The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

Pru, Barclay's were not tax payer bailed out, they've done well, why attack their bonus?

Worthy, two things, Brown relaxed regulations on the financial industry that allowed the banking sector to get in the mess it did to keep the "city" competitive.
When Brown became leader there was a fundamental shift in Labour policy and what the party was doing, He should therefore have gone to the country to get a mandate for this not just carried it out regardless.

William, Harman would castrate us all to "render without gender" if she could she is dangerous, just like the Nazi's,

a1, Browns one of yours, have him back! PLEASE

What regulations did he relax that you believe caused a toxic debt problem in the US that then had a knock-on effect world-wide? You also mention fundamental shift in labour policy (rather in the manner of a hack for the Sun) which shifts were these?

Remember "Prudence" she who must be at the head of all ecconomic polices when Rob Roy was Chancellor? You remember she who must have a tight fiscal grasp on all public expenditure! The one who was jilted when when he made PM to spend his way to victory in the next election he had planned for last year untill the relaxation of rules the treasuary used to govern banks capital exposures he made came back to bite his nuts.
Where in Browns non elected election manifesto does it mention nationalising banks in all but name? Labour were not elected to do this nor throw vast sums of money into public works.

Unsurprisingly a couple of points to raise.

My understanding is that the capital exposure levels are broadly underpinned by the Basel Accord (Basel I and Basel II). The Basel supervisory committee is made up of many countries, of which the UK is but one. Basel I was accepted by the G-10 countries, but was perceived as being not very stringent, so Basel II came about. It is on this basis that the rules governing capital exposures are derived. The roots of the global credit crisis problem certainly pre-date Brown being PM and some of them such as securitisation (credt intermediation) began in the 1980's.

Brown never wrote an non-elected election manifesto - but then again neither did John Major when he replaced Thatcher in 1990. Either way it's probably one of the stupidest points I think I've ever heard you mention. Any Government would have done similar - most did - to save financial meltdown. As for "throwing vast sums of money into public works" what approximately are you waffling on about with this point?

At times, I think I may have misjudged the fact from some of your rants, that I thought I was laughing with you, muppetry like this means I should have probably been laughing at you.

[Lord Kangana]

On the point of public works. The last time we experienced these economic conditons it took a world war to kick start the world economy. At which point, Rossevelt himself accepted that he should have gone further with his 'new deal' economic stimulus far before the necessity of war works stepped in. He also accepted that he should have listened to and taken Keynes advice on this matter. So if history teaches us anything, its to keep money moving and Governments spending, otherwise it really will all come crashing down. In other words, spending on public works is one of the key tennets of slavaging capitalism yet gain.

[Hoboh]

Pru, Barclay's were not tax payer bailed out, they've done well, why attack their bonus?

Worthy, two things, Brown relaxed regulations on the financial industry that allowed the banking sector to get in the mess it did to keep the "city" competitive.
When Brown became leader there was a fundamental shift in Labour policy and what the party was doing, He should therefore have gone to the country to get a mandate for this not just carried it out regardless.

William, Harman would castrate us all to "render without gender" if she could she is dangerous, just like the Nazi's,

a1, Browns one of yours, have him back! PLEASE

What regulations did he relax that you believe caused a toxic debt problem in the US that then had a knock-on effect world-wide? You also mention fundamental shift in labour policy (rather in the manner of a hack for the Sun) which shifts were these?

Remember "Prudence" she who must be at the head of all ecconomic polices when Rob Roy was Chancellor? You remember she who must have a tight fiscal grasp on all public expenditure! The one who was jilted when when he made PM to spend his way to victory in the next election he had planned for last year untill the relaxation of rules the treasuary used to govern banks capital exposures he made came back to bite his nuts.
Where in Browns non elected election manifesto does it mention nationalising banks in all but name? Labour were not elected to do this nor throw vast sums of money into public works.

Unsurprisingly a couple of points to raise.

My understanding is that the capital exposure levels are broadly underpinned by the Basel Accord (Basel I and Basel II). The Basel supervisory committee is made up of many countries, of which the UK is but one. Basel I was accepted by the G-10 countries, but was perceived as being not very stringent, so Basel II came about. It is on this basis that the rules governing capital exposures are derived. The roots of the global credit crisis problem certainly pre-date Brown being PM and some of them such as securitisation (credt intermediation) began in the 1980's.

Brown never wrote an non-elected election manifesto - but then again neither did John Major when he replaced Thatcher in 1990. Either way it's probably one of the stupidest points I think I've ever heard you mention. Any Government would have done similar - most did - to save financial meltdown. As for "throwing vast sums of money into public works" what approximately are you waffling on about with this point?

At times, I think I may have misjudged the fact from some of your rants, that I thought I was laughing with you, muppetry like this means I should have probably been laughing at you.

