Barclays

[Brian Kirby]

Syd - 2012-07-06 8:02 AM

 

 

Well I agree Brian except maybe for PFI

PFI, I think was not a BAD idea really in that it did give us the schools and hospitals etc that we could not afford at the time but the fault lies with the negotiators who were far far too nieve/generous/gullabul when negotiating with the sharks of industry who were much much sharper than both the government and the civil servants.

Probably Syd, but the die was cast with the first few. They were a new idea, and everyone was nervous about possible outcomes. So, everyone involved loaded the price to compensate for what they foresaw as the risks. There was no mechanism for claiming additional cost, so whatever went wrong during construction, the consortium owned the risk.

 

Usually, when a building is commissioned, that risk lies with the developer. Here, it was passed on to the financiers, and through them the whole construction team. Each erected his safety wall. Then, being 30 year agreements, the financiers had to weigh up the prospects of governments being willing to go on paying, come what may. Another risk.

 

When everyone is nervous of the risks, everyone "ups the ante" to compensate, and the price goes through the roof.

 

Governments have tried to park construction risk back onto builders for years, and the inevitable result has been increasing cost, as contractors have priced in the risks. The simple truth is that what worries people before the event is seldom what happens in the event, and the outcome after the event is seldom as bad as was imagined.

 

So, the government wanted to finance buildings in that way, and were told how much it would cost. If they didn't like it, they didn't get the building. There was no chance of inter-consortium competition, because the whole tendering exercise was so costly no-one would tender in competition unless the loser's costs were met - adding to the present cost. Having once done a few, the cost outline was established, the bankers and builders saw them as highly lucrative, and were uninclined to shave their costs by more than a gnats whisker. It works, but it is IMO by far the most expensive means of construction procurement ever invented.

 

Government had already agreed to rent office accommodation in preference to building it, because they wished to avoid the initial construction costs, and their attendant risks. Instead, they now pay commercial rents, which are generally revised every 5 years of a 25 year lease, generally with an upward only clause, the tenant being responsible for all repairs, and for returning the building to original condition on vacation. It only makes sense to do this if your sole objective is not to spend capital.

 

So, broadly, with PFI. You can't rent a prison or a school from a developer, because they don't build them. So, you got the main players to set up a single project development company under PFI, and then rented from them. The argument is that government income broadly rises with inflation, as do rents, so the year on year cost over the term of the lease is constant. However, it was never the case that we could not afford these projects. Thathcher simply embargoed spending on government buildings, including their maintenance. The buildings deteriorated to the point at which replacement became a cheaper option, with added advantages, that refurbishment. So, wholesale replacement became a virtual necessity. PFI was, I think, trialled under Major, but when Labour got in they seem to have seen it as a money tree, with all costs safely in the future, and the kudos to be gained now. It became the default preference for buying almost everything, was used without due consideration, and the future costs are astronomical, which is why some in government are now muttering about trying to re-negotiate some of the deals. So, those bankers were no so stupid after all, in identifying one of the risks to their income as fickle governments.

 

Me? I'd sooner have the mortgage on the house I bought 20 years ago than pay a landlord todays rent. But what do I know?

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2012-07-06 11:14 AM

So everything would be decided by people who are computer literate then ?

 

Sounds a bit elitist to me.

 

 

:-(

 

Yep :D.................Us old f*rts would be ruled by the kids (lol)

[pkc]

Brian Kirby - 2012-07-06 12:27 AM

 

No spears from me Dave, because that is all true enough.

 

To me, the culpability of Thatcher lies in your last sentences: "As other countries have suffered the same fate again I cannot see how Thatcher can be held responsible for the global mess. As for the Building Societies, they all were owned by the members, the general public who all voted cheerfully for a quick gain from the conversion. The Societies could not have done this without the support of the public and ‘carpetbagging’ became a bit of an issue. Joe Public is as greedy as anyone else in this world."

 

Again, all true, but all also a consequence of short-sightedness in pursuit of short-term political popularity, or narrow self-interest. I take no comfort from the undeniable fact that others have been as foolish. That still leaves us as fools. How much better it would be if others had been foolish, and we had not.

