Cameron responsible for recent weather!

[Firemouth]

great comment there D 8 RCS.

but, personally, i think there are far more good MP's than we give credit for.
its the system that's fcuked. it was only ever designed to help those at the top and those who sit in the house.
after all, when it was set up, the common man didn't even have a vote never mind his wife.
the common man (Joe Bloggs) had only one job. to keep those at the top, at the top, by the sweat of their toils.

thing is, unless you are "politically active" how the hell is your MP going to know what you want.
even the good ones aren't clairvoyant. I know this looks a flippant remark, but that makes it no less true all the same.

if the only activists are the loon's of the left or right, its hardly surprising you MP seems out of touch.
the only way to change things is to be active (even in a small way)

And that's how we can reclaim or rights in the House.
as with all things, the only way to change it, is to get in there and do it.

And YES we CAN. its a cop out to deny that. imho

 

[D 8 RCS]

Absolutely spot on @Firemouth the only part of what you have said that I would nit pick at would be "the only way to change things is to be active (even in a small way)" because I think that unless you are prepared to invest a lot of time into attending all of the meetings and activities the "Looney Left and Right" merchants will highjack any motions proposed that are not to their liking, so it would require a sizeable group of sensible and like-minded people to attend on a regular basis.
I used to be quite politically active in my younger days and used to despair at some of the tactics used to oppose sensible suggestions and motions moved by some of the more sensible members but who were not "regulars".

 

[segel]

I think you are missing the point.

How so? roud:

 

[dave24]

Didn`t Gordon Brown fail to regulate the banks?

The last Labour government were no angels (and yes in some cases were profligate with our money). but they did not cause the crash that broke the country. and when, in the young oughtys Labour did suggest strengthening banking regulation. the pitiful winging and crying (pitiful because there were so few conservative MP's) of the con's suggesting that that would cause havoc with the banking system and of course the W/Bankers agreed. (well they would. ever met a thief that wants more power for the police?)
So they did as the conservatives/wankers wanted and look what happened, the entire country got shafted. except the banking sector and the stock exchange (fell big but bounced back quickly). who are still in clover whilst the rest of us struggle in shite.

and the prats have the cheek to suggest the Banking crash was caused by lack of regulation by Labour.

They say hind sight is 20-20. which is fortunate. this current government is so replete with manual self gratification, they cant see more than 2 foot forwards.

 

[Firemouth]

Didn`t Gordon Brown fail to regulate the banks?

Only if you consider using the laws set up by Thatcher and Major, Failing to Regulate Banks.
it would be fair to say that, though hindsight makes us wish more action had been taken, his resistance to the Industry and the Con's calls to reduce regulation, avoided a much bigger disaster.

ps. much as I love this discourse, we have strayed way of topic now.

 

[Firemouth]

Absolutely spot on @Firemouth the only part of what you have said that I would nit pick at would be "the only way to change things is to be active (even in a small way)" because I think that unless you are prepared to invest a lot of time into attending all of the meetings and activities the "Looney Left and Right" merchants will highjack any motions proposed that are not to their liking, so it would require a sizeable group of sensible and like-minded people to attend on a regular basis.
I used to be quite politically active in my younger days and used to despair at some of the tactics used to oppose sensible suggestions and motions moved by some of the more sensible members but who were not "regulars".

you see being "active" (to me) doesn't mean diving into party politics.
though I'm cleanly from left of centre, my main political activity is trying to get people to get involved and vote. lets face it, elections recently have been as bad as 30% turnout.
but who they vote for, at this stage, is irrelevant to me..
I'm firmly of the belief that if you don't exercise your franchise, you really have no right to complain.

I mentioned the "tit from Majors front bench". he had a very safe Con seat. but he got his arse spanked in 1997. by a close to 60% rise in the votes cast in his ward. but he got, roughly, the same number of votes he'd got for the last two elections.

AGAIN. much as I love this discourse, we have strayed way of topic now.

 

[Him Her]

Well, may as well wander a little further off given that regulation (or non-regulation) of the banks is time wasted on trivia. No economist knows what will happen while manipulating the variables in a fiat money system. The financial systems are global but have different regulations by country - that's a nonsense.

However, fiat money systems are required to support consumerism, you have to be able to lend more than you have or the system collapses.

