Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Phil

Meanwhile "our" Gov't tries to look after its mates

65 posts in this topic

Whatever happen under Margaret Thatcher, Labour and the FSA presided over 'light' regulation concerning the banking industry. As for Independent Financial Advisers (and I know there were dodgy ones), the heavy-handed regulation dished out was mind-blowing: it certainly put me out of business after 26 years. The costs shot through the roof. Furthermore, I did read somewhere that the fines on the banks went to reducing their regulatory fees! Mine shot up from £500 to £5,000 annually.

I also remember a head of the FSA resigning her position after two years because she disagreed with Labour' policy, but then sailed off into the sunset with a payoff of £250,000 - and that was some years ago. I receive many emails from IFAs who are calling it a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you fancy a good read about the whole banking collapse thing, without it being too dull and taxing try reading Meltdown by Ben Elton. He draws some pretty good conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, Labour themselves did fail to spot

I stopped reading here. You might have said something good after this but "fail to spot" is weasel words for a government that further reduced regulation, legislated to encourage speculative banking, built up unsustainable debt and whose failure to realise that bubbles burst led directly to the (ahem) difficulties specific to this country since 2008.

I don't much care what the opposition at the time were calling for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't much care what the opposition at the time were calling for.

But don't you think it is a bit rich of them to now say to the then government 'you should have regulated more' when at the time they themselves were calling for less regulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But don't you think it is a bit rich of them to now say to the then government 'you should have regulated more' when at the time they themselves were calling for less regulation?

It's a bit rich - it's also irrelevant as to Labour's culpability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit rich - it's also irrelevant as to Labour's culpability.

I'm not trying to defend labour's culpability but rather attack the tories credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's very true

in many ways but not all it was 'meet the new boss same as the old boss' and people felt betrayed

although to be fair section 28 was repealed and some of the other evils perpetrated by Thatcher were addressed, but that was just window dressing.

Thatcher and Major were radical politicians. They did stuff, stuff that some people thought was great-remember 'The Fishing party'? Lots of other people suffered for it.

Blair was given more power via the electoral system and through successive terms than any other labour government, which many people think was wasted: including conning the country into going to war to hell GW Bush out.

Although I think Blair was rather a cowardly politician who could have done more with the mandate he had, I think it needs to be said that he was elected to bring about "Thatcherism with a smiling face". 1997 wasn't 1945 or 1979. The country really wasn't looking for a grand new settlement, it was looking for more of the same but nicer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, Labour themselves did fail to spot that there could be any possible downside to the financial sector situation and therefore did very little to halt or reverse what had been set in motion 10 years previously. The whole county, if not the western world thought we were living in a financial utopia where everyone (who was lucky enough to own property) was getting more and more rich. I don't recall anyone (of any note) standing up and saying it would all end in tears until 2007.

What would have been the political effect of saying that stuff in the run up to the 2005 election? What kind of electoral message is "I know it looks like we're all having a good time, but we really have to stop now" have been? A pretty disastrous one I think.

It's a tricky business, politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tricky business, politics.

You're trying to get selected for something aren't you?

Very on-message at the minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're trying to get selected for something aren't you?

Very on-message at the minute.

Steve certainly couldn't do any worse than the muppets they've got already. Yvonne Cooper was on ITV Daybreak this morning ... all false smile and cringeworthying for England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve certainly couldn't do any worse than the muppets they've got already. Yvonne Cooper was on ITV Daybreak this morning ... all false smile and cringeworthying for England.

Who's she? Your description of her makes her sound like Yvette Cooper. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're trying to get selected for something aren't you?

Very on-message at the minute.

I have a wife who is being Goved into an Academy. I'm not on message, I'm ###### livid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a wife who is being Goved into an Academy. I'm not on message, I'm ###### livid.

Ah. I can understand that.

I'll not poke you by reminding you which administration "failed to spot" that academies might not be a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I think Blair was rather a cowardly politician who could have done more with the mandate he had, I think it needs to be said that he was elected to bring about "Thatcherism with a smiling face". 1997 wasn't 1945 or 1979. The country really wasn't looking for a grand new settlement, it was looking for more of the same but nicer.

I think there is a lot in that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. I can understand that.

I'll not poke you by reminding you which administration "failed to spot" that academies might not be a good idea.

And I'll not poke you by reminding you of the enormous differences between the original Academies and the current ones.

FWIW, I wasn't in favour of the original Academy programme, I thought the required changes at school level could have been brought about with no structural changes above them. But the current Academisation programme is bordering on a kleptocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'll not poke you by reminding you of the enormous differences between the original Academies and the current ones.

FWIW, I wasn't in favour of the original Academy programme, I thought the required changes at school level could have been brought about with no structural changes above them. But the current Academisation programme is bordering on a kleptocracy.

Have you thought about getting a former Prime Minister in to negotiate on your behalf. Obviously, you'll want to allow a couple of million quid for a week's false smiling. That should be enough, because he probably wont be paying any tax on it.

:D B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you thought about getting a former Prime Minister in to negotiate on your behalf. Obviously, you'll want to allow a couple of million quid for a week's false smiling. That should be enough, because he probably wont be paying any tax on it.

:D B)

GJ is your man for that I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When will people get it into their thick heads that we are just as much ''the EU'' as any other European nation. We elect proportionally the same number of MEPs as everyone else. Those MEPs sit on the committees etc. like everyone else. Just goes to show that brian washing barge of anti EU guff form certain newspapers does work if people believe that the UK has no say in EU law.

Yes. It would be quite helpful if certain ministers realised this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I think Blair was rather a cowardly politician who could have done more with the mandate he had, I think it needs to be said that he was elected to bring about "Thatcherism with a smiling face". 1997 wasn't 1945 or 1979. The country really wasn't looking for a grand new settlement, it was looking for more of the same but nicer.

Exactly. It's not Labour's fault, it's not the Conservatives fault, it's not the Coalitions fault. It's "OUR" fault because the politicians pander to our collective wants, otherwise they get thrown out for the next lot promising pipe dreams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just point out that there are hundreds of thousands of talented people working for banks trying to do the right thing.

Would it be possible to limit the rage to the execs if that is indeed who you are angry with?

When people state things like 'the bankers should be happy they still have a job' - it'd be nice if they considered the tens of thousands who actually were made redundant (and are still being made redundant).

Apologies for asking for a little bit of reasoned discussion around such a hot topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just point out that there are hundreds of thousands of talented people working for banks trying to do the right thing.

Would it be possible to limit the rage to the execs if that is indeed who you are angry with?

When people state things like 'the bankers should be happy they still have a job' - it'd be nice if they considered the tens of thousands who actually were made redundant (and are still being made redundant).

Apologies for asking for a little bit of reasoned discussion around such a hot topic.

I thought it was a given that we would be referring to the fat cats as opposed to anyone that works for a bank? I'm happy to make that distinction though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way is should be done? Company makes a profit and shares said profit among it's employees.

It is indeed how things should be done.

Shame they made 300 people redundant a month or two ago.

EDIT:

Also don't show that to May. He's quite grumpy about Waitrose for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 21st Aug 2017

Rugby League World - Sept 2017