 

Naive idiot that I am, I expect governments to be wiser and more far-sighted than the masses. I even expect governments to act against the foolish short-term instincts of the feckless, and at act prevent their fecklessness. It should be remembered that a number of building societies were de-mutualised by a smallish group of individuals who forced the issue at general meetings and then forced votes, purely for their own personal gain. This was no act of altruism, it was pure Thatcherism. The inducement to the average member was (albeit quite long lasting) fools gold, as can now be seen. The fools went for the gold. Now it seems we want our dear old fuddy-duddy, uncool, unexciting, safe, mutuals back. Well, hallelujah! :-)

 

Was Thatcher directly responsible for all that? No - but just as I suspect Balls isn't directly responsible for the banking debacle, his fingerprints, just like hers, will be found all over it. It is the long, long, shadow of of Thatcher that we are seeing in many areas and, in most cases, what she set in motion has rolled on with insufficient attention being paid to its direction or progress by successive governments. Most, IMO, have not turned out particularly well for most people. It is the lingering, indirect, knock on, consequences of her policies (for example PFI), coupled with the narrow, partisan, self-interested, mind-set that she introduced, that have borne the most bitter harvest.

 

Spot on, Thanks for the link.

I like this one.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/magazine-18741086#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

 

[Dave225]

Brian Kirby - 2012-07-06 12:27 AM

 

No spears from me Dave, because that is all true enough.

 

To me, the culpability of Thatcher lies in your last sentences: "As other countries have suffered the same fate again I cannot see how Thatcher can be held responsible for the global mess. As for the Building Societies, they all were owned by the members, the general public who all voted cheerfully for a quick gain from the conversion. The Societies could not have done this without the support of the public and ‘carpetbagging’ became a bit of an issue. Joe Public is as greedy as anyone else in this world."

 

Again, all true, but all also a consequence of short-sightedness in pursuit of short-term political popularity, or narrow self-interest. I take no comfort from the undeniable fact that others have been as foolish. That still leaves us as fools. How much better it would be if others had been foolish, and we had not.

 

Naive idiot that I am, I expect governments to be wiser and more far-sighted than the masses. I even expect governments to act against the foolish short-term instincts of the feckless, and at act prevent their fecklessness. It should be remembered that a number of building societies were de-mutualised by a smallish group of individuals who forced the issue at general meetings and then forced votes, purely for their own personal gain. This was no act of altruism, it was pure Thatcherism. The inducement to the average member was (albeit quite long lasting) fools gold, as can now be seen. The fools went for the gold. Now it seems we want our dear old fuddy-duddy, uncool, unexciting, safe, mutuals back. Well, hallelujah! :-)

 

Was Thatcher directly responsible for all that? No - but just as I suspect Balls isn't directly responsible for the banking debacle, his fingerprints, just like hers, will be found all over it. It is the long, long, shadow of of Thatcher that we are seeing in many areas and, in most cases, what she set in motion has rolled on with insufficient attention being paid to its direction or progress by successive governments. Most, IMO, have not turned out particularly well for most people. It is the lingering, indirect, knock on, consequences of her policies (for example PFI), coupled with the narrow, partisan, self-interested, mind-set that she introduced, that have borne the most bitter harvest.

 

I think Brian you will find that it was Major who introduced PFI, not Thatcher and then it was only in a small way. It was again under Labour that it was rolled out immensely so that Brown could pretend the finances were rosy.

 

Again, I am not a Thatcherite but do have grave doubts about what sort of country we would currently be living in if she had not done many of her things. People take for granted many of the 'comforts' we now have but if we had not changed then we would be in a similar state to what the Communist countries were before the fall of that socialist empire. I am certainly not suggesting all is perfect by any means, but the basics of life we now 'enjoy' may not have been so forthcoming. There are many faults in Britain, mostly of our own making and yes, I agree selfishness and greed have contributed to many of them. However, the world has changed and we have to live with it. Even France where they are trying to keep the socialist comfort system is creaking at the seams.

 

Now if I was 20 years younger and still working then looking at the UK now I would seriously consider upping sticks and moving to another country, but even they are no Shangri La's. I firmly believe that history will show Blair to have been one of the most destructive leaders we have ever seen and his 'wish' to return to power here beggars belief. Ironically in the last days of Major's Government when everybody was against him and his Party, our economy was at its strongest since the end of WW2 and the majority of people had a good life style so they must have been doing something right. Now our economy is bust and all the revenues from oil, and even the banks that poured in, have been squandered. Of course increasing our population immensely with uncontrolled immigration has only made a bad situation 10 times worse, and will get even worser.

