ChatterBank8 mins ago
Cameron???
Watching PMQs today, what a Power Shower we have in control now, Cameron and his Clowns, all he can say is I blame the party opposite. Does he not know that he is in power, not labour, he and his cronies have been in power for four and a half years, Fact, Cameron is in charge, Fact, Job Losses ship building at Portsmouth, Fact, Nurses given p45s Fact, armed forces given p45s, fact, Senior managers and Bankers, given six figure redundant pay outs Fact. BYE BYE DAVE 2015 fact. IT is not his fault,It is the party opposite.???
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by hawksley. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@alexanderd
Yes, you're right about the gold. That still bites die-hard Labour voters hard.
Gold prices had been flat for years so the information available to him at the time was that it was going nowhere as an investment and he wanted liquidity for the the latest ideological project.
Worldwide chaos make the gold price skyrocket. None of us have a crystal ball, do we?
I'm old enough to remember "If you see Sid, tell him".
The country's entire gas infrastructure was sold off; every mile of under-street pipe (parts and labour paid for by the state-owned Gas Board(s)) plus all of the reserves under the North Sea - for nothing like what all the hardware assets were really worth.
When you sell something to a pal, you offer 'mates rates', don't you?
I seem to recall British Telecom shares generated headlines like "instant profits, post-privatisation" because the price of those was set too low as well.
Buy in bulk at 60% of true open-market value, offload them a few days later and ordinary mortals happily snap them up but they're at 98+% of true value by then and they barely stand to make any gains at all.
After enough years you get to see the pattern repeating itself and it's easy to become cynical.
The worst part is that I cannot even suggest a decent solution. Lab and Con is no better than flipping the unsavoury sandwich over. Liberals have made some unforgiveable policy decisions and cannot be trusted and the rest are just to dangerous to 'give them a try'.
I would seriously like to see 5 years of temporary monarchy as an election option so we can fire the current lot and hope that they'll be too attached to their higher paid jobs in PR, Finance and Law further down the line and we can have MP's who are happy to do the job for ca. 50k + benefits.
Yes, you're right about the gold. That still bites die-hard Labour voters hard.
Gold prices had been flat for years so the information available to him at the time was that it was going nowhere as an investment and he wanted liquidity for the the latest ideological project.
Worldwide chaos make the gold price skyrocket. None of us have a crystal ball, do we?
I'm old enough to remember "If you see Sid, tell him".
The country's entire gas infrastructure was sold off; every mile of under-street pipe (parts and labour paid for by the state-owned Gas Board(s)) plus all of the reserves under the North Sea - for nothing like what all the hardware assets were really worth.
When you sell something to a pal, you offer 'mates rates', don't you?
I seem to recall British Telecom shares generated headlines like "instant profits, post-privatisation" because the price of those was set too low as well.
Buy in bulk at 60% of true open-market value, offload them a few days later and ordinary mortals happily snap them up but they're at 98+% of true value by then and they barely stand to make any gains at all.
After enough years you get to see the pattern repeating itself and it's easy to become cynical.
The worst part is that I cannot even suggest a decent solution. Lab and Con is no better than flipping the unsavoury sandwich over. Liberals have made some unforgiveable policy decisions and cannot be trusted and the rest are just to dangerous to 'give them a try'.
I would seriously like to see 5 years of temporary monarchy as an election option so we can fire the current lot and hope that they'll be too attached to their higher paid jobs in PR, Finance and Law further down the line and we can have MP's who are happy to do the job for ca. 50k + benefits.
About bankers, all I can say is that if they are like the one I dealt with who refused to risk a loan of £1,000 for a fortnight, against the unlikely risk of effects not being cleared, when I paid in £600,000 a week later, there is no hope for any of us ! Upon seeing this, the Bank was all over me with offers, but the history of my business had included such sums ; that is the nature of it. But common sense goes out of the window (and I didn't, as it turned out, need the £1,000) But I once applied for a commercial mortgage of £300 k and the Bank asked me how much I spent on groceries each week ! I went straight to a business orientated bank who granted it over the phone, but still !
I always doubt people when they use the word 'fact' (I think I recall Jake (real leftie) saying that. Amusing you use the term now!
Fred, you appear to know nothing at all about Bankers. You local branch ro the call centre on the end is the very tip of the iceburg
Nice leftie rant though Hawksley, if they are all like you Dave has nothing to fear.
Fred, you appear to know nothing at all about Bankers. You local branch ro the call centre on the end is the very tip of the iceburg
Nice leftie rant though Hawksley, if they are all like you Dave has nothing to fear.
PMQ's has always been good knockabout stuff, and should never be taken as a gauge for anything much. Long before TV coverage, and the only time I attended in the public gallery, back in the 60's, the then Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan when asked a question replied; "I agree with neither your premise nor your conclusion." and promptly sat down !