So, the banks got the benefits of QE to sort out the big holes in their balance sheets in exchange for tighter controls in lending. One simple outcome was mortgages became harder to come by, those affected who could lobby (house builders, conveyancers etc.) did so and the Government introduced 'help to buy'.

So the Government took on the majority of the risks the banks carried before while the spreading of risk pushed everyone into the last slump except different people held the risk at that time.

Regulation was never the problem, the system is flawed.

 

[Firemouth]

Well, may as well wander a little further off given that regulation (or non-regulation) of the banks is time wasted on trivia. No economist knows what will happen while manipulating the variables in a fiat money system. The financial systems are global but have different regulations by country - that's a nonsense.

However, fiat money systems are required to support consumerism, you have to be able to lend more than you have or the system collapses.

So, the banks got the benefits of QE to sort out the big holes in their balance sheets in exchange for tighter controls in lending. One simple outcome was mortgages became harder to come by, those affected who could lobby (house builders, conveyancers etc.) did so and the Government introduced 'help to buy'.

So the Government took on the majority of the risks the banks carried before while the spreading of risk pushed everyone into the last slump except different people held the risk at that time.

Regulation was never the problem, the system is flawed.

correct me if i'm wrong but you are, for the most part, talking of after the crash.
there was no QE prior to that. or help to buy.

seriously man it was clear to anyone with a brain that the financial situation, at the time, was unsustainable.
and proper regulation of UK based banks would have left the country in a much better state than we actually ended up in.

the clue is in your post.
you need an unsustainable financial system to maintain consumerism.
which is not at all true.
you need an unsustainable financial system to maintain the status quo in this model of a consumerism.

again you don't need to be too bright to work out that if you syphon most off the money created by you consumer
society. the system, over the longer term, is doomed.

 

[eon]

The last Labour government were no angels (and yes in some cases were profligate with our money). but they did not cause the crash that broke the country.

So it wasn't liebour who deregulated the banks allowing them to get in the mess they did? or it wasnt liebour who bailed the banks out with taxpayer money?

 

[Him Her]

correct me if i'm wrong but you are, for the most part, talking of after the crash.
there was no QE prior to that. or help to buy.

seriously man it was clear to anyone with a brain that the financial situation, at the time, was unsustainable.
and proper regulation of UK based banks would have left the country in a much better state than we actually ended up in.

the clue is in your post.
you need an unsustainable financial system to maintain consumerism.
which is not at all true.
you need an unsustainable financial system to maintain the status quo in this model of a consumerism.

again you don't need to be too bright to work out that if you syphon most off the money created by you consumer
society. the system, over the longer term, is doomed.

Nope, the main factors were a general liquidity crisis and the collapse of the sub-prime market in the US. A significant amount of toxic loan debt ended up on many bank balance sheets not just the UK.

However, it arrived 'wrapped' in a form that made it a 'diverse investment' - something that hitherto had been considered conservative and generally low risk. No amount of UK regulation would have stopped this even if it had been addressed, which it wouldn't as it was generally considered 'good practice'.

The liquidity crisis was probably down to global investment banking problems and a good few of them belly-flopped.

So, no UK regulation could, or would, have had any significant impact.

QE was supposed to ease things but it came with provisos, some being tighter lending criteria and a requirement for banks to hold more capital to protect against any future downturns. This 'regulation' eventually forced the 'help to buy' scheme and simply shifted some of the risk from bank to Government.

Sure, regulation in terms of holding higher capital reserves etc. introduced earlier might have reduced the exposure and the extent but it would have been almost impossible to implement. In any case, local regulation of a global system doesn't protect you from a global fook up.

After all, everything was going like a train, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[nara]

So it wasn't liebour who deregulated the banks allowing them to get in the mess they did? or it wasnt liebour who bailed the banks out with taxpayer money?

It's spelt 'labour'

 

[dave24]

I`m sure you know what he means nara

It's spelt 'labour'

 

[eon]

It's spelt 'labour'

I know how its spelt, we have been through this before nara.

 

[Cressi]

UKIP pledges to send homosexual couples to drought affected areas

UKIP has announced a new manifesto policy by offering to send groups of homosexuals to those parts of the world suffering drought, ensuring God sends them the rain they need.

After UKIP councillor David Silvester linked homosexuality to God sending copious amounts of rain to a given region, party leaders have been quick to use the link between gays and the weather to develop a new policy they hope will prove popular.

