The UK General Politics Thread Page 86

  • Page

    of 190 First / Last

  • Moot_Point 20 Mar 2013 20:22:27 3,912 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    RelaxedMikki wrote:
    Oozy Osbourne.

    That's what I am calling him now.

    There's just something oozy about George. Something slimy. Something, puss filled. A swelling throbbing boil, waiting to be squeezed by greasy fingers.

    I aint gettin' on his Crazy Train.
    Too late mate, you're on the train, down the track to cock-up-the-arse!

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • Mr_Sleep 21 Mar 2013 13:29:14 16,838 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    RelaxedMikki wrote:
    Oozy Osbourne.

    That's what I am calling him now.

    There's just something oozy about George. Something slimy. Something, puss filled. A swelling throbbing boil, waiting to be squeezed by greasy fingers.

    I aint gettin' on his Crazy Train.
    That might explain why Cameron always looks like he's covered in a layer of slime.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • mcmonkeyplc 22 Mar 2013 09:40:20 39,384 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Why don't Labour pipe up about saving the banks when people keep blaming them for over spending?

    I really don't know why they keep quite about that. Apart from their leader being a twat.

    Edited by mcmonkeyplc at 09:43:16 22-03-2013

    Edited by mcmonkeyplc at 10:06:00 22-03-2013

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • DaM 22 Mar 2013 09:45:04 12,892 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Why don't Labour pipe up about saving the banks when people keep blame them for over spending?

    I really don't know why the keep quite about that. Apart from their leader being a twat.
    I don't understand that either. I had to correct people in the office yesterday, who reckoned that Labour couldn't comment on the budget as it was their 11 years of wasting money that got us in the mess, and that it's purely their fault.
  • mcmonkeyplc 22 Mar 2013 10:05:42 39,384 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It makes no sense. It's like labour have just become submissive to the whole thing.

    Maybe the reason is that people think banks should not have been saved? That's plainly wrong and people need to be told why the banks needed to be saved.

    I'm not saying labour didn't spend grandly, they did but they had the money and they didn't see this coming. No one did.

    If they go far back enough the banking de-regulation was started under the conservatives so they can be blamed as well.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Bremenacht 22 Mar 2013 14:19:26 17,600 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Labour are as much a party of bankers/financial types as the Tories. Gordon Brown brought in swathes of financial advisors and I don't see that position being reversed.

    mcmonkeyplc - hardly anyone wanted to see the problem, so they didn't. That our chancellor/PM chose to go along with this is terrible, making it ever easier to dig a hole under the economy. It's as likely as the idea that no-one at Barclays, RBS or UBS etc knew anything about the Libor fixing and that no-one is culpable.

    I hope you're happy to pay more tax and get less in return for it, given that no-one is responsible for wasting it!
  • Bremenacht 22 Mar 2013 14:19:43 17,600 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Hmm. That's almost a rant.
  • mcmonkeyplc 22 Mar 2013 14:53:27 39,384 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Labour are as much a party of bankers/financial types as the Tories. Gordon Brown brought in swathes of financial advisors and I don't see that position being reversed.

    mcmonkeyplc - hardly anyone wanted to see the problem, so they didn't. That our chancellor/PM chose to go along with this is terrible, making it ever easier to dig a hole under the economy. It's as likely as the idea that no-one at Barclays, RBS or UBS etc knew anything about the Libor fixing and that no-one is culpable.

    I hope you're happy to pay more tax and get less in return for it, given that no-one is responsible for wasting it!
    So the government knew this was going to happen did they? They knew the world going to have a financial collapse and didn't do anything cause things were rosey?

    Collective ignorance did go on but it wasn't conscious. It happens all the time. When things are going great people become complacent, that wasn't the first time it happened and wont be the last.

    The way you're making it sound is that it was a conscious choice to ignore the problems that were building up.

    It's not an excuse I'm giving them, it's a reason for the massive spending. The excuse would be it wasn't my fault. No one is saying that. It's everyone's fault including mine and yours. We didn't bat an eyelid when we could get loans for anything we wanted without any back up. We thought surely the bankers and government know what they're doing.

    The bankers thought, the regulators aren't saying anything we're all making money let's carry on.

    The regulators thought everyone's making money, I can't see a problem with this.