 

I make no comments on the Miner's Strike as there were faults on both sides. However even the most staunch supporter of Loopy Scargill has to accept that the current world would not have allowed that industry to survive in anything like the form it had. All that happened was the inevitable happened sooner, and with more self inflicted pain. During that time I worled the North Sea and we were burning gas as there was no place to put it. So, of course channeling it to homes and industry has to have been a logical solution. Yes, we now import some gas but the UK has had over 30 years of benefit that it might have not seen.

 

As for the banks, the original topic I see that there may be lots of litigation for the Libor scandal and that fills me with dread. The only ones who will benefit from that are the lawyers as any claims will have to be paid by us, the taxpayers or bank customers. To my mind forget the litigation claims and just put the guilty in the slammer.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Dave225 - 2012-07-07 1:15 PM

To my mind forget the litigation claims and just put the guilty in the slammer.

 

 

If only :D

[Brian Kirby]

Dave225 - 2012-07-07 1:15 PM

 

..............I think Brian you will find that it was Major who introduced PFI, not Thatcher and then it was only in a small way. It was again under Labour that it was rolled out immensely so that Brown could pretend the finances were rosy.

Not quite what I said Dave. I spoke of her culpability, I didn't say PFI was her idea. See my later post above on PFI.

 

.................... People take for granted many of the 'comforts' we now have but if we had not changed then we would be in a similar state to what the Communist countries were before the fall of that socialist empire. I am certainly not suggesting all is perfect by any means, but the basics of life we now 'enjoy' may not have been so forthcoming.

I think this greatly exaggerates, but is also rather over generalised. What are these comforts we should not now have but for Thatcher? Things would have been different, but IMO, rather better. My take on her government is that it laid waste to manufacturing industry in favour of financial services. The shadow of that change lingers in high unemployment in the previously industrialised areas, and an economy that is over dependent on such services.

 

..........I firmly believe that history will show Blair to have been one of the most destructive leaders we have ever seen and his 'wish' to return to power here beggars belief. Ironically in the last days of Major's Government when everybody was against him and his Party, our economy was at its strongest since the end of WW2 and the majority of people had a good life style so they must have been doing something right.

I think our problem is that of Blair in succession to Thatcher. I couldn't begin to ascribe a pecking order to them. Both, in differing ways, were IMO, equally destructive, and both equally unwilling to examine the limitations of their policies.

 

Now our economy is bust and all the revenues from oil, and even the banks that poured in, have been squandered. Of course increasing our population immensely with uncontrolled immigration has only made a bad situation 10 times worse, and will get even worser.

Well, Thatcher decided to sell the oil on the open market, in contrast to Norway, who husbanded it, whereas Blair/Brown largely blued the bank revenues. A kind of symmetry? Population growth is a problem, but we might as easily have bred the increased numbers ourselves. So, is the real problem increased population, or immigration? Many of the immigrants are here because sectors of the economy, largely in the control of native Brits, have seen them as advantageous because they are relatively cheap. But whose fault is that?

 

......................However even the most staunch supporter of Loopy Scargill has to accept that the current world would not have allowed that industry to survive in anything like the form it had. All that happened was the inevitable happened sooner, and with more self inflicted pain. During that time I worled the North Sea and we were burning gas as there was no place to put it. So, of course channeling it to homes and industry has to have been a logical solution. Yes, we now import some gas but the UK has had over 30 years of benefit that it might have not seen.

As you say, sooner or later...................... :-) The oil and gas were there, and again, sooner or later, would have been discovered and exploited. I don't see that as a Thatcher issue, but what we did with it very much was. She needed the oil revenues to provide government income to replace what was lost due to the high unemployment that flowed from her vindictiveness toward industry. The great gamble had failed, and the oil had to be flogged off to mend the hole in her bucket.

 

As for the banks, the original topic I see that there may be lots of litigation for the Libor scandal and that fills me with dread. The only ones who will benefit from that are the lawyers as any claims will have to be paid by us, the taxpayers or bank customers. To my mind forget the litigation claims and just put the guilty in the slammer.

So, how to identify the guilty without due process? I don't want to inhabit a country where one gets locked up on the whim of politicians whose version of history one has chanced to upset! Star Chamber, Kangaroo Courts, or what?

