I blame Labour for everything

I blame Labour for everything

I blame Labour for everything

First published in Readers' Letters

D J COOK’S ill-conceived attempt (letter, January 10) to exempt the Labour Government from the responsibility it bears for the financial meltdown it helped to cause, and the social misery that followed, is wholly unconvincing.

Overspending, easy credit, lax banking regulation, gold reserves sold off at a knock-down price, a benefits system trapping people in welfare dependency, deliberate uncontrolled mass immigration which undercut British workers?

Nothing to do with us, say Labour’s apologists.

On food banks, contrary to what Mr Cook suggests, these did not start three-and-a-half years ago. The first food bank was set up in 2000 and their number had grown tenfold between 2005 and 2010. This, too, is a legacy of the Blair-Brown years.

DOROTHY FUDGE, Totton.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:44pm Wed 22 Jan 14

loosehead says...

well said
well said loosehead
  • Score: -4

7:27pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Linesman says...

Fudge! What an appropriate name.

At no time in her post did she mention the real cause of the financial problem, which was International Banking.

These days, no country was immune from the financial crisis, which had its beginnings in the US, where a couple of banks made high-risk loans which could not be repaid, resulting in those banks going bust, with a domino effect stretching world wide.

The Labour Government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities that had put their money in failing Icelandic banks, to ensure that banks did not call in mortgages and savers lose their savings.

Local authorities who invested in Icelandic Banks were bailed out so that they were not made bankrupt, meaning services would be lost and the work force would not be paid.

This is the action that the Labour Government took, and both the Tory and Lib Dem opposition parties did not suggest an alternative plan, nor did they vote against what Labour did.

The result of this action was that the UK has managed the crisis far better than the majority of European countries, and although Cameron claimed that there was no money left when he took over, within a matter of weeks he was able to make many millions available to bail out the Irish Republic.

Since then, we have seen the top earners get a nice tax boost, and the bankers, who played a large part in the cause of the problems, getting massive bonus payments, while Government grants to local authorities have been drastically cut, resulting in cuts to services and many job losses.
Fudge! What an appropriate name. At no time in her post did she mention the real cause of the financial problem, which was International Banking. These days, no country was immune from the financial crisis, which had its beginnings in the US, where a couple of banks made high-risk loans which could not be repaid, resulting in those banks going bust, with a domino effect stretching world wide. The Labour Government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities that had put their money in failing Icelandic banks, to ensure that banks did not call in mortgages and savers lose their savings. Local authorities who invested in Icelandic Banks were bailed out so that they were not made bankrupt, meaning services would be lost and the work force would not be paid. This is the action that the Labour Government took, and both the Tory and Lib Dem opposition parties did not suggest an alternative plan, nor did they vote against what Labour did. The result of this action was that the UK has managed the crisis far better than the majority of European countries, and although Cameron claimed that there was no money left when he took over, within a matter of weeks he was able to make many millions available to bail out the Irish Republic. Since then, we have seen the top earners get a nice tax boost, and the bankers, who played a large part in the cause of the problems, getting massive bonus payments, while Government grants to local authorities have been drastically cut, resulting in cuts to services and many job losses. Linesman
  • Score: 1

7:45pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Linesman wrote:
Fudge! What an appropriate name.

At no time in her post did she mention the real cause of the financial problem, which was International Banking.

These days, no country was immune from the financial crisis, which had its beginnings in the US, where a couple of banks made high-risk loans which could not be repaid, resulting in those banks going bust, with a domino effect stretching world wide.

The Labour Government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities that had put their money in failing Icelandic banks, to ensure that banks did not call in mortgages and savers lose their savings.

Local authorities who invested in Icelandic Banks were bailed out so that they were not made bankrupt, meaning services would be lost and the work force would not be paid.

This is the action that the Labour Government took, and both the Tory and Lib Dem opposition parties did not suggest an alternative plan, nor did they vote against what Labour did.

The result of this action was that the UK has managed the crisis far better than the majority of European countries, and although Cameron claimed that there was no money left when he took over, within a matter of weeks he was able to make many millions available to bail out the Irish Republic.

Since then, we have seen the top earners get a nice tax boost, and the bankers, who played a large part in the cause of the problems, getting massive bonus payments, while Government grants to local authorities have been drastically cut, resulting in cuts to services and many job losses.
Excellent post
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Fudge! What an appropriate name. At no time in her post did she mention the real cause of the financial problem, which was International Banking. These days, no country was immune from the financial crisis, which had its beginnings in the US, where a couple of banks made high-risk loans which could not be repaid, resulting in those banks going bust, with a domino effect stretching world wide. The Labour Government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities that had put their money in failing Icelandic banks, to ensure that banks did not call in mortgages and savers lose their savings. Local authorities who invested in Icelandic Banks were bailed out so that they were not made bankrupt, meaning services would be lost and the work force would not be paid. This is the action that the Labour Government took, and both the Tory and Lib Dem opposition parties did not suggest an alternative plan, nor did they vote against what Labour did. The result of this action was that the UK has managed the crisis far better than the majority of European countries, and although Cameron claimed that there was no money left when he took over, within a matter of weeks he was able to make many millions available to bail out the Irish Republic. Since then, we have seen the top earners get a nice tax boost, and the bankers, who played a large part in the cause of the problems, getting massive bonus payments, while Government grants to local authorities have been drastically cut, resulting in cuts to services and many job losses.[/p][/quote]Excellent post Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 3

9:33pm Wed 22 Jan 14

loosehead says...

So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.!
Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it
So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.! Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it loosehead
  • Score: -2

11:20pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.!
Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it
Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue.

Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that

a) The problem had its beginnings in the US

b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it.

c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks,

d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time.

e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries.

f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems.

g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.! Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it[/p][/quote]Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue. Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that a) The problem had its beginnings in the US b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it. c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks, d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time. e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries. f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems. g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar. Linesman
  • Score: 3

7:35am Thu 23 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.!
Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it
Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue.

Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that

a) The problem had its beginnings in the US

b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it.

c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks,

d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time.

e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries.

f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems.

g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.
but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings?
OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.! Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it[/p][/quote]Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue. Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that a) The problem had its beginnings in the US b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it. c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks, d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time. e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries. f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems. g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.[/p][/quote]but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings? OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you? loosehead
  • Score: -3

8:08am Thu 23 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.!
Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it
Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue.

Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that

a) The problem had its beginnings in the US

b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it.

c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks,

d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time.

e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries.

f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems.

g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.
but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings?
OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?
What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"?

The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market.

If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.'

This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious.

Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time.

There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained.

Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.'

I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks."

Have you thought up an answer to that yet?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.! Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it[/p][/quote]Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue. Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that a) The problem had its beginnings in the US b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it. c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks, d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time. e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries. f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems. g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.[/p][/quote]but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings? OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?[/p][/quote]What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"? The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market. If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.' This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious. Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time. There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained. Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.' I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks." Have you thought up an answer to that yet? Linesman
  • Score: 2

8:57am Thu 23 Jan 14

Linesman says...

With reference to my last.

I would add that, while Gordon Brown admitted that his government was PARTIALLY responsible for the financial crisis - as his government were in power at the time. A responsible government accepts responsibility.

This is in marked contrast to the current government, who blame everyone but themselves for everything that has gone wrong during their period in office.
With reference to my last. I would add that, while Gordon Brown admitted that his government was PARTIALLY responsible for the financial crisis - as his government were in power at the time. A responsible government accepts responsibility. This is in marked contrast to the current government, who blame everyone but themselves for everything that has gone wrong during their period in office. Linesman
  • Score: 4

4:22pm Thu 23 Jan 14

downfader says...

