Monday, 20 December 2010

LibDem Pledges


Thanks to ASE

There is a better way.  Two of Britain's biggest banks and one of its main building societies collapsed in October 2008 - over two years ago.  We, the taxpayers had no choice because our PM at the time decided he should use our hard-earned money to keep them afloat.  In fact, it was suggested in various quarters that there were deals done behind closed doors with Lloyds TSB.

More than two years on we have students protesting because they may have to pay higher fees.  Many reports say only around 25% of them will pay the full fees yet they decided to take to the streets.  They have every right of course, yet perhaps they should have been protesting against the bankers who brought the country to its knees.

Banks insist they're doing they're best for their customers.  We all know they're not.  The only people they're interested in is themselves and that will continue until we have firm command of their greedy and irresponsible behaviour, including their bonuses.

Politicians refuse to do much but pay lip service to the banks.  A wee bit extra taxation and a plea not to issue 'large' bonuses is as far as they're prepared to go.  Self interest is far more important than the interest of voters.

Isn't it wonderful, seven months after the UK elects a new UK government, we're no further forward, 26 months later, in dealing with the crux of our financial downfall.  The saying 'You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' springs to mind.  Vince Cable, if he wants the LibDems to keep any credibility, needs to officially nationalise the banks who survive on taxpayers' money.  It's time we called their bluff.  Let's see how many decide to move elsewhere.

21 comments:

Highland Cooncil said...

Its all planned. Wake up hen.
The international bankers decide whits whit.

subrosa said...

I'm wide awake unfortunately HC. A've kent whaur the money gaun since the start yet naebidy seems tae bother. Whit's up wi' us.

Oldrightie said...

"Whit's up wi' us." Too easy a brainwashed life I'm afraid, Subrosa.

subrosa said...

Aye OR, too many folk unable to see the woods for the trees or even try.

Sheila said...

Most politicians don't have a clue what is going on right under their noses, including some of the few with good (washed) brains.

Some(cross party) obviously do know exactly what is planned and are working towards common interests and/or their own vested interests.

Doesn't matter who you vote for the government always gets in...

subrosa said...

It's such a shame though Sheila. I'd like to think once Scotland gets independence that we attracted those who had an interest in the welfare of the people of this country as well as themselves.

I can but dream...

Apogee said...

Trouble is that one is working against an entire entrenched layer of 'business' which has spent centuries entrenching themselves in society.
Only when their survival is totally tied to ours will things change,and the rip-off attitude is so entrenched that the French solution may be the only one we will be left with. And we will have to do a better job than they did if push comes to shove.
The other way may be to withdraw our money from their clutches and set up our own financial systems.

Apogee said...

Hi SR, think Sheila is right, I would hope also that your thought that it would attract those who had an interest in the welfare of the people of this country as well as themselves, would be true, but looking at the history of this countries 'ruling classes', I hae ma doots!Unfortunately.

junican said...

Hello, Subrosa. This is Junican.

This is off topic, but I know that you are interested.

About my 'success' in wining the 'prize' on the BMJ blog, I have posted the following on DP's Site:

""I have to split this into two parts because of the 'characters problem....

The first that I knew about this silliness was your report, DP. Isn't chance the most amazing thing? Day after day, I have looked at the VOTE and waited for the result, and been surprised that the thing is still going on! And then you beat me to it! Swine!

Anyway, here is my reply to the 'BMJ Editors' who signed the the admission of defeat:


""I thank you for the award of the prize of a subscription to 'Tobacco Control' magazine. I am much gratified, since the last thing that I won, without much effort, was an Easter egg when I was 17 years old.

Oh, by the way, there is a misconception in your above statement.

Your statement suggests that I have ‘colleagues in the pro-smoking lobby’. This is not true. I have no ‘colleagues’. I am merely a little, old man of 71 years caring for a little old lady of 69 years who has MS, whose occasional trip to our local pub has been ruined by the catastrophic effects on our pubs of the smoking ban, and I am merely a commenter on various blogs, on which ‘pro-freedom’ matters are discussed. I also have no significant political associations, or any other similar associations other than ‘signing up’ to newspapers and such in order to comment. I comment on many of these sites about a multitude of things.

Further, you say that my ‘colleagues’ on these blogs ‘tipped my idea over the top’. Erm.. 70% as opposed to the nearest, about 9%? Tipped over the top? No. There is a clear indication that your members, on the whole, are not interested and are probably not in agreement with your demonisation of smokers. Also, it may be that some other commenters on other blogs voted for my idea for fun, but it is also true, and something that you do not know, that a young man who is a relative of mine, put out the message to his friends on the internet to vote for my idea. They did not have to – they did it of their own accord. They did it because my relative suggested that they do. IS THIS AN ENORMOUS CONFOUNDER? Of course it is! In any study or survey, CONFOUNDERS can have an ENORMOUS effect.

junican said...