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2012-07-07 3:34 PM

 

So, how to identify the guilty without due process? I don't want to inhabit a country where one gets locked up on the whim of politicians whose version of history one has chanced to upset! Star Chamber, Kangaroo Courts, or what?

 

Spoil sport :D

[CliveH]

pepe63 - 2012-07-05 2:25 PM

 

 

Unfortunatley,whilst "joe public" is still having his wages pumped into 'em..or still has his "savings" account with 'em..then I can't see *any* of the major banks being all that bothered.... :-S

 

Maybe it's time to give some of these smaller,more ethical "Co-op/Greener" type banks a try..?

 

Got any recomendations Clive....? ;-)

 

 

Good point pepe - I heard the Cooperative Bank has seen a 28% increase in account applications. Not really my area of expertise (Current A/C's) but the savings accounts for the Co-Op have always been good value.

 

I also like Nationwide as a true Building Society but they did let me down when we wanted to open a second account just for the rental income on our rented property. They "umm"ed and "arr"ed and then said we could not do it for reasons that were frankly ludicrous! - in contrast we went next door to HSBC, explained what we wanted and they said "fine" and in a matter of days we had cheque book and paying in book, cards etc all sorted. So you have to clear on what you want with some providers. One issue is that cheque clearing is an issue in that it can take a good few days if the bank you use is not a clearing bank.

 

I will check with some of the techies that know a bit more about this sort of thing and post again next week.

 

 

 

[BGD]

Here is the latest Barclays advert.

Well worth watching.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK47iLdPm64&feature=player_embedded

[Dave225]

Brian Kirby - 2012-07-07 3:34 PM

 

Dave225 - 2012-07-07 1:15 PM

 

..............I think Brian you will find that it was Major who introduced PFI, not Thatcher and then it was only in a small way. It was again under Labour that it was rolled out immensely so that Brown could pretend the finances were rosy.

Not quite what I said Dave. I spoke of her culpability, I didn't say PFI was her idea. See my later post above on PFI.

 

.................... People take for granted many of the 'comforts' we now have but if we had not changed then we would be in a similar state to what the Communist countries were before the fall of that socialist empire. I am certainly not suggesting all is perfect by any means, but the basics of life we now 'enjoy' may not have been so forthcoming.

I think this greatly exaggerates, but is also rather over generalised. What are these comforts we should not now have but for Thatcher? Things would have been different, but IMO, rather better. My take on her government is that it laid waste to manufacturing industry in favour of financial services. The shadow of that change lingers in high unemployment in the previously industrialised areas, and an economy that is over dependent on such services.

 

..........I firmly believe that history will show Blair to have been one of the most destructive leaders we have ever seen and his 'wish' to return to power here beggars belief. Ironically in the last days of Major's Government when everybody was against him and his Party, our economy was at its strongest since the end of WW2 and the majority of people had a good life style so they must have been doing something right.

I think our problem is that of Blair in succession to Thatcher. I couldn't begin to ascribe a pecking order to them. Both, in differing ways, were IMO, equally destructive, and both equally unwilling to examine the limitations of their policies.

 

Now our economy is bust and all the revenues from oil, and even the banks that poured in, have been squandered. Of course increasing our population immensely with uncontrolled immigration has only made a bad situation 10 times worse, and will get even worser.

Well, Thatcher decided to sell the oil on the open market, in contrast to Norway, who husbanded it, whereas Blair/Brown largely blued the bank revenues. A kind of symmetry? Population growth is a problem, but we might as easily have bred the increased numbers ourselves. So, is the real problem increased population, or immigration? Many of the immigrants are here because sectors of the economy, largely in the control of native Brits, have seen them as advantageous because they are relatively cheap. But whose fault is that?

 

......................However even the most staunch supporter of Loopy Scargill has to accept that the current world would not have allowed that industry to survive in anything like the form it had. All that happened was the inevitable happened sooner, and with more self inflicted pain. During that time I worled the North Sea and we were burning gas as there was no place to put it. So, of course channeling it to homes and industry has to have been a logical solution. Yes, we now import some gas but the UK has had over 30 years of benefit that it might have not seen.

As you say, sooner or later...................... :-) The oil and gas were there, and again, sooner or later, would have been discovered and exploited. I don't see that as a Thatcher issue, but what we did with it very much was. She needed the oil revenues to provide government income to replace what was lost due to the high unemployment that flowed from her vindictiveness toward industry. The great gamble had failed, and the oil had to be flogged off to mend the hole in her bucket.

