Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Hi there reader
Do you find this message annoying?
Why not register and make a post to get rid of it?

[bbtzs]

Speaking of stupid headlines, how about the one over the weekend from the Tory party.

"Cameron / Osbourne plan to sell off bank shares to the public in the same manner as Thatcher denationalised industry in the 80's" (Or words to that effect, you understand I am sure)

How headline grabbing economically incoherent is that??!!!
This the party that says we need to slash spending to reduce the annual budget deficit and reduce our debt overhang a lot quicker than is being planned by the current lot.

So, how do you do that when you plan to sell off national assets (bank shares) at low, depressed, prices. Surely, like normal investors, they should wait for those institutions to reconstruct their balance sheets which would drive up the share price, and then sell. Perhaps at a profit to the taxpayer / national purse?

This lack of economic competence is far more important than the sensationalist headlines currently in the press and a debate over uniformly (that's all parties) silly election slogans.

I expect of course in the spirit of free and proper debate the moderators of this forum may well find my use of such words "inappropriate" and not relevant to the topic title.
 

Good timing may be necessary but, this will bring in cash in a hurry and that can be used to reduce the debt we have. Whilst the decision may be as crass as GB's sale of the Gold, if it is well timed it could help make ordinary people a bit richer and put some cash in their pockets.

I dont see it as economically illiterate or a bad thing to do. What is owned by the Govt is owned by us as taxpayers.

The key to its value as a policy will be as much its execution as the policy itself. Until then I see it as being worth withholding judgement for a while.

[Cassandra]

Given the antics of bankers and certain MPs with their expenses, it appears the copywriter used the wrong word. 
 
Surely the slogan should have read:
 
A  FUTURE  FREE-FOR-ALL
 
(at taxpayers' expense, of course!)
 
 

[disgruntled]

Speaking of stupid headlines, how about the one over the weekend from the Tory party.

"Cameron / Osbourne plan to sell off bank shares to the public in the same manner as Thatcher denationalised industry in the 80's" (Or words to that effect, you understand I am sure)

How headline grabbing economically incoherent is that??!!!
This the party that says we need to slash spending to reduce the annual budget deficit and reduce our debt overhang a lot quicker than is being planned by the current lot.

So, how do you do that when you plan to sell off national assets (bank shares) at low, depressed, prices. Surely, like normal investors, they should wait for those institutions to reconstruct their balance sheets which would drive up the share price, and then sell. Perhaps at a profit to the taxpayer / national purse?

This lack of economic competence is far more important than the sensationalist headlines currently in the press and a debate over uniformly (that's all parties) silly election slogans.

I expect of course in the spirit of free and proper debate the moderators of this forum may well find my use of such words "inappropriate" and not relevant to the topic title.
 

Good timing may be necessary but, this will bring in cash in a hurry and that can be used to reduce the debt we have. Whilst the decision may be as crass as GB's sale of the Gold, if it is well timed it could help make ordinary people a bit richer and put some cash in their pockets.

I dont see it as economically illiterate or a bad thing to do. What is owned by the Govt is owned by us as taxpayers.

The key to its value as a policy will be as much its execution as the policy itself. Until then I see it as being worth withholding judgement for a while.

Sir
Can I apologise now for any offense that you may take from my reply to your points. Clearly whatever remarks I may make are not meant to be argumentative, personal or insulting.  I say this in the hope that by so doing I will save the moderators time in not having to edit my words.

I disagree with you, sadly. Can I respectfully ask how the P&L on this works if one has borrowed money to buy an asset, in this case bank shares, the value of those shares decline and then you sell them at the depressed value? Will that not leave a hole on the balance sheet with no collateral? Given that the national cash flow is negative how is one supposed to pay that balance of debt back?

Respectfully
Disgruntled
Chair,
The 2+2=4 Society
&
Founding member of the Free Speech Movement.

[allcingeye]

A very odd slogan indeed in the sense that the gap between poorest and richest is now at its greatest since World War 2, and that is with Labour having been in power for nearly ten years
 
This information was published on the 27th January 2010 by the National Equality Panel appointed by the Labour Government
 
This is just another example of the difference between Gordon Brown's weazel words and the reality. He must think the electorate is stupid and poorer people in particular

Yes There are a fast Growing number of people who can see the names and colours of a parties are just  the face the puppets hide behind, when Gangs like the Builderberger's pull the strings. which is just the Banks oil families and corporate media. who Get people like ED Ball to do there dirty work in what ever section of Government they want to close down. Ps, I only use Ed Ball because he is on the Builderberg list, along with conservatives which is just names to keep steeple from seeing the wolves/ historically Known  as Egyptians.     