Furthermore, at no time did I state my full name in your blog comments. In the BT phone directory there are only 20 ‘J Watson’ s in the area in which I live (which you must know since you have been trawling various blogs for information about me) and only one specifically named. I may well, therefore, receive an amount of nasty correspondence. Now, it may be that your employees receive nasty correspondence, BUT THEY ARE PAID A SALARY! I am not. You should not have published my full name. The fact that, in a different context on a different blog, I told people who I was is no excuse.

Furthermore, you say that my ‘idea’ was a good idea. It was not. Everyone with any sense knows that THE PROFITS of tobacco companies are spread all over the world among the shareholders, many of which are pension funds in the UK of the very organisations which promote Tobacco Control. Do the BMJ pension funds have investments in Tobacco Companies? Have the BMJ pension funds EVER had investments in Tobacco Companies? When did that cease to be the case, if it has?

As for the HEALTH COSTS (of the enjoyment of tobacco) in my idea, I can only say that the idea of ‘Health Costs’ is ephemeral. The complexities are too great for proper science to come to any definite conclusion. The complexities of a mere three constituents in Electromagnetic Effects are huge - only THREE multivariables, the electric current, the electric field and the magnetic field – and no one has really bottomed it. It is obvious from the recently issued ‘Report of the Surgeon General 2010 re Smoking and Health’ that there are HUNDREDS of multivariables in the human genome - just too many multivariables to draw any specific conclusions. This fact cannot be hidden by bluster.

Also, IT CANNOT BE TRUE that you knew about my little wind-ups (the ‘propaganda’ thing) before you chose my idea to be one of the six contenders for the prize. Not even tobacco control zealots could come up with any sensible or logical reason for choosing an idea from a person who is ‘a known colleague of people on pro-smoking blogs’ when there are others to choose from (no matter how silly they may be).

Finally, it simply is not true that I, as a person who enjoys tobacco, have ever, in all my life, harmed in any way or caused the death of any other person in whose presence I have enjoyed my tobacco. Where is your proof? (And don’t say Roy Castle, because it is well known that Roy (God Bless Him) smoked cigars).

Sincerely,

Jwatso (aka Junican).""

Since the BMJ published my full name, it would not surprise me if there are not those fanatics who might try to get at me, but I HONESTLY SWEAR THAT I HAVE NEVER RAPED ANY SWEDISH PERSONS, EITHER MALE OR FEMALE, AND I ALSO SWEAR THAT I WAS ELSEWHERE AT THE TIME, M'LUD.

I am also posting this on Leg Iron and Frank D and Subro. I know that they are interested.

William said...

Is it not simply the case that banks can't lend the money rather than won't? One of the reasons for the collapse was surely the series of bad lending decisions made by certain banks. It is certainly a fact that banks are no longer offering the 0% deals, multiple credit cards, huge mortgages/low income that they were 5-10 years ago. The lending criteria of all banks has significantly risen. I see it on various debt forums that banks have (finally) acknowledged risky financial behaviour.

It's one thing for the government to say 'you must lend more' but if a good number of customers are already heavily leveraged and are looking to borrow more, what should banks do?

subrosa said...

Yes we are Apogee and that's certainly not something which can be changed overnight or even in a generation, no matter how much goodwill there is.

Others, including myself, have suggested that in the past. We thought it would be a good idea for the Scottish Government to moot but with no result.

I know I'm dreaming about quality politicians. Some, prior to being in power, were really pleasant people though. Power corrupts right enough.

subrosa said...

Junican! Congratulations! I was looking to see if I had an email address for you last night before I went to bed, but I'm not the most organised with emails.

Super response to their rather 'waffling' or perhaps it could be said grudging acceptance of your win.

Thanks so much for posting it. There are other readers who will be interested I know.

subrosa said...

William, I think the downfall of the banks was their extremely risky investments and of course their domestic lending decisions, which would be a much smaller part of the equation.

Around here there are quite a few very small businesses and one if particular has been hard hit by the banks' current lending decisions. Their products are sound and sell well. They've been in business for over 90 years now, have good assets and usually been able to acquire a loan in order to produce large overseas orders. Now the bank say no. Fortunately the owner has managed to acquire the necessary funding but it's been a struggle and a long one. The solution wasn't from his own bank btw. They weren't even prepared to discuss options.

Andrew said...

Banks and Bankers...