My ire Mr W. comes from huge amount of cash being splashed on the health service and education building works for one, yes we need both and they are very important but why keep hammering cash raised from a dwindling amount of tax payers in a time when the government like it's citizens need to belt tighten? Creates work? a few jobs yes but you cannot rule out that up to 50% of building workers on any major project are born of another land working for a French or Spanish company who has got the contract. How is this going to move cash around our economy?
On the fiscal regulations thing I cannot remeber what exactly it was, I'm pretty sure I know but I only want to post facts so bear with me on that

[Worthy4England]

My ire Mr W. comes from huge amount of cash being splashed on the health service and education building works for one, yes we need both and they are very important but why keep hammering cash raised from a dwindling amount of tax payers in a time when the government like it's citizens need to belt tighten? Creates work? a few jobs yes but you cannot rule out that up to 50% of building workers on any major project are born of another land working for a French or Spanish company who has got the contract. How is this going to move cash around our economy?
On the fiscal regulations thing I cannot remeber what exactly it was, I'm pretty sure I know but I only want to post facts so bear with me on that

G'wan - tell us you read it in the newspaper....

Whilst I agree that with building projects it's all about extent, just remind me how we're going to build all those jails we're after to lock the scrotes up in?

[William the White]

My ire Mr W. comes from huge amount of cash being splashed on the health service and education building works for one, yes we need both and they are very important but why keep hammering cash raised from a dwindling amount of tax payers in a time when the government like it's citizens need to belt tighten? Creates work? a few jobs yes but you cannot rule out that up to 50% of building workers on any major project are born of another land working for a French or Spanish company who has got the contract. How is this going to move cash around our economy?
On the fiscal regulations thing I cannot remeber what exactly it was, I'm pretty sure I know but I only want to post facts so bear with me on that

G'wan - tell us you read it in the newspaper....

Whilst I agree that with building projects it's all about extent, just remind me how we're going to build all those jails we're after to lock the scrotes up in?

Or weave the rope to hang them...

[Hoboh]

My ire Mr W. comes from huge amount of cash being splashed on the health service and education building works for one, yes we need both and they are very important but why keep hammering cash raised from a dwindling amount of tax payers in a time when the government like it's citizens need to belt tighten? Creates work? a few jobs yes but you cannot rule out that up to 50% of building workers on any major project are born of another land working for a French or Spanish company who has got the contract. How is this going to move cash around our economy?
On the fiscal regulations thing I cannot remeber what exactly it was, I'm pretty sure I know but I only want to post facts so bear with me on that

G'wan - tell us you read it in the newspaper....

Whilst I agree that with building projects it's all about extent, just remind me how we're going to build all those jails we're after to lock the scrotes up in?

Actually my real pet hate is giving Billions to the French to build an aircraft carrier that should never be built!

[Hoboh]

"Labour tried yet again to blame Margaret Thatcher for the crisis for “deregulating” the banks in 1986. If that policy was so wrong why did they not reverse it in 1997? If it was so bad, why weren”t the banks in financial trouble ten years later on the eve of Labour coming to power? Did they not notice that she kept in place strong regulation of capital and cash by the Bank of England, which worked? No bank over lent and overstretched in the way they have been doing this century because they were not allowed to. As Michael Fallon rightly pointed out, it was Gordon Brown who put in a new system of regulation in 1997. It was that system of regulation which failed to control the over expansion of bank activities with too little cash and capital in some cases to support them.

Even more ridiculous was John Mc Fall’s further attempt to blame the Conservative’s Economic Policy Review for recommending “the deregulation of mortgages”. If he could be bothered to read the Report and be accurate he would have stressed how right we were to tell the government they needed to regulate the capital and cash of the mortgage banks, not the process of granting the mortgages through a useless box ticking procedure which demonstrably did not prevent the disaster which hit the mortgage market. The government designed expensive and complex new mortgage regulation which did not stop a single excessive mortgage being lent to someone who now cannot repay, and did nothing to keep Northern Rock solvent. They destroyed a regualtory system which had kept all main banks solvent for more than 100 years.

The argument should not be about light touch or heavy handed regulation.Lurching from so called light touch to heavy handed will not help. There is no susbtitute for having just a few good regulators who know how to control cash and capital for banks and near banks. The Bank of England used to do that. It is a pity it was stopped from doing so during the period of irresponsibility , 2003-6. This disaster happened in a heavily regulated industry, regulated to Labour’s standards under a new and expensive system designed by Labour in 1997".

Just what I was looking for

[Worthy4England]

"Labour tried yet again to blame Margaret Thatcher for the crisis for “deregulating” the banks in 1986. If that policy was so wrong why did they not reverse it in 1997? If it was so bad, why weren”t the banks in financial trouble ten years later on the eve of Labour coming to power? Did they not notice that she kept in place strong regulation of capital and cash by the Bank of England, which worked? No bank over lent and overstretched in the way they have been doing this century because they were not allowed to. As Michael Fallon rightly pointed out, it was Gordon Brown who put in a new system of regulation in 1997. It was that system of regulation which failed to control the over expansion of bank activities with too little cash and capital in some cases to support them.

Even more ridiculous was John Mc Fall’s further attempt to blame the Conservative’s Economic Policy Review for recommending “the deregulation of mortgages”. If he could be bothered to read the Report and be accurate he would have stressed how right we were to tell the government they needed to regulate the capital and cash of the mortgage banks, not the process of granting the mortgages through a useless box ticking procedure which demonstrably did not prevent the disaster which hit the mortgage market. The government designed expensive and complex new mortgage regulation which did not stop a single excessive mortgage being lent to someone who now cannot repay, and did nothing to keep Northern Rock solvent. They destroyed a regualtory system which had kept all main banks solvent for more than 100 years.