Linesman wrote:
Fudge! What an appropriate name.

At no time in her post did she mention the real cause of the financial problem, which was International Banking.

These days, no country was immune from the financial crisis, which had its beginnings in the US, where a couple of banks made high-risk loans which could not be repaid, resulting in those banks going bust, with a domino effect stretching world wide.

The Labour Government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities that had put their money in failing Icelandic banks, to ensure that banks did not call in mortgages and savers lose their savings.

Local authorities who invested in Icelandic Banks were bailed out so that they were not made bankrupt, meaning services would be lost and the work force would not be paid.

This is the action that the Labour Government took, and both the Tory and Lib Dem opposition parties did not suggest an alternative plan, nor did they vote against what Labour did.

The result of this action was that the UK has managed the crisis far better than the majority of European countries, and although Cameron claimed that there was no money left when he took over, within a matter of weeks he was able to make many millions available to bail out the Irish Republic.

Since then, we have seen the top earners get a nice tax boost, and the bankers, who played a large part in the cause of the problems, getting massive bonus payments, while Government grants to local authorities have been drastically cut, resulting in cuts to services and many job losses.
very well put! Better than the reply I sent to the above letter!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Fudge! What an appropriate name. At no time in her post did she mention the real cause of the financial problem, which was International Banking. These days, no country was immune from the financial crisis, which had its beginnings in the US, where a couple of banks made high-risk loans which could not be repaid, resulting in those banks going bust, with a domino effect stretching world wide. The Labour Government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities that had put their money in failing Icelandic banks, to ensure that banks did not call in mortgages and savers lose their savings. Local authorities who invested in Icelandic Banks were bailed out so that they were not made bankrupt, meaning services would be lost and the work force would not be paid. This is the action that the Labour Government took, and both the Tory and Lib Dem opposition parties did not suggest an alternative plan, nor did they vote against what Labour did. The result of this action was that the UK has managed the crisis far better than the majority of European countries, and although Cameron claimed that there was no money left when he took over, within a matter of weeks he was able to make many millions available to bail out the Irish Republic. Since then, we have seen the top earners get a nice tax boost, and the bankers, who played a large part in the cause of the problems, getting massive bonus payments, while Government grants to local authorities have been drastically cut, resulting in cuts to services and many job losses.[/p][/quote]very well put! Better than the reply I sent to the above letter! downfader
  • Score: 1

4:43pm Thu 23 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.!
Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it
Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue.

Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that

a) The problem had its beginnings in the US

b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it.

c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks,

d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time.

e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries.

f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems.

g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.
but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings?
OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?
What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"?

The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market.

If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.'

This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious.

Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time.

There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained.

Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.'

I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks."

Have you thought up an answer to that yet?
you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International?
The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with,
I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash?
It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned.
what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand?
think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.! Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it[/p][/quote]Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue. Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that a) The problem had its beginnings in the US b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it. c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks, d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time. e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries. f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems. g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.[/p][/quote]but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings? OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?[/p][/quote]What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"? The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market. If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.' This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious. Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time. There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained. Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.' I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks." Have you thought up an answer to that yet?[/p][/quote]you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International? The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with, I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash? It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned. what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand? think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party? loosehead
  • Score: -1

4:44pm Thu 23 Jan 14

loosehead says...

What would blinkered left wingers like to have seen? all other parties objecting to save our banks?
What would blinkered left wingers like to have seen? all other parties objecting to save our banks? loosehead
  • Score: -1

5:06pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.!
Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it
Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue.

Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that

a) The problem had its beginnings in the US

b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it.

c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks,

d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time.

e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries.

f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems.

g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.
but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings?
OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?
What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"?

The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market.

If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.'

This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious.

Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time.

There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained.

Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.'

I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks."

Have you thought up an answer to that yet?
you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International?
The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with,
I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash?
It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned.
what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand?
think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party?
Do you understand the word 'PART'.

I note that you STILL do not tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties came up with at the time.

So busy criticising that you just cannot see what went on, or else you conveniently forget.

There was a crisis.

Immediate action had to be taken, and the action that the Labour government took prevented this country being in a similar mess to the one that Spain, Portugal, The Irish Republic, Italy, Greece etc etc found themselves in.

If this financial crisis was all the Labour government's fault, as you appear to be claiming, why is it that all of these other countries also suffered?

Had it not crossed your mind that they were also involved in INTERNATIONAL BANKING?

Despite living on the doorstep of a massive container port, you appear to be unaware that INTERNATIONAL TRADE and INTERNATIONAL BANKING go hand in glove.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.! Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it[/p][/quote]Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue. Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that a) The problem had its beginnings in the US b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it. c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks, d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time. e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries. f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems. g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.[/p][/quote]but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings? OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?[/p][/quote]What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"? The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market. If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.' This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious. Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time. There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained. Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.' I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks." Have you thought up an answer to that yet?[/p][/quote]you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International? The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with, I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash? It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned. what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand? think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party?[/p][/quote]Do you understand the word 'PART'. I note that you STILL do not tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties came up with at the time. So busy criticising that you just cannot see what went on, or else you conveniently forget. There was a crisis. Immediate action had to be taken, and the action that the Labour government took prevented this country being in a similar mess to the one that Spain, Portugal, The Irish Republic, Italy, Greece etc etc found themselves in. If this financial crisis was all the Labour government's fault, as you appear to be claiming, why is it that all of these other countries also suffered? Had it not crossed your mind that they were also involved in INTERNATIONAL BANKING? Despite living on the doorstep of a massive container port, you appear to be unaware that INTERNATIONAL TRADE and INTERNATIONAL BANKING go hand in glove. Linesman
  • Score: 2

5:13pm Thu 23 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.!
Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it
Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue.

Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that

a) The problem had its beginnings in the US

b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it.

c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks,

d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time.

e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries.

f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems.

g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.
but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings?
OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?
What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"?

The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market.

If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.'

This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious.

Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time.

There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained.

Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.'

I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks."

Have you thought up an answer to that yet?
you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International?
The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with,
I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash?
It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned.
what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand?
think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party?
Do you understand the word 'PART'.

I note that you STILL do not tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties came up with at the time.

So busy criticising that you just cannot see what went on, or else you conveniently forget.

There was a crisis.

Immediate action had to be taken, and the action that the Labour government took prevented this country being in a similar mess to the one that Spain, Portugal, The Irish Republic, Italy, Greece etc etc found themselves in.

If this financial crisis was all the Labour government's fault, as you appear to be claiming, why is it that all of these other countries also suffered?

Had it not crossed your mind that they were also involved in INTERNATIONAL BANKING?

