I1L2T3 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 ... and that is why we need strong government full of people who care. But the thing is, WE are that government. We get the leaders that we deserve and if we continue to be apathetic or blame others for our own failings then we'll not see the change that people say they want. Forget party politics - now that the expenses scandal has gone away it's business as usual. That's OUR fault. FWIW I think any party that refuses to commit 100% to the Vickers recommendations will reap a whirlwind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Oh . . . dear . . . God. Ask the many thousands of ex-Leyland workers. Or the ex-miners, come to that. They'd probably all be still working were it not for the unions. nowt to do with thatcher then :hihi: oh hang on another tory has just sold the train making company down the swanee:huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 No wonder the ConDems are in the pockets of the bankers, and dragging their feet over banking reforms! The Cons have recieved £6M from City firms in the last year If you want "dragging feet over banking reforms"... US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner attacks Labour’s record on banking regulation and Labour's lack of credibility on banking reform Ed Balls (as ever) had an opinion on this subject back in 2006 when he was a treasury minister: "I believe we are right to avoid prescriptive, heavy-handed regulation in Britain. "Indeed, I believe that while it is Bank of England independence that is regularly cited as the Government's most significant financial reform, the establishment of the FSA has been as important for Britain. "But there is no room for complacency, the wisdom of that approach can be measured in the number of international companies choosing to do business in London and to list on our markets - not because we are a soft touch, but because our system is fair, proportionate and predictable." LINK It gets worse! And I have reminded you that just four years ago, when the WorldCom accounting scandal broke in the US, we resisted pressures from commentators for a regulatory crackdown. We responded with a measured, proportionate response. History suggests that was the right response. "We resisted pressures from commentators for a regulatory crackdown". Is this perchance the same Ed Balls who recently said: "All around the world the banks behaved irresponsibly, but regulation wasn't tough enough. We were part of that. I'm sorry for that mistake, I deeply, deeply regret it." LINK Not as much as we do sunshine. And £6 million? Not very much. Tony Blair gets £2 million a year all to himself from financial services firm JP Morgan. And that's for a part time job. Still, as Tony is such a long-standing financial expert, that £2 million is probably quite justified and not a pay-off at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 nowt to do with thatcher then :hihi: oh hang on another tory has just sold the train making company down the swanee:huh: From the BBC in 2000: The average number of working days lost each year in the 1990s was 660,000 compared to 7.2m in the 1980s and 12.9m in the 1970s. The miners' strike year of 1984 saw 27m working days lost in 1,221 disputes. LINK 12.9 million days lost through strike action every year in the 1970s. Meanwhile, over in Germany, the Germans were getting on with the business of producing quality goods that people actually wanted to buy, not striking or having extended tea breaks or days off due to a "bad back" or producing badly assembled tosh like the Austin Allegro. That's why Germany was only recently overtaken by China as the world's no. 1 exporter and why their modern day British equivalents are now sat on their sofas, scratching their backsides and watching The Jeremy Kyle Show instead of working. What goes around, comes around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 From the BBC in 2000: LINK 12.9 million days lost through strike action every year in the 1970s. Meanwhile, over in Germany, the Germans were getting on with the business of producing quality goods that people actually wanted to buy, not striking or having extended tea breaks or days off due to a "bad back" or producing badly assembled tosh like the Austin Allegro. That's why Germany was only recently overtaken by China as the world's no. 1 exporter and why their modern day British equivalents are now sat on their sofas, scratching their backsides and watching The Jeremy Kyle Show instead of working. What goes around, comes around. like i said maybe to do with the tories selling everything british off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 As a point of interest are union members asked if they wish a part of their dues go to the Labour party as I am sure many union members voted for the Conservatives or LibDems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 As a point of interest are union members asked if they wish a part of their dues go to the Labour party as I am sure many union members voted for the Conservatives or LibDems. If you are a customer of a private business do you get asked if you mind if they donate to political parties? And if they did ask and it bothered you what would you do? Probably not use that business. If LibDem and Tory voters in unions are not happy with the union donating to a political party they can do the same thing - leave the union? It seems quite simple to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted October 9, 2011 Author Share Posted October 9, 2011 If you want "dragging feet over banking reforms"... US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner attacks Labour’s record on banking regulation and Labour's lack of credibility on banking reform Ed Balls (as ever) had an opinion on this subject back in 2006 when he was a treasury minister: LINK It gets worse! "We resisted pressures from commentators for a regulatory crackdown". Is this perchance the same Ed Balls who recently said: LINK Not as much as we do sunshine. And £6 million? Not very much. Tony Blair gets £2 million a year all to himself from financial services firm JP Morgan. And that's for a part time job. Still, as Tony is such a long-standing financial expert, that £2 million is probably quite justified and not a pay-off at all. Yep they were wrong as I have stated before not to begin to re-regulate the Bankers. As I have provided you with an answer kindly do the same on the other thread where I believe you deliberately misquoted Balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 I can't agree with everything this article says but food for thought. Big Bang Boom and Bust The discussion after it is interesting - usual partisan rubbish in places but interesting nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Yep they were wrong as I have stated before not to begin to re-regulate the Bankers. As I have provided you with an answer kindly do the same on the other thread where I believe you deliberately misquoted Balls. Yes, Labour were wrong not to roll it back. Arguably the early Labour years were ones of consolidation and entrenchment for investment bankers. Labour got it badly wrong but if we're honest had Labour tried to roll it back what would have been the reaction of the Tories? They certainly would have opposed any rollback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.