zone'.

[latic12345]

Eat me.

 

Latics12345. Would you mind helping us to put your diatribe in context by answering a few simple questions?

 

1. Are you a management consultant, a consultant or other type of bluffer?

 

2. Is it in your personal interests to ensure the trade unions no longer have any input to working conditions of any type?

 

3. Would it suit you just fine if there were no minimum wage or health and safety at work regulations?

 

Just asking.

 

On second thoughts I'm not going to respond to this. What I do for a living has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to commet in this debate. Nobody else puts context you're just trying to whip up peoples opinions against my point of view. It's childish, unintelligent and pathetic.

 

When you respond with an unemotive post about the topic and not a cheap shot I'll respond.

Edited October 24, 2010 by latic12345

[oafc0000]

People who say Labour borrowed at stupid levels is talking horse crap which this graph shows...

 

 

It wasn't until the banks started to go the world got silly and NO political party around the world was talking regulation. And the Tories wanted MORE de-regulation...

 

Nothing to do with Language, just people using the wrong numbers to further their points...

Edited October 24, 2010 by oafc0000

[opinions4u]

Not had a proper look at the graph yet (Tesco beckons). What does the left axis show?

 

On the subject of regulation, I've no idea what the Tories want/wanted and care little.

 

The regulatory structures in place around the banks have created excessive selling rules which favour the big providers and ensure customers get issued with ridiculous amounts of paper whenever they buy a product. But they completely failed to assess the quality of bank lending and risks taken. If they had done, the likes of Northern Rock and HBOS wouldn't now be in the mess they are (i.e. 100% government owned or bought out by a competitior half their size).

Edited October 24, 2010 by opinions4u

[OldhamSheridan]

Not had a proper look at the graph yet (Tesco beckons). What does the left axis show?

 

On the subject of regulation, I've no idea what the Tories want/wanted and care little.

 

The regulatory structures in place around the banks have created excessive selling rules which favour the big providers and ensure customers get issued with ridiculous amounts of paper whenever they buy a product. But they completely failed to assess the quality of bank lending and risks taken. If they had done, the likes of Northern Rock and HBOS wouldn't now be in the mess they are (i.e. 100% government owned or bought out by a competitior half their size).

 

To be fair it is quite important though. We can go on about the cack-handed regulation of the banks but the Tories would have done the same at least. They wouldn't have coincided it with foolish public sector rises, but there can be no pretense that the banks wouldn't have been any less problematic had the Tories been in charge.

 

Graphs showing government borrowing are a bit iffy. It takes years for policies to show through in savings (obviously the banking crisis shows immediately).