Despite living on the doorstep of a massive container port, you appear to be unaware that INTERNATIONAL TRADE and INTERNATIONAL BANKING go hand in glove.
You still don't get it do you? the international banking crisis as you put it was caused by British & American banks lending to Americans who quickly defaulted.
the reason it spread was because of bank lending to other banks or can't you see that?
what alternative did the other parties put forward? let me see let the banks,companies & ordinary people go to the wall or bail them out? there was no alternative solution It's just a pity Labour spent at a time on other things when they knew we couldn't afford them
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.! Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it[/p][/quote]Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue. Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that a) The problem had its beginnings in the US b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it. c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks, d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time. e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries. f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems. g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.[/p][/quote]but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings? OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?[/p][/quote]What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"? The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market. If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.' This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious. Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time. There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained. Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.' I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks." Have you thought up an answer to that yet?[/p][/quote]you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International? The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with, I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash? It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned. what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand? think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party?[/p][/quote]Do you understand the word 'PART'. I note that you STILL do not tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties came up with at the time. So busy criticising that you just cannot see what went on, or else you conveniently forget. There was a crisis. Immediate action had to be taken, and the action that the Labour government took prevented this country being in a similar mess to the one that Spain, Portugal, The Irish Republic, Italy, Greece etc etc found themselves in. If this financial crisis was all the Labour government's fault, as you appear to be claiming, why is it that all of these other countries also suffered? Had it not crossed your mind that they were also involved in INTERNATIONAL BANKING? Despite living on the doorstep of a massive container port, you appear to be unaware that INTERNATIONAL TRADE and INTERNATIONAL BANKING go hand in glove.[/p][/quote]You still don't get it do you? the international banking crisis as you put it was caused by British & American banks lending to Americans who quickly defaulted. the reason it spread was because of bank lending to other banks or can't you see that? what alternative did the other parties put forward? let me see let the banks,companies & ordinary people go to the wall or bail them out? there was no alternative solution It's just a pity Labour spent at a time on other things when they knew we couldn't afford them loosehead
  • Score: -2

11:12pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.!
Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it
Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue.

Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that

a) The problem had its beginnings in the US

b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it.

c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks,

d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time.

e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries.

f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems.

g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.
but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings?
OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?
What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"?

The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market.

If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.'

This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious.

Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time.

There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained.

Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.'

I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks."

Have you thought up an answer to that yet?
you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International?
The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with,
I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash?
It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned.
what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand?
think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party?
Do you understand the word 'PART'.

I note that you STILL do not tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties came up with at the time.

So busy criticising that you just cannot see what went on, or else you conveniently forget.

There was a crisis.

Immediate action had to be taken, and the action that the Labour government took prevented this country being in a similar mess to the one that Spain, Portugal, The Irish Republic, Italy, Greece etc etc found themselves in.

If this financial crisis was all the Labour government's fault, as you appear to be claiming, why is it that all of these other countries also suffered?

Had it not crossed your mind that they were also involved in INTERNATIONAL BANKING?

Despite living on the doorstep of a massive container port, you appear to be unaware that INTERNATIONAL TRADE and INTERNATIONAL BANKING go hand in glove.
You still don't get it do you? the international banking crisis as you put it was caused by British & American banks lending to Americans who quickly defaulted.
the reason it spread was because of bank lending to other banks or can't you see that?
what alternative did the other parties put forward? let me see let the banks,companies & ordinary people go to the wall or bail them out? there was no alternative solution It's just a pity Labour spent at a time on other things when they knew we couldn't afford them
It is obvious that it is YOU that do not understand International banking,

It was International banking that saw local authorities putting their trust in Icelandic Banks that failed, that required the Labour government to bail them out.

I assume that you are also unaware that American banks have also loaned to British banks. Banks of virtually every nation lend to each other, because that is the business that they are in.

Have you never wondered why the American dollar is now considered by many to be the International currency?

ALTHOUGH I HAVE ASKED YOU MANY TIMES, I NOTE THAT YOU ARE STILL REFUSING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ALTERNATIVE POLICY THE OPPOSITION PARTIES PROPOSED TO DEAL WITH THE FINANCIAL CRISIS,
.
I WONDER WHY THAT IS.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.! Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it[/p][/quote]Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue. Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that a) The problem had its beginnings in the US b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it. c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks, d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time. e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries. f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems. g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.[/p][/quote]but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings? OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?[/p][/quote]What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"? The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market. If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.' This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious. Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time. There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained. Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.' I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks." Have you thought up an answer to that yet?[/p][/quote]you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International? The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with, I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash? It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned. what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand? think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party?[/p][/quote]Do you understand the word 'PART'. I note that you STILL do not tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties came up with at the time. So busy criticising that you just cannot see what went on, or else you conveniently forget. There was a crisis. Immediate action had to be taken, and the action that the Labour government took prevented this country being in a similar mess to the one that Spain, Portugal, The Irish Republic, Italy, Greece etc etc found themselves in. If this financial crisis was all the Labour government's fault, as you appear to be claiming, why is it that all of these other countries also suffered? Had it not crossed your mind that they were also involved in INTERNATIONAL BANKING? Despite living on the doorstep of a massive container port, you appear to be unaware that INTERNATIONAL TRADE and INTERNATIONAL BANKING go hand in glove.[/p][/quote]You still don't get it do you? the international banking crisis as you put it was caused by British & American banks lending to Americans who quickly defaulted. the reason it spread was because of bank lending to other banks or can't you see that? what alternative did the other parties put forward? let me see let the banks,companies & ordinary people go to the wall or bail them out? there was no alternative solution It's just a pity Labour spent at a time on other things when they knew we couldn't afford them[/p][/quote]It is obvious that it is YOU that do not understand International banking, It was International banking that saw local authorities putting their trust in Icelandic Banks that failed, that required the Labour government to bail them out. I assume that you are also unaware that American banks have also loaned to British banks. Banks of virtually every nation lend to each other, because that is the business that they are in. Have you never wondered why the American dollar is now considered by many to be the International currency? ALTHOUGH I HAVE ASKED YOU MANY TIMES, I NOTE THAT YOU ARE STILL REFUSING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ALTERNATIVE POLICY THE OPPOSITION PARTIES PROPOSED TO DEAL WITH THE FINANCIAL CRISIS, . I WONDER WHY THAT IS. Linesman
  • Score: 2

8:07am Fri 24 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.!
Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it
Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue.

Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that

a) The problem had its beginnings in the US

b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it.

c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks,

d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time.

e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries.

f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems.

g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.
but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings?
OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?
What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"?

The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market.

If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.'

This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious.

Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time.

There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained.

Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.'

I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks."

Have you thought up an answer to that yet?
you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International?
The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with,
I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash?
It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned.
what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand?
think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party?
Do you understand the word 'PART'.

I note that you STILL do not tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties came up with at the time.

So busy criticising that you just cannot see what went on, or else you conveniently forget.

There was a crisis.

Immediate action had to be taken, and the action that the Labour government took prevented this country being in a similar mess to the one that Spain, Portugal, The Irish Republic, Italy, Greece etc etc found themselves in.

If this financial crisis was all the Labour government's fault, as you appear to be claiming, why is it that all of these other countries also suffered?

Had it not crossed your mind that they were also involved in INTERNATIONAL BANKING?

Despite living on the doorstep of a massive container port, you appear to be unaware that INTERNATIONAL TRADE and INTERNATIONAL BANKING go hand in glove.
You still don't get it do you? the international banking crisis as you put it was caused by British & American banks lending to Americans who quickly defaulted.
the reason it spread was because of bank lending to other banks or can't you see that?
what alternative did the other parties put forward? let me see let the banks,companies & ordinary people go to the wall or bail them out? there was no alternative solution It's just a pity Labour spent at a time on other things when they knew we couldn't afford them
It is obvious that it is YOU that do not understand International banking,

It was International banking that saw local authorities putting their trust in Icelandic Banks that failed, that required the Labour government to bail them out.