Don't know about not knowing anything about bankers, ymf. I gave my examples to illustrate how managers of two of our biggest banks, not call centres, can be completely out of touch with business reality, mainly because such banks don't train them properly and because the banks have centralised policies which have no regard to individual cases.
I'll give another. I have a business with over £2 million in proven fixed assets, property. The bank has a charge of £200k on those assets. It is forever on at me to see whether I , or the business, will reduce the liability by say £75k or, ideally pay it off. Now, my response is always "If I paid it off, after these many years of its existence, what would you do with the money? Lend it to someone else? And then what?" This logic defeats them, and they go away again satisfied that they have done their duty by the bank and the Bank of England. The money is safer with the company than with anyone else.
I'll give another. I have a business with over £2 million in proven fixed assets, property. The bank has a charge of £200k on those assets. It is forever on at me to see whether I , or the business, will reduce the liability by say £75k or, ideally pay it off. Now, my response is always "If I paid it off, after these many years of its existence, what would you do with the money? Lend it to someone else? And then what?" This logic defeats them, and they go away again satisfied that they have done their duty by the bank and the Bank of England. The money is safer with the company than with anyone else.
"Great is the power of steady misrepresentation." (Charles Darwin)
It has long been obvious that some Tory - one of the brighter ones, presumably, to be reading such material - spotted the above quote in 2010. Ever since, any Tory due to appear in front of a news camera has been briefed to refer to "the appalling legacy left to us by the party opposite". The right-wing gutter press have merely reinforced the absurdity. They sound almost brain-dead now.
They never explain how Gordon Brown single-handedly created a WORLD financial crisis. Was he CEO of Lehman Brothers? Did he personally advise Northern Rock to get involved in toxic debt?
These two examples alone show where the real blame lies ...banks! That is also exactly where all the subsequent shenanigans of mis-selling, LIBOR-fixing and so forth still continue regularly to this day.
Where do the Tories get a huge percentage of their funds? You gorrit... casino bankers and venture capitalists! so clearly no element of blame must be laid at their door, must it?
A classic con and no mistake.
It has long been obvious that some Tory - one of the brighter ones, presumably, to be reading such material - spotted the above quote in 2010. Ever since, any Tory due to appear in front of a news camera has been briefed to refer to "the appalling legacy left to us by the party opposite". The right-wing gutter press have merely reinforced the absurdity. They sound almost brain-dead now.
They never explain how Gordon Brown single-handedly created a WORLD financial crisis. Was he CEO of Lehman Brothers? Did he personally advise Northern Rock to get involved in toxic debt?
These two examples alone show where the real blame lies ...banks! That is also exactly where all the subsequent shenanigans of mis-selling, LIBOR-fixing and so forth still continue regularly to this day.
Where do the Tories get a huge percentage of their funds? You gorrit... casino bankers and venture capitalists! so clearly no element of blame must be laid at their door, must it?
A classic con and no mistake.
Craft, sadly i think the electorate are a fickle lot and will probably go Labours way, if so then see what a mess they can make of undoing some of the changes made to the welfare state benefits bill which is enormous, which many seem to think is a good thing, to cut out waste and indeed get spending under control, and inflation down, also a good thing, that will go back up if Labour has a cunning spending plan, money we don't have, but they will conjure it somehow and start their wrecking ball of spend spend spend, one, though not the only the reason we get in such a mess, spending money we don't have. Will they also change the policies on immigration, and any other bill, law or simple idea that the coalition have agreed on. As to smacking the tories at every turn, can you not actually see that not only have they not been in power as long as you seem to think, but it's a coalition with the Lib Dems, who haven't covered themselves in glory whilst hanging on to the coattails of the tories.
As to David Cameron, he usually acquits himself well in the House of Commons, i didn't see what you mention, but have plenty of other times,
your rant is full of inaccuracies, where does it say nurses are given their P45's as to the job losses in Portsmouth, terrible, but was it to appease Alex Salmond?
As to David Cameron, he usually acquits himself well in the House of Commons, i didn't see what you mention, but have plenty of other times,
your rant is full of inaccuracies, where does it say nurses are given their P45's as to the job losses in Portsmouth, terrible, but was it to appease Alex Salmond?
as to funding, well the Unions support the Labour party. and the current stink in Falkirk isn't going away any day soon on vote rigging, nice one that, and Labour do have wealthy donors, they just don't get so much of a kicking as those who donate to the Tories, how are Lib Dems funded?
perhaps its time the funding of parties was scrapped and they find another way to keep themselves in business.
perhaps its time the funding of parties was scrapped and they find another way to keep themselves in business.
-- answer removed --