 

As for the banks, the original topic I see that there may be lots of litigation for the Libor scandal and that fills me with dread. The only ones who will benefit from that are the lawyers as any claims will have to be paid by us, the taxpayers or bank customers. To my mind forget the litigation claims and just put the guilty in the slammer.

So, how to identify the guilty without due process? I don't want to inhabit a country where one gets locked up on the whim of politicians whose version of history one has chanced to upset! Star Chamber, Kangaroo Courts, or what?

 

Sorry Brian but you seem to have a very narrow view of that period of time, and dare I say, a rather vindictive opinion of just one person, which IMO is not really true.

 

The first major oil and gas started flowing in the 70's and the energy minister was a certain Tony Benn, who as usual managed to muck it all up. In the 80's when you state Thatcher was ;'flogging it off' the price was $9 per barrel so hardly bust gutting revenues. In fact what actually happened was the North Sea produces Brent type crude which is a relatively light oil, good for fuel but no good for industry, so we sell the light oil to buy heavy crude which we use for industry. That is still the case today.

 

I also regret that if you feel the sort of society we had in the 70's would have been acceptable to us today, then you have never seen the real side of it. I did. If you think Thatcher destroyed the manufacturing industry then of course Red Robbo and his kin had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was quite ironic that the Scottish coal industry closed down due to imports from Poland, now the Poles are complaining they are being undercut by imports from former Soviet countries. Their solution was ......to come here. My point is that regardless of any Canute attitude, the world was changing whether we liked it or not. Yes, we developed financial industries, much to the regret of many in Europe, or is that not why they keep trying to impose taxes on us? However, I do not recall anyone not accepting the benefits the revenues brought in. Of course they were not distributed fairly but they never are. That is life.

 

Mind you if all our industry had closed down then I guess it is possible for home grown population to have increased our total by 5 million in a decade or so, but , we really would have to have been 'at it' l;ike rabbits. In fact our population was actually declining. Not any more. So where did the rest come from?

 

Now again I am not for a moment suggesting that we live in any form of 'Shangri La' land but would anyone in the 80's and 90's have stated that China would be a major economy and that Brazil would have overtaken many EU countries? Things have changed, and are changing rapidly. I do not agree with everything that has happened but there is little I can do about it. Putting a head in the sand and wishing it all away is not an answer. Also blaming it on one person who has been out of power for over 2 decades now is also not really a valid answer. That is about as appropriate as blaming it all on Hitler, or in the case of the English football team, 'the hand of God'.

 

You have your opinion, I have mine,. I do not doubt for a moment that if Thatcher had not made some of the changes she did the UK by now would have been a busted flush somewhere in the same league as Zimbabwe. Whether she could have done it differently or better is neither here nor there. She did what she felt was best at that time. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

 

Whether we like it or not our financial industry is the largest earner in the UK. Take it away and everybody will suffer badly. I do not believe in Schadenfreude. That is not to say it should not be controlled more effectively, but it is the hand we have been dealt with, and we must make it work.

[Brian Kirby]

As you say Dave, you have your opinion and I have mine. Too many twists and turns, everyone else is probably bored stiff, and none of it relates directly to Barclays. No point continuing, and my apologies to all for the gross OT.

[CliveH]

Dave225 - 2012-07-08 8:37 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-07-07 3:34 PM

 

Dave225 - 2012-07-07 1:15 PM

 

..............I think Brian you will find that it was Major who introduced PFI, not Thatcher and then it was only in a small way. It was again under Labour that it was rolled out immensely so that Brown could pretend the finances were rosy.

Not quite what I said Dave. I spoke of her culpability, I didn't say PFI was her idea. See my later post above on PFI.

 

.................... People take for granted many of the 'comforts' we now have but if we had not changed then we would be in a similar state to what the Communist countries were before the fall of that socialist empire. I am certainly not suggesting all is perfect by any means, but the basics of life we now 'enjoy' may not have been so forthcoming.

I think this greatly exaggerates, but is also rather over generalised. What are these comforts we should not now have but for Thatcher? Things would have been different, but IMO, rather better. My take on her government is that it laid waste to manufacturing industry in favour of financial services. The shadow of that change lingers in high unemployment in the previously industrialised areas, and an economy that is over dependent on such services.