I assume that you are also unaware that American banks have also loaned to British banks. Banks of virtually every nation lend to each other, because that is the business that they are in.

Have you never wondered why the American dollar is now considered by many to be the International currency?

ALTHOUGH I HAVE ASKED YOU MANY TIMES, I NOTE THAT YOU ARE STILL REFUSING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ALTERNATIVE POLICY THE OPPOSITION PARTIES PROPOSED TO DEAL WITH THE FINANCIAL CRISIS,
.
I WONDER WHY THAT IS.
well now I now you've gone senile! I have answer your questioned I have said what other alternative was there? Let the banks companies & people go to the wall?
now in your state of mind you can't see that is an answer then yes you should go & see a doctor
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.! Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it[/p][/quote]Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue. Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that a) The problem had its beginnings in the US b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it. c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks, d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time. e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries. f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems. g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.[/p][/quote]but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings? OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?[/p][/quote]What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"? The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market. If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.' This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious. Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time. There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained. Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.' I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks." Have you thought up an answer to that yet?[/p][/quote]you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International? The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with, I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash? It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned. what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand? think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party?[/p][/quote]Do you understand the word 'PART'. I note that you STILL do not tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties came up with at the time. So busy criticising that you just cannot see what went on, or else you conveniently forget. There was a crisis. Immediate action had to be taken, and the action that the Labour government took prevented this country being in a similar mess to the one that Spain, Portugal, The Irish Republic, Italy, Greece etc etc found themselves in. If this financial crisis was all the Labour government's fault, as you appear to be claiming, why is it that all of these other countries also suffered? Had it not crossed your mind that they were also involved in INTERNATIONAL BANKING? Despite living on the doorstep of a massive container port, you appear to be unaware that INTERNATIONAL TRADE and INTERNATIONAL BANKING go hand in glove.[/p][/quote]You still don't get it do you? the international banking crisis as you put it was caused by British & American banks lending to Americans who quickly defaulted. the reason it spread was because of bank lending to other banks or can't you see that? what alternative did the other parties put forward? let me see let the banks,companies & ordinary people go to the wall or bail them out? there was no alternative solution It's just a pity Labour spent at a time on other things when they knew we couldn't afford them[/p][/quote]It is obvious that it is YOU that do not understand International banking, It was International banking that saw local authorities putting their trust in Icelandic Banks that failed, that required the Labour government to bail them out. I assume that you are also unaware that American banks have also loaned to British banks. Banks of virtually every nation lend to each other, because that is the business that they are in. Have you never wondered why the American dollar is now considered by many to be the International currency? ALTHOUGH I HAVE ASKED YOU MANY TIMES, I NOTE THAT YOU ARE STILL REFUSING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ALTERNATIVE POLICY THE OPPOSITION PARTIES PROPOSED TO DEAL WITH THE FINANCIAL CRISIS, . I WONDER WHY THAT IS.[/p][/quote]well now I now you've gone senile! I have answer your questioned I have said what other alternative was there? Let the banks companies & people go to the wall? now in your state of mind you can't see that is an answer then yes you should go & see a doctor loosehead
  • Score: -3

9:39am Fri 24 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.!
Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it
Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue.

Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that

a) The problem had its beginnings in the US

b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it.

c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks,

d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time.

e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries.

f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems.

g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.
but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings?
OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?
What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"?

The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market.

If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.'

This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious.

Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time.

There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained.

Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.'

I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks."

Have you thought up an answer to that yet?
you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International?
The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with,
I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash?
It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned.
what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand?
think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party?
Do you understand the word 'PART'.

I note that you STILL do not tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties came up with at the time.

So busy criticising that you just cannot see what went on, or else you conveniently forget.

There was a crisis.

Immediate action had to be taken, and the action that the Labour government took prevented this country being in a similar mess to the one that Spain, Portugal, The Irish Republic, Italy, Greece etc etc found themselves in.

If this financial crisis was all the Labour government's fault, as you appear to be claiming, why is it that all of these other countries also suffered?

Had it not crossed your mind that they were also involved in INTERNATIONAL BANKING?

Despite living on the doorstep of a massive container port, you appear to be unaware that INTERNATIONAL TRADE and INTERNATIONAL BANKING go hand in glove.
You still don't get it do you? the international banking crisis as you put it was caused by British & American banks lending to Americans who quickly defaulted.
the reason it spread was because of bank lending to other banks or can't you see that?
what alternative did the other parties put forward? let me see let the banks,companies & ordinary people go to the wall or bail them out? there was no alternative solution It's just a pity Labour spent at a time on other things when they knew we couldn't afford them
It is obvious that it is YOU that do not understand International banking,

It was International banking that saw local authorities putting their trust in Icelandic Banks that failed, that required the Labour government to bail them out.

I assume that you are also unaware that American banks have also loaned to British banks. Banks of virtually every nation lend to each other, because that is the business that they are in.

Have you never wondered why the American dollar is now considered by many to be the International currency?

ALTHOUGH I HAVE ASKED YOU MANY TIMES, I NOTE THAT YOU ARE STILL REFUSING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ALTERNATIVE POLICY THE OPPOSITION PARTIES PROPOSED TO DEAL WITH THE FINANCIAL CRISIS,
.
I WONDER WHY THAT IS.
well now I now you've gone senile! I have answer your questioned I have said what other alternative was there? Let the banks companies & people go to the wall?
now in your state of mind you can't see that is an answer then yes you should go & see a doctor
If you think that I have gone senile, then I would point out that at least I understand that when you write, "I have answer (?) your questioned (?) I have said what other alternative was there? Let the banks companies & people go to the wall?"

My understanding of the English language, even in the form that you have used, that does NOT answer the question that I put to you.

You have given me YOUR opinion. I asked you to tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties at the time proposed.

