Tony Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 So you can't explain how you might (or might not) think that banks are more powerful than governments, lawmakers and policy setters? "Ooo look at the nasty men in suits with their bonuses" isn't a proper answer. The floor is yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 As far as I am aware Blair is no longer in government. Labour was wrong to be as mesmerised by the bankers, but after the economy had be skewed in their direction for so long (at the expense of manufacturing) and when the City was making so much money they felt that it didn't need to change. Problem is, it was all built on sand! Had to? Thatcher chose to skew it that way and Blair and Brown chose to follow that. Nothing "had to" about it. Felt it didn't need to change? They were wrong in other words. Thatcher, Blair and Brown all united in policy, all wrong, and you pretend there's a difference between Labour and Tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsexydoug Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 It is a big deal actually. The Conservative's financial existence is dependent on organisations that need to be restructured, organisations that will resist any change and use their influence to do so - it's a massive conflict of interest. lmao, and the unions dont need the same , the same unions that have put labour into power and bankrolled their existence, in fact the labour would be bankrupt if it wasnt for union donations, even the latest labour leader was put into power by the union votes which wiped out the labour parties members votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 So you can't explain how you might (or might not) think that banks are more powerful than governments, lawmakers and policy setters? "Ooo look at the nasty men in suits with their bonuses" isn't a proper answer. The floor is yours. Of course I can explain but you could find out for yourself in two minutes if you could be bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 lmao, and the unions dont need the same , the same unions that have put labour into power and bankrolled their existence, in fact the labour would be bankrupt if it wasnt for union donations, even the latest labour leader was put into power by the union votes which wiped out the labour parties members votes. I take the point but unions are not the priority now. They pose no genuine threat to our prosperity. The banks do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted October 2, 2011 Author Share Posted October 2, 2011 Had to? Thatcher chose to skew it that way and Blair and Brown chose to follow that. Nothing "had to" about it. Felt it didn't need to change? They were wrong in other words. Thatcher, Blair and Brown all united in policy, all wrong, and you pretend there's a difference between Labour and Tories. Hindsights a wonderful thing. No govt realistically were going to challenge the Ctiy and financial insitutions when thay were earning plenty of dough for the country, it would be totally naive to believe otherwise. But Labour whilst doing well for the NHS, schools etc should have done much more to support manufacturing and the real economy instead of getting involved in Iraq. Atleast Labour were leading us out of recession with .6% economic growth before these muppets got in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Of course I can explain but you could find out for yourself in two minutes if you could be bothered. Since this is your third excuse it rather looks like you really don't know, or that you have your opinions formed by something tainted - like opportunistic political affiliations. How do you think (or not) that banks are more powerful than governments, lawmakers and policy setters? The floor is yours, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Since this is your third excuse it rather looks like you really don't know, or that you have your opinions formed by something tainted - like opportunistic political affiliations. How do you think (or not) that banks are more powerful than governments, lawmakers and policy setters? The floor is yours, again. No excuses. The internet is awash with very simple explanations of the banking crisis. Go and take a look. And then come back and explain why you think the banks aren't a problem. Just to help you get started here is a link to a timeline of start of the crisis (with pictures). Pictures - Telegraph There's plenty more on the internet if you could be bothered to look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsexydoug Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I take the point but unions are not the priority now. They pose no genuine threat to our prosperity. The banks do. which planet do you live on ??? they pose no threat, the unions are trying to bankrupt the country with strikes as we speak, in fact they are desperate to get the labout gravy train back into power , they dont want reform, in fact thanks to unions they have just secured a £1800 yes one thousand eight hundred pound deal per person for london tube drivers NOT to strike during the olympics. answer one question, did you bring up the conflict of intrest about labour and the unions donations when they were in power ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted October 2, 2011 Author Share Posted October 2, 2011 which planet do you live on ??? they pose no threat, the unions are trying to bankrupt the country with strikes as we speak, in fact they are desperate to get the labout gravy train back into power , they dont want reform, in fact thanks to unions they have just secured a £1800 yes one thousand eight hundred pound deal per person for london tube drivers NOT to strike during the olympics. answer one question, did you bring up the conflict of intrest about labour and the unions donations when they were in power ??? Sorry, the unions did not cause the credit crunch. The Bankers did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.