The argument should not be about light touch or heavy handed regulation.Lurching from so called light touch to heavy handed will not help. There is no susbtitute for having just a few good regulators who know how to control cash and capital for banks and near banks. The Bank of England used to do that. It is a pity it was stopped from doing so during the period of irresponsibility , 2003-6. This disaster happened in a heavily regulated industry, regulated to Labour’s standards under a new and expensive system designed by Labour in 1997".

Just what I was looking for

Yeh - wonderful crap.

Remind me about Black Monday and Black Wednesday....

[Lord Kangana]

Is that a John Redwood quote?

You'll be quoting Nicholas Winterton's views on public transport next.

[Bruce Rioja]

Remind me about Black Monday and Black Wednesday....

Absolutely. Good job Gordon got it all back by selling our gold at the top of the market eh?

[CAPSLOCK]

Is this the right thread to thank Sir Margaret for protecting our oil reserves in the South Atlantic?

[Worthy4England]

Remind me about Black Monday and Black Wednesday....

Absolutely. Good job Gordon got it all back by selling our gold at the top of the market eh?

Unlike selling all our other National assets - just because they were there (of course)...

The difference as I see it Brucie (last 30 years both parties have sold assets for expediency) - Interest rates were being used as the prime mechanism for propping up the economy, with a central bank - the BoE not independent of the government's monitary policy. The current Labour Government gave the BoE its independence so that particular expedient route to elections was no longer available.

[Hoboh]

Is that a John Redwood quote?

You'll be quoting Nicholas Winterton's views on public transport next.

It was indeed it was a shorter way to say what I wanted to say, after all with all the scholars on this site if I passed it as my own work I'd soon get caught

[Hoboh]

Is that a John Redwood quote?

You'll be quoting Nicholas Winterton's views on public transport next.

Your wish is granted

"A veteran Conservative MP hit out at the new expenses culture at the House of Commons today, saying he was "infuriated" that MPs might no longer be able to claim for first-class train travel and complaining about the "totally different type of people" in standard class.

Sir Nicholas Winterton provoked outrage when he said MPs would not be able to get enough work done in standard class because of the noise and disturbance from children.

The Tory party moved to distance itself from Winterton, the MP from Macclesfield, who repaid £850 after the Commons expenses inquiry found he had been overpaid for council tax bills on his second home. A spokesman said he was "out of touch".

Winterton had previously faced criticism for claiming parliamentary allowances with his wife Ann, who is also an MP, for rent of £20,000 a year on a flat they transferred to a family trust after paying off the mortgage".

[Worthy4England]

Is this the right thread to thank Sir Margaret for protecting our oil reserves in the South Atlantic?

Erm, lost by this one. If it hadn't been determined to remove the HMS Endurance and flog it off in the name of defence cuts to the Aussies by John Nott, there possibly wouldn't have been anything we needed to defend. So status quo would have been maintained. Her government gave a reason for the Argies to invade a much less protected set of islands.

I will dance on her grave when it becomes available.

[Lord Kangana]

You'll probably die of old age in the queue.

[William the White]

Just for the doubters of the intellectual worth of Media Studies... I'm reading a selection of articles on The Sopranos for a class on writing TV drama due in a couple of weeks, where I am using The Sopranos as an outstanding example of contemprorary television writing...

Thought I'd share some titles with you...

"Cunnilingus and Psychiatry have brought us to this": Livia and the Logic of False Hoods in the first Season of The Sopranos'...

Beyond the Bada Bing!: Negotiating Female Narrative Authority in 'The Sopranos'...

The Brutality of Meat and the Abruptness of Seafood: Food, Violence and Family in 'The Sopranos'

I haven't yet read any of these articles by university lecturers but i'm certain they are making a serious and valuable contribution to our investigation of media, disentangling what it seems to say, what it is saying in the sub text, its cultural roots, its intertextuality and playfulness and its challenge to televisual pap in American culture...

I know already that I have convinced a clown, a tramp, and a playful child and doubtless other posters that their taxes are being well spent. And I celebrate that triumph and their intellectual reformation. much needed, IMHO...

[Worthy4England]

You'll probably die of old age in the queue.

Unless I bury her under the patio tomorrow.

[Lord Kangana]

Besides, my mates been predicting this for years, so he'll be chuffed, but as I always said, why do we have to travel half way round the world for the stuff when w've got it on our doorstep?

[Worthy4England]

Besides, my mates been predicting this for years, so he'll be chuffed, but as I always said, why do we have to travel half way round the world for the stuff when w've got it on our doorstep?

Not sure whether you're on about the antarctic/oil debate here, but I believe (but would need to do some reading) that had we lost the sovereignty of the Falklands, we may have lost claim to any of our lands covered by the Antarctic Treaty which hold the possibility of containing nateral resources such as oil...

Either way, the removal of Endeavour as a "cost-cutting" exercise seems to have beenn hugely expensvie