If you do not understand the question, then maybe it is you that has a problem that is related to old age.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So I guess this comment wasn't being derogatory then?Fudge! What an appropriate name.! Dorothy even though the Labour leader then & the present one plus all the cabinet at the time have admitted Labours part in the banking crisis & Labour have admitted the reason why the National debt was so high was because they were trying to spend there way out of the debt these two just can't stand people saying it or they just can't accept it[/p][/quote]Fudge is her name, and she fudged the issue. Like some others that regularly write on this subject, they are selective in what they criticise, but do not address the fact that a) The problem had its beginnings in the US b) Banking is International, and the UK was not the only country affected by it. c) The Labour government took prompt action to limit the damage here by bailing out banks, building societies and local authorities that had invested in the failed Icelandic banks, d) The opposition parties, that now form the government, offered no alternative policy at the time. e) Thanks to the prompt action taken by the Labour Government, the UK has suffered less than the majority of European countries. f) The current government claimed that the country had no money when it took power, but were able to make a massive loan to the Irish Republic to bail them out of their financial problems. g) There is a national debt, but perhaps Ms Fudge could name a country that has NOT got a National debt, because I cannot think of one, but know that the US has a massive one, yet everyone wants the dollar.[/p][/quote]but what about the bank deregulation that Labour allowed to happen? the same deregulation which allowed banks to lend up to & over 6 times peoples earnings? OH! Brown & his cabinet have already admitted this was partially to blame for the crash so why can't you?[/p][/quote]What do you understand from the term "INTERNATIONAL BANKING"? The action taken was to enable British banks to compete on the International market. If this action had not been taken - and there was no objection raised by either the city or the opposition parties at the time - British banks would have had to compete 'with their hands tied.' This worked well until two US banks failed, which prompted the domino effect, the results of which have been all too obvious. Of course, there are always those 'experts' who are 'wise after the event' and make criticisms that were not made at the time. There is a very big difference between 'partially to blame' and 'complete blame', which is what certain people have maintained. Of course his government was 'partially' to blame, but as the opposition did not oppose deregulation, it has to be assumed that, if they had been in power, they would have taken the same action. If I were petty minded, I would claim that, by not opposing deregulation, the opposition parties at the time were also 'partially to blame.' I have asked you very many times, "What alternative policy did the opposition parties propose when the Labour government bailed out banks, building societies and local authorities, of all political persuasion, that invested in Icelandic banks." Have you thought up an answer to that yet?[/p][/quote]you still don't get it do you? I(nternational banking you bang on about so why did Brown Balls milliband & the rest of the Labour cabinet say they were part to blame for the banking crisis if it was nothing to do with them because it was International? The debt we have bailing out the banks was a small fraction of it the bulk was made up of money Labour tried to buy power with, I've really seen what you are & if you & your blinkered views can't see the truth maybe you should go to a meeting with Ed Milliband or Gordan Brown & ask them why they admitted guilt to the part they played in the financial crash? It is now well documented that by Browns lifting of the regulations ended up with our banks lending mortgages to Americans at more for repayments than they earned. what happened meant banks like ours & the Americans stopped lending to other International banks which they needed to borrow to carry on trading hence countries that never lent in America ran out of money like Iceland or is that to complicated for a socialist to understand? think you should go & see a doctor as you can't see the truth when it's thrown in your face by your own Labour Party?[/p][/quote]Do you understand the word 'PART'. I note that you STILL do not tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties came up with at the time. So busy criticising that you just cannot see what went on, or else you conveniently forget. There was a crisis. Immediate action had to be taken, and the action that the Labour government took prevented this country being in a similar mess to the one that Spain, Portugal, The Irish Republic, Italy, Greece etc etc found themselves in. If this financial crisis was all the Labour government's fault, as you appear to be claiming, why is it that all of these other countries also suffered? Had it not crossed your mind that they were also involved in INTERNATIONAL BANKING? Despite living on the doorstep of a massive container port, you appear to be unaware that INTERNATIONAL TRADE and INTERNATIONAL BANKING go hand in glove.[/p][/quote]You still don't get it do you? the international banking crisis as you put it was caused by British & American banks lending to Americans who quickly defaulted. the reason it spread was because of bank lending to other banks or can't you see that? what alternative did the other parties put forward? let me see let the banks,companies & ordinary people go to the wall or bail them out? there was no alternative solution It's just a pity Labour spent at a time on other things when they knew we couldn't afford them[/p][/quote]It is obvious that it is YOU that do not understand International banking, It was International banking that saw local authorities putting their trust in Icelandic Banks that failed, that required the Labour government to bail them out. I assume that you are also unaware that American banks have also loaned to British banks. Banks of virtually every nation lend to each other, because that is the business that they are in. Have you never wondered why the American dollar is now considered by many to be the International currency? ALTHOUGH I HAVE ASKED YOU MANY TIMES, I NOTE THAT YOU ARE STILL REFUSING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT ALTERNATIVE POLICY THE OPPOSITION PARTIES PROPOSED TO DEAL WITH THE FINANCIAL CRISIS, . I WONDER WHY THAT IS.[/p][/quote]well now I now you've gone senile! I have answer your questioned I have said what other alternative was there? Let the banks companies & people go to the wall? now in your state of mind you can't see that is an answer then yes you should go & see a doctor[/p][/quote]If you think that I have gone senile, then I would point out that at least I understand that when you write, "I have answer (?) your questioned (?) I have said what other alternative was there? Let the banks companies & people go to the wall?" My understanding of the English language, even in the form that you have used, that does NOT answer the question that I put to you. You have given me YOUR opinion. I asked you to tell me what alternative proposals the opposition parties at the time proposed. If you do not understand the question, then maybe it is you that has a problem that is related to old age. Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Linesman says...

No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.
No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him. Linesman
  • Score: 1

7:19am Sat 25 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.
fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you.
I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in.
you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.[/p][/quote]fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you. I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in. you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out. loosehead
  • Score: -2

8:29am Sat 25 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.
fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you.
I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in.
you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.
THANK YOU.

At long last you have given an answer.

What a pity you cannot grasp the fact that banking is a competitive business, and British banking had to change to compete Internationally.

Banks in one country lend to banks in other countries, and despite your beloved Tories coming to power, BRITISH BANKS ARE STILL LENDING TO AMERICAN BANKS AND VICE VERSA.

Let me give you an example that you may possibly understand.

You need money for some project you want to complete, so being a pal of yours, and thinking that you are a good risk, I mortgage my house and lend you the money, and you promise to pay me better interest than the I would get in the building society.

Despite your best efforts, you are let down by contractors, lose your money and are declared bankrupt.

What happens to me? I lent money, in good faith, to a friend who had a good business track record?

I lose out, and need to take some prompt action to ensure that my family have a place to live.

British banks had large investments in American banks that failed, Other countries' banks also invested as did other American banks.

British banks were Not alone. That is why it is an International crisis.

Everyone can be wise after the event - even the American banking system, which was primarily responsible.

I know that you will not accept the explanation because it happened during a period when Labour were in power.

I wonder what your excuse was when, under Thatcher, we had the Maestrect crisis, with interest rates in double figures and unemployment figures in the millions?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.[/p][/quote]fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you. I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in. you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.[/p][/quote]THANK YOU. At long last you have given an answer. What a pity you cannot grasp the fact that banking is a competitive business, and British banking had to change to compete Internationally. Banks in one country lend to banks in other countries, and despite your beloved Tories coming to power, BRITISH BANKS ARE STILL LENDING TO AMERICAN BANKS AND VICE VERSA. Let me give you an example that you may possibly understand. You need money for some project you want to complete, so being a pal of yours, and thinking that you are a good risk, I mortgage my house and lend you the money, and you promise to pay me better interest than the I would get in the building society. Despite your best efforts, you are let down by contractors, lose your money and are declared bankrupt. What happens to me? I lent money, in good faith, to a friend who had a good business track record? I lose out, and need to take some prompt action to ensure that my family have a place to live. British banks had large investments in American banks that failed, Other countries' banks also invested as did other American banks. British banks were Not alone. That is why it is an International crisis. Everyone can be wise after the event - even the American banking system, which was primarily responsible. I know that you will not accept the explanation because it happened during a period when Labour were in power. I wonder what your excuse was when, under Thatcher, we had the Maestrect crisis, with interest rates in double figures and unemployment figures in the millions? Linesman
  • Score: 2

9:14am Sat 25 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.
fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you.
I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in.
you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.
THANK YOU.

At long last you have given an answer.

What a pity you cannot grasp the fact that banking is a competitive business, and British banking had to change to compete Internationally.

Banks in one country lend to banks in other countries, and despite your beloved Tories coming to power, BRITISH BANKS ARE STILL LENDING TO AMERICAN BANKS AND VICE VERSA.

Let me give you an example that you may possibly understand.

You need money for some project you want to complete, so being a pal of yours, and thinking that you are a good risk, I mortgage my house and lend you the money, and you promise to pay me better interest than the I would get in the building society.

Despite your best efforts, you are let down by contractors, lose your money and are declared bankrupt.