 

..........I firmly believe that history will show Blair to have been one of the most destructive leaders we have ever seen and his 'wish' to return to power here beggars belief. Ironically in the last days of Major's Government when everybody was against him and his Party, our economy was at its strongest since the end of WW2 and the majority of people had a good life style so they must have been doing something right.

I think our problem is that of Blair in succession to Thatcher. I couldn't begin to ascribe a pecking order to them. Both, in differing ways, were IMO, equally destructive, and both equally unwilling to examine the limitations of their policies.

 

Now our economy is bust and all the revenues from oil, and even the banks that poured in, have been squandered. Of course increasing our population immensely with uncontrolled immigration has only made a bad situation 10 times worse, and will get even worser.

Well, Thatcher decided to sell the oil on the open market, in contrast to Norway, who husbanded it, whereas Blair/Brown largely blued the bank revenues. A kind of symmetry? Population growth is a problem, but we might as easily have bred the increased numbers ourselves. So, is the real problem increased population, or immigration? Many of the immigrants are here because sectors of the economy, largely in the control of native Brits, have seen them as advantageous because they are relatively cheap. But whose fault is that?

 

......................However even the most staunch supporter of Loopy Scargill has to accept that the current world would not have allowed that industry to survive in anything like the form it had. All that happened was the inevitable happened sooner, and with more self inflicted pain. During that time I worled the North Sea and we were burning gas as there was no place to put it. So, of course channeling it to homes and industry has to have been a logical solution. Yes, we now import some gas but the UK has had over 30 years of benefit that it might have not seen.

As you say, sooner or later...................... :-) The oil and gas were there, and again, sooner or later, would have been discovered and exploited. I don't see that as a Thatcher issue, but what we did with it very much was. She needed the oil revenues to provide government income to replace what was lost due to the high unemployment that flowed from her vindictiveness toward industry. The great gamble had failed, and the oil had to be flogged off to mend the hole in her bucket.

 

As for the banks, the original topic I see that there may be lots of litigation for the Libor scandal and that fills me with dread. The only ones who will benefit from that are the lawyers as any claims will have to be paid by us, the taxpayers or bank customers. To my mind forget the litigation claims and just put the guilty in the slammer.

So, how to identify the guilty without due process? I don't want to inhabit a country where one gets locked up on the whim of politicians whose version of history one has chanced to upset! Star Chamber, Kangaroo Courts, or what?

 

Sorry Brian but you seem to have a very narrow view of that period of time, and dare I say, a rather vindictive opinion of just one person, which IMO is not really true.

 

The first major oil and gas started flowing in the 70's and the energy minister was a certain Tony Benn, who as usual managed to muck it all up. In the 80's when you state Thatcher was ;'flogging it off' the price was $9 per barrel so hardly bust gutting revenues. In fact what actually happened was the North Sea produces Brent type crude which is a relatively light oil, good for fuel but no good for industry, so we sell the light oil to buy heavy crude which we use for industry. That is still the case today.

 

I also regret that if you feel the sort of society we had in the 70's would have been acceptable to us today, then you have never seen the real side of it. I did. If you think Thatcher destroyed the manufacturing industry then of course Red Robbo and his kin had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was quite ironic that the Scottish coal industry closed down due to imports from Poland, now the Poles are complaining they are being undercut by imports from former Soviet countries. Their solution was ......to come here. My point is that regardless of any Canute attitude, the world was changing whether we liked it or not. Yes, we developed financial industries, much to the regret of many in Europe, or is that not why they keep trying to impose taxes on us? However, I do not recall anyone not accepting the benefits the revenues brought in. Of course they were not distributed fairly but they never are. That is life.

 

Mind you if all our industry had closed down then I guess it is possible for home grown population to have increased our total by 5 million in a decade or so, but , we really would have to have been 'at it' l;ike rabbits. In fact our population was actually declining. Not any more. So where did the rest come from?

 

Now again I am not for a moment suggesting that we live in any form of 'Shangri La' land but would anyone in the 80's and 90's have stated that China would be a major economy and that Brazil would have overtaken many EU countries? Things have changed, and are changing rapidly. I do not agree with everything that has happened but there is little I can do about it. Putting a head in the sand and wishing it all away is not an answer. Also blaming it on one person who has been out of power for over 2 decades now is also not really a valid answer. That is about as appropriate as blaming it all on Hitler, or in the case of the English football team, 'the hand of God'.