    The government thinks ooooo growth look we're so good. Yay, look at us we're awesome.

    Then suddenly their was a collective wake up. BOOM.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • nakedlunch 22 Mar 2013 14:59:47 21 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Bremenacht is certainly right that New Labour had a particularly cosy relationship with the City, opting for precisely the sort of 'light-touch' regulation that was one of the factors in the financial crisis (note that the Tories weren't exactly clamouring for regulation of the financial sector at the time!). That Labour used some of the tax receipts from the boom period to build schools and put money into the NHS appears something of a social-democratic sop to the left.

    For them to truly face down the points about overspending causing the crisis - something that is clearly false on examination of the figures - would require them to confront their own political failures and challenge economic orthodoxy. I can't see this happening any time soon.
  • Bremenacht 22 Mar 2013 15:02:30 17,600 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    The way you're making it sound is that it was a conscious choice to ignore the problems that were building up.
    It was.

    Do you drive a car, not bothering ever to maintain it, make sure it's got meat on the brake-pads or tread on the tyres? Do you allow the windscreen get so covered in shit that it's hard to see out, but don't bother refilling the washer fluid, because you save a bit of money that way?

    That's what they did. Who is paying for the resulting 'accident': the victims.
  • Mr_Sleep 22 Mar 2013 15:02:57 16,838 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    I'm not saying labour didn't spend grandly, they did but they had the money and they didn't see this coming. No one did.
    That's not quite true, some people saw it coming and made a mint. The government didn't see it coming but that doesn't mean certain financial sector people didn't.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • mcmonkeyplc 22 Mar 2013 15:03:01 39,384 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Nope, they've already said they were wrong in the past they are challenging austerity they're just fucking too stupid to point out why they "overspent".

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Bremenacht 22 Mar 2013 15:03:52 17,600 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    nakedlunch wrote:
    New Labour had a particularly cosy relationship with the City, opting for precisely the sort of 'light-touch' regulation that was one of the factors in the financial crisis
    The 'Golden Age' is the term GB used.
  • mcmonkeyplc 22 Mar 2013 15:07:43 39,384 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    The way you're making it sound is that it was a conscious choice to ignore the problems that were building up.
    It was.

    Do you drive a car, not bothering ever to maintain it, make sure it's got meat on the brake-pads or tread on the tyres? Do you allow the windscreen get so covered in shit that it's hard to see out, but don't bother refilling the washer fluid, because you save a bit of money that way?

    That's what they did. Who is paying for the resulting 'accident': the victims.
    That's absurd. If your car is running fine and it passes the routine checks do then go on and x-ray every single aspect of it?

    They did let it go on yes, but they didn't do it on purpose. If they did then have a fucking revolution and start again cause the system is beyond repair.

    Then create something better. It's broken yes, so what's better?

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Bremenacht 22 Mar 2013 15:08:30 17,600 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Anyway. Labour isn't knocking the bankers because they recognise that people are tired of hearing blame and just want someone to get us out of the mess. That 'someone' is already recognised (by all major parties) as being... the banks. It just a shame that history will probably repeat itself so quickly.
  • Bremenacht 22 Mar 2013 15:10:22 17,600 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Bremenacht wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    The way you're making it sound is that it was a conscious choice to ignore the problems that were building up.
    It was.

    Do you drive a car, not bothering ever to maintain it, make sure it's got meat on the brake-pads or tread on the tyres? Do you allow the windscreen get so covered in shit that it's hard to see out, but don't bother refilling the washer fluid, because you save a bit of money that way?

    That's what they did. Who is paying for the resulting 'accident': the victims.
    That's absurd. If your car is running fine and it passes the routine checks do then go on and x-ray every single aspect of it?

    They did let it go on yes, but they didn't do it on purpose. If they did then have a fucking revolution and start again cause the system is beyond repair.

    Then create something better. It's broken yes, so what's better?
    Routine checks. Following this analogy, the 'routine checks' would be as follows:

    FSA/Treasury/whoever: Car alright sir?
    Banks: Yes.
    FSA/T/W: Jolly good. Carry on.
  • Bremenacht 22 Mar 2013 15:11:59 17,600 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    It's broken yes, so what's better?
    That's a question that's had clever people scratching heads for at least a hundred years, so don't ask me!
  • mcmonkeyplc 22 Mar 2013 15:16:39 39,384 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Bremenacht wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    The way you're making it sound is that it was a conscious choice to ignore the problems that were building up.
    It was.