What happens to me? I lent money, in good faith, to a friend who had a good business track record?

I lose out, and need to take some prompt action to ensure that my family have a place to live.

British banks had large investments in American banks that failed, Other countries' banks also invested as did other American banks.

British banks were Not alone. That is why it is an International crisis.

Everyone can be wise after the event - even the American banking system, which was primarily responsible.

I know that you will not accept the explanation because it happened during a period when Labour were in power.

I wonder what your excuse was when, under Thatcher, we had the Maestrect crisis, with interest rates in double figures and unemployment figures in the millions?
again you seem to think it was nothing what so ever to do with the labour government yet they have admitted it was partly down to them.
i know about international banking I also know our banks weren't into the American mortgage scene until Brown relaxed/done away with the regulations controlling the banks.
So yes I blame Labour for the mess we're in they ordered two aircraft carriers at a time when we couldn't afford them & we had a decent working one with years left in it.
we had to scrap that one we can't afford to use the new ones to pull out of buying them would have been dearer than buying them & why? so Labour could cling to power?
Look at how large the debt is & how much it took to bail out the banks?
a big chunk of the debt was down to Labour trying to buy it's way to stay in power,
Now with the economy in recovery unemployment down lower than when Labour lost power & looking as if we can sell our shares in the banks at a profit Ed milliband tries to scupper the paying off of some of the debt by saying he'll break up the banks WELL DONE MILLIBAND!
it's a debt which we need to lower but it wouldn't do his election chances any good if the Government showed it's policies were working & there was light at the end of the tunnel really shows a caring Labour Party doesn't it?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.[/p][/quote]fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you. I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in. you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.[/p][/quote]THANK YOU. At long last you have given an answer. What a pity you cannot grasp the fact that banking is a competitive business, and British banking had to change to compete Internationally. Banks in one country lend to banks in other countries, and despite your beloved Tories coming to power, BRITISH BANKS ARE STILL LENDING TO AMERICAN BANKS AND VICE VERSA. Let me give you an example that you may possibly understand. You need money for some project you want to complete, so being a pal of yours, and thinking that you are a good risk, I mortgage my house and lend you the money, and you promise to pay me better interest than the I would get in the building society. Despite your best efforts, you are let down by contractors, lose your money and are declared bankrupt. What happens to me? I lent money, in good faith, to a friend who had a good business track record? I lose out, and need to take some prompt action to ensure that my family have a place to live. British banks had large investments in American banks that failed, Other countries' banks also invested as did other American banks. British banks were Not alone. That is why it is an International crisis. Everyone can be wise after the event - even the American banking system, which was primarily responsible. I know that you will not accept the explanation because it happened during a period when Labour were in power. I wonder what your excuse was when, under Thatcher, we had the Maestrect crisis, with interest rates in double figures and unemployment figures in the millions?[/p][/quote]again you seem to think it was nothing what so ever to do with the labour government yet they have admitted it was partly down to them. i know about international banking I also know our banks weren't into the American mortgage scene until Brown relaxed/done away with the regulations controlling the banks. So yes I blame Labour for the mess we're in they ordered two aircraft carriers at a time when we couldn't afford them & we had a decent working one with years left in it. we had to scrap that one we can't afford to use the new ones to pull out of buying them would have been dearer than buying them & why? so Labour could cling to power? Look at how large the debt is & how much it took to bail out the banks? a big chunk of the debt was down to Labour trying to buy it's way to stay in power, Now with the economy in recovery unemployment down lower than when Labour lost power & looking as if we can sell our shares in the banks at a profit Ed milliband tries to scupper the paying off of some of the debt by saying he'll break up the banks WELL DONE MILLIBAND! it's a debt which we need to lower but it wouldn't do his election chances any good if the Government showed it's policies were working & there was light at the end of the tunnel really shows a caring Labour Party doesn't it? loosehead
  • Score: -2

11:06am Sat 25 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.
fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you.
I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in.
you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.
THANK YOU.

At long last you have given an answer.

What a pity you cannot grasp the fact that banking is a competitive business, and British banking had to change to compete Internationally.

Banks in one country lend to banks in other countries, and despite your beloved Tories coming to power, BRITISH BANKS ARE STILL LENDING TO AMERICAN BANKS AND VICE VERSA.

Let me give you an example that you may possibly understand.

You need money for some project you want to complete, so being a pal of yours, and thinking that you are a good risk, I mortgage my house and lend you the money, and you promise to pay me better interest than the I would get in the building society.

Despite your best efforts, you are let down by contractors, lose your money and are declared bankrupt.

What happens to me? I lent money, in good faith, to a friend who had a good business track record?

I lose out, and need to take some prompt action to ensure that my family have a place to live.

British banks had large investments in American banks that failed, Other countries' banks also invested as did other American banks.

British banks were Not alone. That is why it is an International crisis.

Everyone can be wise after the event - even the American banking system, which was primarily responsible.

I know that you will not accept the explanation because it happened during a period when Labour were in power.

I wonder what your excuse was when, under Thatcher, we had the Maestrect crisis, with interest rates in double figures and unemployment figures in the millions?
again you seem to think it was nothing what so ever to do with the labour government yet they have admitted it was partly down to them.
i know about international banking I also know our banks weren't into the American mortgage scene until Brown relaxed/done away with the regulations controlling the banks.
So yes I blame Labour for the mess we're in they ordered two aircraft carriers at a time when we couldn't afford them & we had a decent working one with years left in it.
we had to scrap that one we can't afford to use the new ones to pull out of buying them would have been dearer than buying them & why? so Labour could cling to power?
Look at how large the debt is & how much it took to bail out the banks?
a big chunk of the debt was down to Labour trying to buy it's way to stay in power,
Now with the economy in recovery unemployment down lower than when Labour lost power & looking as if we can sell our shares in the banks at a profit Ed milliband tries to scupper the paying off of some of the debt by saying he'll break up the banks WELL DONE MILLIBAND!
it's a debt which we need to lower but it wouldn't do his election chances any good if the Government showed it's policies were working & there was light at the end of the tunnel really shows a caring Labour Party doesn't it?
The aircraft carriers were ordered after a review of what was needed and the cost involved.
The specifications were agreed and the contracts signed.
Your beloved Tory-led government changed the specifications, which broke the terms of the contract that had been agreed, leading to a massive cost increase.

The original specification was for them to carry VTL aircraft but your beloved Tory-led government wanted a catapult system fitted so that they could carry the fixed winged aircraft THAT WE HAVE NOT GOT!

Your beloved Tory-led government came in, sold off our VTL aircraft to the Americans, leaving our current carriers with just helicopters.