 

You have your opinion, I have mine,. I do not doubt for a moment that if Thatcher had not made some of the changes she did the UK by now would have been a busted flush somewhere in the same league as Zimbabwe. Whether she could have done it differently or better is neither here nor there. She did what she felt was best at that time. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

 

Whether we like it or not our financial industry is the largest earner in the UK. Take it away and everybody will suffer badly. I do not believe in Schadenfreude. That is not to say it should not be controlled more effectively, but it is the hand we have been dealt with, and we must make it work.

 

An excellent summary Dave - one that as someone who lived thro those times can concur with you accurate description.

 

Mrs T did some stupid things - I happen to think the Poll Tax was an excellent idea appallingly executed. Had it been introduced properly we would all now be paying a far fairer local tax than that which we have now.

 

I have to have a wry smile at those that look back at that time and ONLY blame Mrs T. The selective memories of some such that they ignore the truth of history - the strikes, the likes of Red Robbo destroying our car industry, the role of the likes of Tony Benn in appeasing all that nonsense from within the government that took us to the brink such that the IMF had to bail us out.

 

Mrs T DID put us back on a better track. I would not say that it was the best one or the right one - but it was infinitely better than the path the Unions and their poodle politicians had planned for us.

 

Reading what Tony Benn said/wrote at the time re control of the population "from the cradle to the grave" is real spooky Orwellian 1984 type stuff.

 

[pkc]

"

Reading what Tony Benn said/wrote at the time re control of the population "from the cradle to the grave" is real spooky Orwellian 1984 type stuff."

 

I must have missed that speech, I would be grateful if you could point me to it.

I remember William Beveridge using the phrase in his report on the creation of the NHS in 1942, but not Tony Benn in relation to ' control of the population '?

Cheers.

[CliveH]

Benn often said these words “cradle to grave” when talking about his vision of the welfare state – there are references to it all over the place – I have posted a link for one that is quite recent

 

Benn often “pinched” the Marxist term “cradle to grave” that Bevin used but in his role in Industry he used it more to indicate the control he felt the State should have over the economy – on Soviet lines he, at the time, openly admitted.

 

If we can outline the “achievements” (sarc) of Tony Benn and his cronies, they Nationalised in the UK:

 

Steel

Rail

Coal

Ship building

Train manufacture

Aircraft manufacture

Car manufacture

Aircraft engine manufacture

Airlines

 

The Soviet model was State owned everything and that was how you controlled the population. Ownership meant individual thinking and the political elite such as Benn - saw their job was to control from cradle to grave because they believed they knew what was best for us.

 

He like the idea of 98% tax; (what a idiot! – a concept born of envy that actually ended up removing more “Brains” from the UK via the “BrainDrain” where people simply up sticks and went to other countries!.)

 

He wanted to nationalise the banks and the oil industry

 

Destruction of the TSR2 plans – Still LOTS of questions about that debacle! – especially as the Russians produced a Fighter that was remarkably similar just a few years later!!!

 

Devaluation (the pound in your pocket etc!) Mind you we call it Quantitive Easing today!!

 

Strangely enough he did not nationalise all of the arms business, perhaps he realised that weapons such as Chevaline (Polaris upgraded secretly from Parliament so his team could not vote against it ) would work as well as an Austin Allegro if was from a nationalised company. (lol)

 

It was Benn not Thatcher that was responsible for the decline of these industries. And Wilson as well of course - Benn the destroyer! And then came Callaghan (“crisis what crisis) what a twit! – Who was told what to do by the IMF and we managed to stagger on.

 

Sure you now hear Benn speaking of this time as indeed I have, and he comes across as reasonable, homely and even entertaining. However, his actions in the past speak much louder and produce a chill up my spine that I shall for ever be wary off.

 

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/social-economic-history/more-warlike-wed-think-the-labour-government-1945

 

And this “article” taken from an interview discussion with several people including Benn, that is available from the OU certainly covers the point – One example:-

 

“This Right across Europe in the 1940s irrespective of the precise colouration of the government, you get nationalisation of utilities, of mines, of railways. One reason, very important reason for this was that right across the world capitalism was in ideological retreat. The thirties were a very live memory, it was politically impossible to return to the kind of policies of laissez faire that people had been putting forward at that time.