    Do you drive a car, not bothering ever to maintain it, make sure it's got meat on the brake-pads or tread on the tyres? Do you allow the windscreen get so covered in shit that it's hard to see out, but don't bother refilling the washer fluid, because you save a bit of money that way?

    That's what they did. Who is paying for the resulting 'accident': the victims.
    That's absurd. If your car is running fine and it passes the routine checks do then go on and x-ray every single aspect of it?

    They did let it go on yes, but they didn't do it on purpose. If they did then have a fucking revolution and start again cause the system is beyond repair.

    Then create something better. It's broken yes, so what's better?
    Routine checks. Following this analogy, the 'routine checks' would be as follows:

    Treasury: Check GDP, unemployment, inflation all ok? Good carry on.
    FSA: You banks doing ok? Got enough capital as per our regulations
    Banks: Yes.
    FSA/T: Jolly good. Carry on.
    PEOPLE/ PRESS: Are we getting richer? Can we buy more? Yay, no need to question anything.

    Fixed

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Bremenacht 22 Mar 2013 15:20:17 17,600 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    True, but the people and the press don't regulate anything.

    /goes to phone hacking scandal thread and posts "Who runs this country? Murdoch?" :)
    Yes, that was an attempt at irony.
  • mcmonkeyplc 22 Mar 2013 15:32:14 39,384 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Yeah well they're supposed to be keeping our politicians into check when they're not brown nosing with them. :)

    I'm just fed up the current government using the blame the last government trick every time they get backed into a corner. Labour meekly ignore the attacks, the press reports it and then everyone thinks it's true.

    The real reason it pisses me off is that it makes it more likely that the conservatives will win the next election! :p

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Roddles 22 Mar 2013 15:34:15 1,731 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Don't be so sure of that. Every Lib Dem voter is going red.
  • TheSaint 22 Mar 2013 15:38:18 14,199 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Eastleigh suggested otherwise.
  • Mr_Sleep 22 Mar 2013 16:16:51 16,838 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    I'm just fed up the current government using the blame the last government trick every time they get backed into a corner.
    Yeah, this really pisses me off, it's fair enough in the first year but surely their fiscal policy should have come into affect now. All the blaming of the previous government just makes them seem more and more incompetent now.

    Presumably they got voted in on the back of how badly the previous government did (as every government does) so then blaming all the problems on the previous government looks hypocritical and weak.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Psychotext 22 Mar 2013 18:04:34 53,788 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Roddles wrote:
    Don't be so sure of that. Every Lib Dem voter is going red.
    Doubtful, I'd wager most of them just wont vote.

    TheSaint wrote:
    Eastleigh suggested otherwise.
    By-elections really aren't a good way of judging anything.
  • spamdangled 22 Mar 2013 18:16:34 27,269 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Is anyone else deeply sceptical of the whole subsidised mortgage thing?

    Just seems like they learned nothing from the American housing crash.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Chopsen 22 Mar 2013 18:21:49 15,702 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I was thinking the other day that a big problem with our economy is that it doesn't really exist.

    We make money from financial services, which basically boils down to telling faery stories with numbers, and spending based on personal wealth funded by inflated property prices. We don't really *make* anything tangible or real any more. The government wants the housing market to bumble along supported by bullshit measures like this because this is where the bulk of people's wealth lies

    If we had enough houses for everyone and they actually were valued at what people could afford to pay, loads of people would be fucked. I appreciate this already happened to some.

    Edited by Chopsen at 18:22:01 22-03-2013
  • Bremenacht 22 Mar 2013 20:12:03 17,600 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It's short-termism. Financial services and house-building seem to provide the fastest growth for the economy (when they actually grow) so they seem to benefit the most, rain or shine. We'll never have a balanced economy.

    The bottom line is always the next election. A party in government has the primary purpose of winning the next election. Anything that may risk will only be done if it provides a tangible benefit within a parliament or if it will be forgotten by the next election. So - housebuilding and banking for the hollow win.
  • Destria 22 Mar 2013 21:00:41 2,819 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    We don't really *make* anything tangible or real any more.
    Cars.
  • Page

    of 190 First / Last

Log in or register to reply