And you support this bunch of incompetents?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.[/p][/quote]fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you. I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in. you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.[/p][/quote]THANK YOU. At long last you have given an answer. What a pity you cannot grasp the fact that banking is a competitive business, and British banking had to change to compete Internationally. Banks in one country lend to banks in other countries, and despite your beloved Tories coming to power, BRITISH BANKS ARE STILL LENDING TO AMERICAN BANKS AND VICE VERSA. Let me give you an example that you may possibly understand. You need money for some project you want to complete, so being a pal of yours, and thinking that you are a good risk, I mortgage my house and lend you the money, and you promise to pay me better interest than the I would get in the building society. Despite your best efforts, you are let down by contractors, lose your money and are declared bankrupt. What happens to me? I lent money, in good faith, to a friend who had a good business track record? I lose out, and need to take some prompt action to ensure that my family have a place to live. British banks had large investments in American banks that failed, Other countries' banks also invested as did other American banks. British banks were Not alone. That is why it is an International crisis. Everyone can be wise after the event - even the American banking system, which was primarily responsible. I know that you will not accept the explanation because it happened during a period when Labour were in power. I wonder what your excuse was when, under Thatcher, we had the Maestrect crisis, with interest rates in double figures and unemployment figures in the millions?[/p][/quote]again you seem to think it was nothing what so ever to do with the labour government yet they have admitted it was partly down to them. i know about international banking I also know our banks weren't into the American mortgage scene until Brown relaxed/done away with the regulations controlling the banks. So yes I blame Labour for the mess we're in they ordered two aircraft carriers at a time when we couldn't afford them & we had a decent working one with years left in it. we had to scrap that one we can't afford to use the new ones to pull out of buying them would have been dearer than buying them & why? so Labour could cling to power? Look at how large the debt is & how much it took to bail out the banks? a big chunk of the debt was down to Labour trying to buy it's way to stay in power, Now with the economy in recovery unemployment down lower than when Labour lost power & looking as if we can sell our shares in the banks at a profit Ed milliband tries to scupper the paying off of some of the debt by saying he'll break up the banks WELL DONE MILLIBAND! it's a debt which we need to lower but it wouldn't do his election chances any good if the Government showed it's policies were working & there was light at the end of the tunnel really shows a caring Labour Party doesn't it?[/p][/quote]The aircraft carriers were ordered after a review of what was needed and the cost involved. The specifications were agreed and the contracts signed. Your beloved Tory-led government changed the specifications, which broke the terms of the contract that had been agreed, leading to a massive cost increase. The original specification was for them to carry VTL aircraft but your beloved Tory-led government wanted a catapult system fitted so that they could carry the fixed winged aircraft THAT WE HAVE NOT GOT! Your beloved Tory-led government came in, sold off our VTL aircraft to the Americans, leaving our current carriers with just helicopters. And you support this bunch of incompetents? Linesman
  • Score: 2

11:07am Sat 25 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.
fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you.
I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in.
you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.
People who keep banging their head against a brick wall invariably suffer brain damage.

I am glad that it is not one of my habits, but it does explain a lot.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.[/p][/quote]fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you. I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in. you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.[/p][/quote]People who keep banging their head against a brick wall invariably suffer brain damage. I am glad that it is not one of my habits, but it does explain a lot. Linesman
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Sat 25 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.
fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you.
I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in.
you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.
THANK YOU.

At long last you have given an answer.

What a pity you cannot grasp the fact that banking is a competitive business, and British banking had to change to compete Internationally.

Banks in one country lend to banks in other countries, and despite your beloved Tories coming to power, BRITISH BANKS ARE STILL LENDING TO AMERICAN BANKS AND VICE VERSA.

Let me give you an example that you may possibly understand.

You need money for some project you want to complete, so being a pal of yours, and thinking that you are a good risk, I mortgage my house and lend you the money, and you promise to pay me better interest than the I would get in the building society.

Despite your best efforts, you are let down by contractors, lose your money and are declared bankrupt.

What happens to me? I lent money, in good faith, to a friend who had a good business track record?

I lose out, and need to take some prompt action to ensure that my family have a place to live.

British banks had large investments in American banks that failed, Other countries' banks also invested as did other American banks.

British banks were Not alone. That is why it is an International crisis.

Everyone can be wise after the event - even the American banking system, which was primarily responsible.

I know that you will not accept the explanation because it happened during a period when Labour were in power.

I wonder what your excuse was when, under Thatcher, we had the Maestrect crisis, with interest rates in double figures and unemployment figures in the millions?
again you seem to think it was nothing what so ever to do with the labour government yet they have admitted it was partly down to them.
i know about international banking I also know our banks weren't into the American mortgage scene until Brown relaxed/done away with the regulations controlling the banks.
So yes I blame Labour for the mess we're in they ordered two aircraft carriers at a time when we couldn't afford them & we had a decent working one with years left in it.
we had to scrap that one we can't afford to use the new ones to pull out of buying them would have been dearer than buying them & why? so Labour could cling to power?
Look at how large the debt is & how much it took to bail out the banks?
a big chunk of the debt was down to Labour trying to buy it's way to stay in power,
Now with the economy in recovery unemployment down lower than when Labour lost power & looking as if we can sell our shares in the banks at a profit Ed milliband tries to scupper the paying off of some of the debt by saying he'll break up the banks WELL DONE MILLIBAND!
it's a debt which we need to lower but it wouldn't do his election chances any good if the Government showed it's policies were working & there was light at the end of the tunnel really shows a caring Labour Party doesn't it?
The aircraft carriers were ordered after a review of what was needed and the cost involved.
The specifications were agreed and the contracts signed.
Your beloved Tory-led government changed the specifications, which broke the terms of the contract that had been agreed, leading to a massive cost increase.

The original specification was for them to carry VTL aircraft but your beloved Tory-led government wanted a catapult system fitted so that they could carry the fixed winged aircraft THAT WE HAVE NOT GOT!

Your beloved Tory-led government came in, sold off our VTL aircraft to the Americans, leaving our current carriers with just helicopters.

And you support this bunch of incompetents?
absolute rubbish these were ordered with ridiculous get out clauses to try to win votes
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.[/p][/quote]fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you. I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in. you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.[/p][/quote]THANK YOU. At long last you have given an answer. What a pity you cannot grasp the fact that banking is a competitive business, and British banking had to change to compete Internationally. Banks in one country lend to banks in other countries, and despite your beloved Tories coming to power, BRITISH BANKS ARE STILL LENDING TO AMERICAN BANKS AND VICE VERSA. Let me give you an example that you may possibly understand. You need money for some project you want to complete, so being a pal of yours, and thinking that you are a good risk, I mortgage my house and lend you the money, and you promise to pay me better interest than the I would get in the building society. Despite your best efforts, you are let down by contractors, lose your money and are declared bankrupt. What happens to me? I lent money, in good faith, to a friend who had a good business track record? I lose out, and need to take some prompt action to ensure that my family have a place to live. British banks had large investments in American banks that failed, Other countries' banks also invested as did other American banks. British banks were Not alone. That is why it is an International crisis. Everyone can be wise after the event - even the American banking system, which was primarily responsible. I know that you will not accept the explanation because it happened during a period when Labour were in power. I wonder what your excuse was when, under Thatcher, we had the Maestrect crisis, with interest rates in double figures and unemployment figures in the millions?[/p][/quote]again you seem to think it was nothing what so ever to do with the labour government yet they have admitted it was partly down to them. i know about international banking I also know our banks weren't into the American mortgage scene until Brown relaxed/done away with the regulations controlling the banks. So yes I blame Labour for the mess we're in they ordered two aircraft carriers at a time when we couldn't afford them & we had a decent working one with years left in it. we had to scrap that one we can't afford to use the new ones to pull out of buying them would have been dearer than buying them & why? so Labour could cling to power? Look at how large the debt is & how much it took to bail out the banks? a big chunk of the debt was down to Labour trying to buy it's way to stay in power, Now with the economy in recovery unemployment down lower than when Labour lost power & looking as if we can sell our shares in the banks at a profit Ed milliband tries to scupper the paying off of some of the debt by saying he'll break up the banks WELL DONE MILLIBAND! it's a debt which we need to lower but it wouldn't do his election chances any good if the Government showed it's policies were working & there was light at the end of the tunnel really shows a caring Labour Party doesn't it?[/p][/quote]The aircraft carriers were ordered after a review of what was needed and the cost involved. The specifications were agreed and the contracts signed. Your beloved Tory-led government changed the specifications, which broke the terms of the contract that had been agreed, leading to a massive cost increase. The original specification was for them to carry VTL aircraft but your beloved Tory-led government wanted a catapult system fitted so that they could carry the fixed winged aircraft THAT WE HAVE NOT GOT! Your beloved Tory-led government came in, sold off our VTL aircraft to the Americans, leaving our current carriers with just helicopters. And you support this bunch of incompetents?[/p][/quote]absolute rubbish these were ordered with ridiculous get out clauses to try to win votes loosehead
  • Score: -2

3:38pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.
fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you.
I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in.
you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.
THANK YOU.