A UKIP spokesperson explained, “People often say we’re racist and don’t care about foreigners and immigrants, but this policy is aimed at helping them stay where they are, by sending them some homosexual-infused rain.”

“These are some of the most arid places on earth, desperate for a bit of rain that UKIP is happy to help them receive.”

“And this helps both parties – because they get some respite from their drought, and we get to not have them cross our borders whilst also getting to send some homosexuals out of the country.”

“It’s the very definition of win-win which I’m sure will prove popular with our core supporters.”
UKIP pledges drought help

Political analysts say that UKIP may have hit upon a masterstroke, and should see them wrap up the lucrative racist homophobe vote long before the local elections are held in May.

The UKIP spokesperson went on, “We have spent years watching film of drought-ridden African countries and thought to ourselves ‘not my problem mate’ – but now we can help them by sending them gay couples who want to get married.”

“We are calling the ones that want to get married the ‘rain-makers’, and I imagine they would be very welcome in places like Sudan and Ethiopia.”

“so although they are technically an abomination according to the Bible, they clearly have their uses.”

 

[Him Her]

Here, here!

I don't see what right, anybody has, to dictate how others live their lives.
Cameron's morons espouse Marriage (hetro) as the only way for family life.
Fine if that's your choice. But it's YOUR choice, not that of some over privileged dick with a Blue rosette, and no grasp of reality.

I have gay friends, one couple have been together since 1990 (male) another since 1993 (female).
and a more well balanced, honest and happy bunch you could ever have met.

As for discussion of "Gay Marriage" I reiterate, What business is it of ours?
and its certainly not the business of people so unsure of their own sexuality, they fear gays.

one thing does get up my nose. have you ever waited for two dykes to get ready to go out. man that's a mission in itself.:Biggrin2:

Agreed, but, put a massive nail in the coffin of equality though didn't it

 

[nara]

I`m sure you know what he means nara

Of course I do.

I'm just pointing out how childish it is.

 

[Him Her]

UKIP pledges to send homosexual couples to drought affected areas

UKIP has announced a new manifesto policy by offering to send groups of homosexuals to those parts of the world suffering drought, ensuring God sends them the rain they need.

After UKIP councillor David Silvester linked homosexuality to God sending copious amounts of rain to a given region, party leaders have been quick to use the link between gays and the weather to develop a new policy they hope will prove popular.

A UKIP spokesperson explained, “People often say we’re racist and don’t care about foreigners and immigrants, but this policy is aimed at helping them stay where they are, by sending them some homosexual-infused rain.”

“These are some of the most arid places on earth, desperate for a bit of rain that UKIP is happy to help them receive.”

“And this helps both parties – because they get some respite from their drought, and we get to not have them cross our borders whilst also getting to send some homosexuals out of the country.”

“It’s the very definition of win-win which I’m sure will prove popular with our core supporters.”
UKIP pledges drought help

Political analysts say that UKIP may have hit upon a masterstroke, and should see them wrap up the lucrative racist homophobe vote long before the local elections are held in May.

The UKIP spokesperson went on, “We have spent years watching film of drought-ridden African countries and thought to ourselves ‘not my problem mate’ – but now we can help them by sending them gay couples who want to get married.”

“We are calling the ones that want to get married the ‘rain-makers’, and I imagine they would be very welcome in places like Sudan and Ethiopia.”

“so although they are technically an abomination according to the Bible, they clearly have their uses.”

Erm, there's a SERIOUS source? Oh, you're tekking the p*ss lol

 

[Cressi]

moi....? taking the piss ..never...........:licka:

 

[eon]

Of course I do.

I'm just pointing out how childish it is.

What is childish is picking out i spelt it when you know why. Or highlighting every comment i make in one of these threads? take your pick.

 

[Firemouth]

So it wasn't liebour who deregulated the banks allowing them to get in the mess they did? or it wasnt liebour who bailed the banks out with taxpayer money?

No and yes.

honestly man, if you are going to argue a point, shouldn't you know something about it first?
you really need to stop swallowing Tory propaganda whole.
coz even when you regurgitate it, it still makes no sense.


sorry HH i wrote a half page answer to your post on regulation.
as i posted it said "forum busy, try later" but it still dumped everything I'd written. and i simply can't be arsed to do it all again.