 

Michael

And having witnessed the poverty of the 1930s, ministers looked not just to America but also to Russia for economic inspiration. Jim Tomlinson and Jose Harris.

 

Jose

We tend I think to forget that the Soviet Union seemed to be a successful economic system at a time when capitalist systems had been failing.

 

Jim

Yes I would agree with that, I think even into the 1960s in Labour circles there was a belief that Soviet-style planning yielded success.

………………………

 

As a victim of Benn et al’s Soviet Style “Planning” – I know I NEVER want to have that b0ll0x forced on us again.

 

You do not have to research far to find the “real” Tony Benn and what his take on “cradle to grave” was.

 

[CliveH]

Sorry should be Bevan of course

[Guest pelmetman]

Well with all of the above as examples of how our politicians have meddled .................it doesn't bode well for the future (lol) (lol)....

[Syd]

 

Perhaps Clive could let us know just how much money is involved in the Libor rate

 

As I understand it the Libor turnover per year is WELL into the trillions of pounds GB.

 

Can you give us a figure Clive ??

[CliveH]

It is not so much the money as LIBOR is simply a rate of exchange - and yes it does run into Trillions but the issue is that the banks kept THEIR costs down by manipulating this rate - this make them look better and so individuals got better bonuses.

 

The real cost is that by manipulating this rate, it is likely that mortgage and other loan defaults were pushed to higher levels than the market alone would have dictated.

 

So much for the regulators protecting the consumers.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9371150/Libor-scandal-may-have-cost-families-their-homes.html

 

What cost a families home?? >:-(

[Syd]

 

Oh what a shame, diamond bob is only getting a £2million payoff.

How on earth is he going to manage on such a paltry sum.

 

Anyone want to set up a kitty to help him out until he gets his next lucrative job

[Guest pelmetman]

Syd - 2012-07-10 11:37 AM

 

 

Oh what a shame, diamond bob is only getting a £2million payoff.

How on earth is he going to manage on such a paltry sum.

 

Anyone want to set up a kitty to help him out until he gets his next lucrative job

 

He'll need that to pay the lawyers for when he gets charged with fraud ;-)................

 

 

But it won't happen will it >:-(

[malc d]

Syd - 2012-07-10 11:37 AM

 

 

Oh what a shame, diamond bob is only getting a £2million payoff.

How on earth is he going to manage on such a paltry sum.

 

 

 

He'll just have to start using aires.

 

 

 

;-)

[RogerC]

Taking the 'point of interest' away from the hierarchy of the banking system to the 'bottom' of the pile...ie Joe public I wonder if, because of the fraudulent? manipulation of the LIBOR there will be any recompense for those who were affected?  There must be millions of people out there with financial products that had their interest rate adversely affected by this manipulation and ended up paying interest 'over the odds'.....and some, who because of the 'fiddling' carried out by these despicable bankers lost their homes and businesses.  What recompense for them?  I strongly suspect nothing....zilch....nada because it will be impossible to unravel the twists and turns of their shenanigans.  Once more the perpetrators of 'wrong doing' (ugh bloody awful term) will walk scot free while Joe public has to suck it up. 

[CliveH]

Exactly Roger.

 

And with the examples of the likes of the Equitable Life debacle where the regulator did just about everything it could to get Equitable off the hook, and has been found to be "asleep at the wheel" on so many other occaisions you lose count - we have to be thankful that our legal system, where thanks to the independence of our Judges, they actually denied the Banks the "get out of jail free card" the FSA was going to allow re PPI misselling and forced them to review EVERY sale they made rather than simply deal with complaints as and when they arose.

 

This was the first time they actually bumped up against a more powerful group of people that told them - no!

 

I would like to think that the outrage on the latest (of let's face it!! - a large number or rule breaches!!) is such that there will be an analysis of how consumers were affected - I would also like to think that those that regulate learn from this and and all their past mistakes.

 

But based upon past experience - I am not holding my breath.

[Syd]

 

Analysts are saying that Lloyds bank could have to face paying out £1.5 bn over the Libor scam and their shares have been placed on the "Sell" recomendation list.

 

Diamond bob is to face being questioned by Congress over the Libor scandal, the Senate banking committee and the House of representatives both wish to have tea with him after their summer recess.

How nice for him

[laimeduck]

I think this sums it all up quite nicely!