[Mighty Hatfield]

i do think that on balance, and to avoid hypocrisy, you may as well change the title of this thread to "the nonsense of election slogans"

[disgruntled]

A very odd slogan indeed in the sense that the gap between poorest and richest is now at its greatest since World War 2, and that is with Labour having been in power for nearly ten years
 
This information was published on the 27th January 2010 by the National Equality Panel appointed by the Labour Government
 
This is just another example of the difference between Gordon Brown's weazel words and the reality. He must think the electorate is stupid and poorer people in particular

Yes There are a fast Growing number of people who can see the names and colours of a parties are just  the face the puppets hide behind, when Gangs like the Builderberger's pull the strings. which is just the Banks oil families and corporate media. who Get people like ED Ball to do there dirty work in what ever section of Government they want to close down. Ps, I only use Ed Ball because he is on the Builderberg list, along with conservatives which is just names to keep steeple from seeing the wolves/ historically Known  as Egyptians.   

yeah
pass the joint man

[mickeyl]

It is certainly not going to be a future fair for Susan Smith who lost her only son to an IED in an inadequately protected 'Snatch Land Rover' in Afghanistan.
 
This goes straight to GB's watch as Chancellor when troops were sent out to Afghanistan but without the funding to provide proper equipment - just like Singapore in 1941/1942.  80,000 British and Commonwealth troops surrendered on the 15th February 1942 to an army half its size.
 
Our troops were inadequately trained, under equipped and lacked aerial protection

[Hatfield Girl]

Remember Labour’s four campaign slogans (launched on Saturday):
• Standing up for the many
• Ensuring the recovery
• Protecting frontline services
• Protecting jobs and new industries
 
Looks as though they have already blown  2 of these promises, Protecting front line services and Protecting jobs:
 
** Police force is to axe 100 posts **
One hundred posts are set to be cut at Hertfordshire Police following a £4m shortfall in government funding.
< [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8534904.stm#]http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8534904.stm#[/url] >
 

 
It's not 100 posts it's 250.  So much for whom ever said the public sector were safe.

[bbtzs]

Mr 'No Cuts' Brown seems to have his Ministers rushing round like headless chickens finding cuts by whatever way they can. No policy announced of course, just an insistence on the opposition telling them how to do it. How nice it is seeing them try to find the money the GB still thinks he doesnt need.

What a mess!

[disgruntled]

Mr 'No Cuts' Brown seems to have his Ministers rushing round like headless chickens finding cuts by whatever way they can. No policy announced of course, just an insistence on the opposition telling them how to do it. How nice it is seeing them try to find the money the GB still thinks he doesnt need.

What a mess!

I am no supporter of Mr Brown, however I do think the truth is better. Of course cuts are planned, they always have been, they must be. It is the rate of cutting that is the issue, not the whether it is to be done or not!!

You could always sell bank shares on the cheap though, right?

[kaz]

Mr 'No Cuts' Brown seems to have his Ministers rushing round like headless chickens finding cuts by whatever way they can. No policy announced of course, just an insistence on the opposition telling them how to do it. How nice it is seeing them try to find the money the GB still thinks he doesnt need.

What a mess!

I am no supporter of Mr Brown, however I do think the truth is better. Of course cuts are planned, they always have been, they must be. It is the rate of cutting that is the issue, not the whether it is to be done or not!!

You could always sell bank shares on the cheap though, right?

Of course 'the truth is better' shame then that Gordon Brown lied week in week out at Prime Minister's Questions denying cuts and lambasting 'Tory cuts'.  Everyone knew that cuts would have to be made but Gordon Brown continually denied it, until he was forced to U turn by his own party who were embarrassed by his no cuts claim.

[disgruntled]

Mr 'No Cuts' Brown seems to have his Ministers rushing round like headless chickens finding cuts by whatever way they can. No policy announced of course, just an insistence on the opposition telling them how to do it. How nice it is seeing them try to find the money the GB still thinks he doesnt need.

What a mess!

I am no supporter of Mr Brown, however I do think the truth is better. Of course cuts are planned, they always have been, they must be. It is the rate of cutting that is the issue, not the whether it is to be done or not!!

You could always sell bank shares on the cheap though, right?

Of course 'the truth is better' shame then that Gordon Brown lied week in week out at Prime Minister's Questions denying cuts and lambasting 'Tory cuts'.  Everyone knew that cuts would have to be made but Gordon Brown continually denied it, until he was forced to U turn by his own party who were embarrassed by his no cuts claim.

Sorry Kaz, the debate for sometime has been about the rate of deficit reduction through spending not whether there be cuts or not. I am sure within that all parties will try and state that they will maintain spending in key areas like Health and Education to score points, but that is not the issue, and lowering the debate to the lowest common demoninator panders only to the rag newspaper headlines.

Truth please

[jonmorris]

The thing is, even if cuts weren't necessary - everyone would still think they were. So, if you attempted to say you could get by without making cuts, nobody will believe you.

It kind of makes it hard to attack the opposition who will come in and cut everything to the bone, when you're going to have to do the exact same thing.

It does make me wonder how the election will be fought once the date is announced and everything goes into overdrive. I suspect it will get quite dirty, as it comes down to personal attacking and very underhand tactics.

[kaz]

Mr 'No Cuts' Brown seems to have his Ministers rushing round like headless chickens finding cuts by whatever way they can. No policy announced of course, just an insistence on the opposition telling them how to do it. How nice it is seeing them try to find the money the GB still thinks he doesnt need.

What a mess!

I am no supporter of Mr Brown, however I do think the truth is better. Of course cuts are planned, they always have been, they must be. It is the rate of cutting that is the issue, not the whether it is to be done or not!!

You could always sell bank shares on the cheap though, right?

Of course 'the truth is better' shame then that Gordon Brown lied week in week out at Prime Minister's Questions denying cuts and lambasting 'Tory cuts'.  Everyone knew that cuts would have to be made but Gordon Brown continually denied it, until he was forced to U turn by his own party who were embarrassed by his no cuts claim.

Sorry Kaz, the debate for sometime has been about the rate of deficit reduction through spending not whether there be cuts or not. I am sure within that all parties will try and state that they will maintain spending in key areas like Health and Education to score points, but that is not the issue, and lowering the debate to the lowest common demoninator panders only to the rag newspaper headlines.

Truth please

My comment is 100% the truth, I watch PMQ's every week and Brown denied cuts week in and week out.  Furthermore Brown says he will cut the deficit by 50% over the next few years - how on earth can he make that claim - he takes us all for idiots, he clearly plucks his 50 per cents out of the air.

[disgruntled]

Mr 'No Cuts' Brown seems to have his Ministers rushing round like headless chickens finding cuts by whatever way they can. No policy announced of course, just an insistence on the opposition telling them how to do it. How nice it is seeing them try to find the money the GB still thinks he doesnt need.

What a mess!

I am no supporter of Mr Brown, however I do think the truth is better. Of course cuts are planned, they always have been, they must be. It is the rate of cutting that is the issue, not the whether it is to be done or not!!

You could always sell bank shares on the cheap though, right?

Of course 'the truth is better' shame then that Gordon Brown lied week in week out at Prime Minister's Questions denying cuts and lambasting 'Tory cuts'.  Everyone knew that cuts would have to be made but Gordon Brown continually denied it, until he was forced to U turn by his own party who were embarrassed by his no cuts claim.

Sorry Kaz, the debate for sometime has been about the rate of deficit reduction through spending not whether there be cuts or not. I am sure within that all parties will try and state that they will maintain spending in key areas like Health and Education to score points, but that is not the issue, and lowering the debate to the lowest common demoninator panders only to the rag newspaper headlines.

Truth please

My comment is 100% the truth, I watch PMQ's every week and Brown denied cuts week in and week out.  Furthermore Brown says he will cut the deficit by 50% over the next few years - how on earth can he make that claim - he takes us all for idiots, he clearly plucks his 50 per cents out of the air.

I dont get to see PMQs' but I have seen the analysis which states that even within the current plans the UK has the hardest fiscal "tightening" of all major economies next year. Spending cuts are a given, I think you are mixing up line item detail with the overall value.