The truth (its out there if you look for it and have even a modicum of intelligence to understand it) but sadly the truth eludes most people about banking in general...its easy for politicians to huff n puff and us plebs squawk about how unjust it all is and nothing absolutely nothing will change until people become aware of how and why banks led by and driven by the central banks (Bank of England Federal Reserve Bundesbank etc etc) of the developed world operate.

Banks operate on the principal of 'fractional reserve lending'. in a nutshell they are allowed to lend up to ten times (or more)the reserves they have...and all at interest.

so they create money out of thin air....and this is secured on real assets such as property and land.

In other words they create and control the money supply. (and charge for it via interest) money is a commodity like anything else, oil gold gas money it doesn't matter the scarcer it is the more valuable it becomes and banks control this supply and demand for it. Between 2000 to 2008 the banks inflated the money supply this created notional wealth in the economies of the world and people bought assets that appreciated due to the demand that went with it,(buy to let anyone?) when these assets were of suffcient value they (the central banks) simply dried up the money supply, (i.e. credit and money in cash in circulation) money became scarce,i.e. the credit crunch...

asset values bought with this notional money fall and the banks snap up the resultant assets that are left at pennies on the pound (foreclosure on mortgages)

this cycle has been going on since 1694 when the Bank of England was chartered. we are bamboozled by smoke and mirrors with such complex terms as boom and bust and inflation and deflation...but all of the economic cycles in history are conrolled by all the major CENTRAL BANKS of the world and what you may not know and may choose not to believe is that they are all yes all the CENTRAL BANKS are in majority private ownership...

its a myth hidden behind the public names they use (Bank of England Federal Reserve etc) that these institutions that control OUR Money are in public ownership.

they exist for one main purpose PROFIT and a few others too I won't go into here.

they have a stranglehold on our economies and our politicians by creating and controlling debt. i.e. the Bonds that Governments issue to raise money.

but our ecomony could effectively be debt free in one or two years by simply taking control of our money supply. how?

simple the government issues money not bonds (if a government can issue a bond it can issue paper money) and simply states that it is good for paying taxation and other goods and services and will be honoured. thats all it needs, people will use seashells or sticks of wood if the governement said it would honour taxation goods and services(in fact for over 700 years we used 'tally sticks' in England and Wales as a form of currency quite effectively with no debt and only minimal cntrollable infaltion)

we simply use this printed money t apy off the deficit then control the amount of cash their is in the economy in line with population and trade.

Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War with immense success and the bankers hated it! because it was debt free money!

wake up Britain and Subrosa whilst being a Scot myself and immensely proud of my highland heritage and culture I believe in the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland its what put the GREAT into Britain, we all England Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland whilst gret nations in our own right are lesser than the sum of the whole.

subrosa said...

William, thank you so much for your comment. Prior to writing this post I looked for a few articles written in the same vein are yours but my archive system, or searching one, isn't up to scratch.

I agree with what you've written in the body of your comment but it still doesn't deter us from nationalising RBS (now 83% taxpayer owned) and putting serious pressure on Lloyds because of our 41% ownership.

The World Bank shouldn't be permitted to accept RBS as it is not privately owned and Lloyds has a question over it too.

Billy said...

Andrew - There are excellent films about the banks etc at www.zeitgeistmovie.com and the need to move away from the curent ways of doing things as it is all collapsing.

Britain only became great by invading other countries and robbing them of their resources. Britain is a bankrupt and is only going to get worst. Scotland needs independence to use its resources and powers for the benefit of its own people - just like every other normal country.

If we are so better off being together then let us see England hand over totally its parliament and sovereignty to the EU.

subrosa said...

Super link. Thanks Billy.

Auch we did our fair share of plundering in the past too. :) But yes, I too firmly believe we should be like other countries and run our own affairs. Then we would only have ourselves to blame.

William said...

"If we are so better off being together then let us see England hand over totally its parliament and sovereignty to the EU."

You mean, just like the SNP will for an 'independent' Scotland?

Lie down, Billy.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

William I have little argument with your analysis, but how can you square the circle by arguing for the retention of the institutions who, if they were not entirely responsible (which I doubt) were at the very least culpable by their lack of probity?

Greatness has never been served well by mendacious policies nor incompetence.

People are suffering austerity measures that have the capability to kill. People who neither gained or contributed to the greedfest. Where's the 'great' in that, other than as an adjective to the Great Injustice - The Great Fraud, or The Great Monopoly Game? Choose what you will, but it's certainly not great governance.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Damn; the last post was aimed at Andrew.

Apologies to both Andrew and William.

Related Posts with Thumbnails