At long last you have given an answer.

What a pity you cannot grasp the fact that banking is a competitive business, and British banking had to change to compete Internationally.

Banks in one country lend to banks in other countries, and despite your beloved Tories coming to power, BRITISH BANKS ARE STILL LENDING TO AMERICAN BANKS AND VICE VERSA.

Let me give you an example that you may possibly understand.

You need money for some project you want to complete, so being a pal of yours, and thinking that you are a good risk, I mortgage my house and lend you the money, and you promise to pay me better interest than the I would get in the building society.

Despite your best efforts, you are let down by contractors, lose your money and are declared bankrupt.

What happens to me? I lent money, in good faith, to a friend who had a good business track record?

I lose out, and need to take some prompt action to ensure that my family have a place to live.

British banks had large investments in American banks that failed, Other countries' banks also invested as did other American banks.

British banks were Not alone. That is why it is an International crisis.

Everyone can be wise after the event - even the American banking system, which was primarily responsible.

I know that you will not accept the explanation because it happened during a period when Labour were in power.

I wonder what your excuse was when, under Thatcher, we had the Maestrect crisis, with interest rates in double figures and unemployment figures in the millions?
again you seem to think it was nothing what so ever to do with the labour government yet they have admitted it was partly down to them.
i know about international banking I also know our banks weren't into the American mortgage scene until Brown relaxed/done away with the regulations controlling the banks.
So yes I blame Labour for the mess we're in they ordered two aircraft carriers at a time when we couldn't afford them & we had a decent working one with years left in it.
we had to scrap that one we can't afford to use the new ones to pull out of buying them would have been dearer than buying them & why? so Labour could cling to power?
Look at how large the debt is & how much it took to bail out the banks?
a big chunk of the debt was down to Labour trying to buy it's way to stay in power,
Now with the economy in recovery unemployment down lower than when Labour lost power & looking as if we can sell our shares in the banks at a profit Ed milliband tries to scupper the paying off of some of the debt by saying he'll break up the banks WELL DONE MILLIBAND!
it's a debt which we need to lower but it wouldn't do his election chances any good if the Government showed it's policies were working & there was light at the end of the tunnel really shows a caring Labour Party doesn't it?
The aircraft carriers were ordered after a review of what was needed and the cost involved.
The specifications were agreed and the contracts signed.
Your beloved Tory-led government changed the specifications, which broke the terms of the contract that had been agreed, leading to a massive cost increase.

The original specification was for them to carry VTL aircraft but your beloved Tory-led government wanted a catapult system fitted so that they could carry the fixed winged aircraft THAT WE HAVE NOT GOT!

Your beloved Tory-led government came in, sold off our VTL aircraft to the Americans, leaving our current carriers with just helicopters.

And you support this bunch of incompetents?
absolute rubbish these were ordered with ridiculous get out clauses to try to win votes
Are you claiming that your beloved Tory-led government did not change the specifications?

Are you saying that your beloved Tory-led government did not sell the vVTLs to America?

Are you saying that the change in specification ordered by your beloved Tory-led government has not let to the increase in cost of these carriers?

If you are, then you really must stop banging your head against the wall.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: No response from loosehead. Perhaps old age has caught up with him.[/p][/quote]fed up banging my head against a brick wall trying to get through to you so please carry on this debate( one sided) in your head & eventually you might agree with you. I just know your wrong & it's now a historical fact lLabour was partially to blame for the mess we're in. you know & I know there was no alternative but to bail out the banks what was so wrong was the way Labour spent money to win votes as this debt far out weighed the bank bail out.[/p][/quote]THANK YOU. At long last you have given an answer. What a pity you cannot grasp the fact that banking is a competitive business, and British banking had to change to compete Internationally. Banks in one country lend to banks in other countries, and despite your beloved Tories coming to power, BRITISH BANKS ARE STILL LENDING TO AMERICAN BANKS AND VICE VERSA. Let me give you an example that you may possibly understand. You need money for some project you want to complete, so being a pal of yours, and thinking that you are a good risk, I mortgage my house and lend you the money, and you promise to pay me better interest than the I would get in the building society. Despite your best efforts, you are let down by contractors, lose your money and are declared bankrupt. What happens to me? I lent money, in good faith, to a friend who had a good business track record? I lose out, and need to take some prompt action to ensure that my family have a place to live. British banks had large investments in American banks that failed, Other countries' banks also invested as did other American banks. British banks were Not alone. That is why it is an International crisis. Everyone can be wise after the event - even the American banking system, which was primarily responsible. I know that you will not accept the explanation because it happened during a period when Labour were in power. I wonder what your excuse was when, under Thatcher, we had the Maestrect crisis, with interest rates in double figures and unemployment figures in the millions?[/p][/quote]again you seem to think it was nothing what so ever to do with the labour government yet they have admitted it was partly down to them. i know about international banking I also know our banks weren't into the American mortgage scene until Brown relaxed/done away with the regulations controlling the banks. So yes I blame Labour for the mess we're in they ordered two aircraft carriers at a time when we couldn't afford them & we had a decent working one with years left in it. we had to scrap that one we can't afford to use the new ones to pull out of buying them would have been dearer than buying them & why? so Labour could cling to power? Look at how large the debt is & how much it took to bail out the banks? a big chunk of the debt was down to Labour trying to buy it's way to stay in power, Now with the economy in recovery unemployment down lower than when Labour lost power & looking as if we can sell our shares in the banks at a profit Ed milliband tries to scupper the paying off of some of the debt by saying he'll break up the banks WELL DONE MILLIBAND! it's a debt which we need to lower but it wouldn't do his election chances any good if the Government showed it's policies were working & there was light at the end of the tunnel really shows a caring Labour Party doesn't it?[/p][/quote]The aircraft carriers were ordered after a review of what was needed and the cost involved. The specifications were agreed and the contracts signed. Your beloved Tory-led government changed the specifications, which broke the terms of the contract that had been agreed, leading to a massive cost increase. The original specification was for them to carry VTL aircraft but your beloved Tory-led government wanted a catapult system fitted so that they could carry the fixed winged aircraft THAT WE HAVE NOT GOT! Your beloved Tory-led government came in, sold off our VTL aircraft to the Americans, leaving our current carriers with just helicopters. And you support this bunch of incompetents?[/p][/quote]absolute rubbish these were ordered with ridiculous get out clauses to try to win votes[/p][/quote]Are you claiming that your beloved Tory-led government did not change the specifications? Are you saying that your beloved Tory-led government did not sell the vVTLs to America? Are you saying that the change in specification ordered by your beloved Tory-led government has not let to the increase in cost of these carriers? If you are, then you really must stop banging your head against the wall. Linesman
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree