Off Topic Political Debate

I personally think they all do things that they shouldn't. Not sure whether one set are worse than the other.

 

I think a lot depends on perspective..... I could introduce us to hundreds of people who honestly believe that the poor are worse off under the Tories.... just as I guess superhorns could introduce us to hundreds of peoples who believe the country is worse off under Labour...

...and so the merry go round goes on....

 

Usual clap trap about the "nasty bankers" - truth is the government had to intervene to make sure there was no run on the retail banks that would have had a huge impact on ordinary people - do you not remember the clips of people queueing outside Northern Rock branches to take their money out? If that had spread to other banks the whole economy would have collapsed. Of course there were some individuals who made fortunes from this and if they have broken the law they should be prosecuted - look at those involved in LIBOR and FOREX scams, they are being prosecuted. But don't forget that Gordon Brown had a far cosier relationship with the Scottish banks than Cameron has...and which banks had the most issues? Fred the Shread ring a bell?

 

100% and it always depends on personal circumstances etc.

 

I am not a politician... but did not the behaviour of bankers directly cause the problems of 2008? Not a labour Govt?? It was worldwide... and did not a labour Govt take responsibility for bailing out the banks??

This situation would have happened whatever Govt was in power... and ditto whatever Govt would have tackled it the way the labour Govt did...

I am not a conspiracy theorist but clearly the banks and their allies had all the power at that time in relation to money markets etc and the Govts very little.

I suggest the price we may for a market forces approach to capitalism

Don't want to fall out with anyone here but that is how I understand it.

 

Respect your belief but think you are confused.
Banks crashed in 2008 - under a Labour Government which rightly had to bail them out to prevent the economic disaster being even worse than it was. As others pointed out the losers could have been everybody with any life savings that would have been lost - see Icelandic banks.
Royal Mail sold off at price thought correct - easy to be expert after the event - and bought mostly by pension funds - which helps most of us who need pensions.
Neither Labour nor Tory have successfully prevented all tax evasion and avoidance but unless you have evidence nobody else does then Tories have tackled it as strongly as anyone else.

Once someone adopts a prejudiced view and makes up their mind it is rare for honesty and facts to get in the way of their cherished opinions. We all do it. However ask your self why on Earth Cameron would risk everything to "help a few rich cronies" It makes no sense at all. These are just Labour and the far left propaganda and lies - people who decry the Sun and Mail happily fall for the rubbish spouted by other rags such as the Mirror.

Cameron is just another journeyman politician who tries to do his best according to his beliefs to make the country a better place. I find it sad that people cannot believe that - you don't have to think his actions are right and the best but why do we always have to suggest that because their opinions are different to ours they are corrupt?

 

Irresponsible banking did cause the worldwide crisis and Brown performed surprisingly well to avert even worse damage to the UK. He had no alternative to bailing out the banks.

Where the Labour government were at fault was the excessive spending during the good years and particularly the damage done by financing public infrastructure projects using badly negotiated PFI schemes. The government also operated an open door policy to immigration. The sight of Peter Mandleson rushing around the country donating our borrowed money to failing companies to solicit votes was a very low point.

It is no surprise the electorate do not accept that the Labour Party has sufficient credibility regarding financial management of the UK.
In addition the present list of mediocre leadership prospective candidates will not change this perspective.

 

Yorkie, I believe the answer is yes and no...the financial crash (caused by some people in the finance sector packaging and reselling toxic debt in a crazy mass Ponzi scheme) created a shortage of credit which massively impacted a government that had borrowed massively on the back of cheap credit to fund it's schemes on the back of an economy based on credit. When the banks pulled their credit lines in to limit their risks, the government where screwed. If most of us had the been the government in that situation what would we have done? Personally I have used this era of low interest rates to reduce my debts and invest in long term savings - so basically pay off the mortgage and stuff my pension pot.
Whilst we have this polarisation of either it's all the bankers (and their nasty Tory mates) faults or the Labour government for spunking all of the countries monies on their vote winning schemes, we never learn the mistakes of the past.

 

Agree to all above. I'm sure there are many sincere and decent MP's throughout all of the UK's political parties, I'm sure we have the best in the world.

Ironically Labour had more MP's caught fiddling expenses than other parties. Unfortunately the access and lobbying process will still produce 'stings' unless the rules are tightened further.

 

To a large extent the banks here were not caught out in the same way as in the UK because they operate on a different set of principles. However not is all well with them either, as it has emerged that they have lent huge sums to countries such as Greece. Cheap credit is unknown here, private pensions are not popular because the government is responsible for them and so much more.

On my travels over the past couple of weeks it has been clear that government spending is still going on apace with lots of expensive road and rail improvement schemes. We have some of the most fabulous roundabouts to be seen anywhere, yet companies that could earn the money to pay for it all are still closing down.

The major schemes have boards up to tell you how they are financed. Every time you see that the EU has chipped in, yet while the UK could apply for similar funds for a reason I do not understand they are very slow to do so.

 

I... think... I get it ....

Interestingly I agree re personal finances... and the message is very clear in my family.. except sadly mlle yorkie... who is on a spend spend spend approach to life....

 

[QUOTE="Leonardo, post: 8009489, member: 1000493"
Cameron is just another journeyman politician who tries to do his best according to his beliefs to make the country a better place. I find it sad that people cannot believe that - you don't have to think his actions are right and the best but why do we always have to suggest that because their opinions are different to ours they are corrupt?[/QUOTE]

Personally speaking, my thoughts on his corruption - or, to be more precise, the Conservative Party's corruption - are nothing whatsoever to do with differing opinions. They are all to do with links to the HSBC - perpetrators of the biggest banking fraud this country has seen, fraud that Cameron's government have been totally aware of, yet unwilling to act against, and a fraud in which some of those who have been complicit have been welcomed with open arms into Cameron's inner circle. HSBC - the bank of choice for tax cheats, drug cartels, organised crime and terrorist organisations - trading with impunity in this country under the watchful eye of the Tory government.

 

HSBC has been investigated and fined by countries all over the world. America and Europe both have found their practices to be dubious going back long before the current and previous government came to power. They are currently being investigated over their connections with FIFA which I suppose is all Camerons fault.

 

Personally speaking, my thoughts on his corruption - or, to be more precise, the Conservative Party's corruption - are nothing whatsoever to do with differing opinions. They are all to do with links to the HSBC - perpetrators of the biggest banking fraud this country has seen, fraud that Cameron's government have been totally aware of, yet unwilling to act against, and a fraud in which some of those who have been complicit have been welcomed with open arms into Cameron's inner circle. HSBC - the bank of choice for tax cheats, drug cartels, organised crime and terrorist organisations - trading with impunity in this country under the watchful eye of the Tory government.[/QUOTE]

You seem to be desperate to find any excuse to reinforce your preconceived views on the Conservatives. I suppose it fills a gap until the footy starts again!!

 

It may well be, thanks for pointing that out.

I've never actually said that any of this was Cameron's fault - merely that he is complicit. The fact that HSBC has been investigated, and found to be corrupt and fraudulent, by other countries long before this government came to power is irrelevant - other than it raises the question as to why this hasn't happened in this country yet. The answer to which is out there if you care to look for it - corruption in high office.

 

If you are looking into dubious practice in high places why not take a look at the building of the Scottish Parliament Building. Estimated cost between £10 and £40 million. Actual cost £414 million. Annual maintenance costs now up to £1.7 million. Politicians ego can be very expensive and it is the taxpayers who are expected to fund it. Just what does this building earn for the country? At least HSBC are paying billions into the UK economy by way of bank levy and corporation tax.

 

The UK is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Your imagination is getting the better of you.

 

Why single out HSBC - except perhaps to say that they are the worst of a bad bunch? RBS, LLoyds, Barclays - all of them were given licence to carry out at best dubious practices - enough to make the like of the bank in Mary Poppins to turn in their grave.
Why pick on Cameron to smear him alongside the banks when it is clear that worldwide the banks have been rubbish and he has been no better nor worse than others. Labour were in power from 1997 to 2010 when most of the stupid, greedy lending and passing on of toxic debt was taking place - do you not feel they have to be just as "guilty" as Cameron for failure to act responsibly.
This is my point - you simply pick on the person / party you loathe indiscriminately to blame them when you could have levelled your allegations against any. Have you forgotten the LibDems were in coalition - was Danny Alexander at the Treasury or not?
Yet you smear Cameron in a loose association with the deliberate acts of FIFA who have run a bribery and corruption ring. Cameron has done no such thing. Like him or loathe him - but keep your criticism to fact

 

I think you would need to provide some evidence of this - it may be what you want to believe rather than the reality. Transparency International produces a league table every year called 'Corruption Perceptions Index'. According to them the UK is the 14th least corrupt nation in the World. The list for 2014 is as follows.
1. Denmark
2. New Zealand
3. Finland
4. Sweden
5= Norway
5= Switzerland
7. Singapore
8. Netherlands
9. Luxembourg
10. Canada
11. Australia
12= Germany
12= Iceland
14. United Kingdom

 

It would be interesting to know if the offshore islands are included in the UK figures for that index, because if they are, it's likely to have raised it's position if inspections by various regulatory authorities have been counted. Jersey has been inspected more than anywhere else in the world and has been cleared every time since the banking crisis happened.