Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Why must you always call others names like monkey,maybe it is time we started doing the same with you,it is not nice nor is it acting like a English Gentleman,and if I was using your company this is the time we would part COMPANY.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Vic - do look at what was said in the context of the comments.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I have no need to do that Barry it is yourself that needs to do that.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
One day Vic you might have something actually intelligent to contribute but to do that you actually have to read what is said properly and place it in the context of the discussion and sadly you have just shown that you are unable and unwilling to do so.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Vic, Barry's comment was in the context of the old saying If you pay peanuts you get monkeys. And in my opinion, Fred Goodwin was a monkey compared with the people running other major institutions. His nickname was Fred the Shred, a reference to his propensity to cut out any business area which did not produce revenue. Thus he cut the very departments which should have been there to keep the management honest and the balance sheet sound.
Barry you really need to tone down some of your posts, otherwise you will become a figure of fun. 'what shall we post to wind up Barry' will become a daily sport. All the members who post on here have opinions which they hold honestly and which derive from their own life experience. Just because Vic doesn't agree with you doesn't make him (or you) an idiot.
Sorry to be blunt. Please take it as a constructive comment from an old friend.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You have said yourself that Vic is not interested in facts and he demonstrated that by his posts above and received the response from me that he deserved. A different point of view is one thing but to to make an inane comment that bears no relationship or context to the matter being discussed and to stubbornly compound that the way he did is a totally different matter. I can respect a different view backed by some sensible argument as some do, in which case they get an equally sensible response.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
What makes you think you are always rightand the one thing you do not have is respect for anything or anyone that is not on line with yourself,and you go on about myself look at yourself mate,and look at your above photo.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Anyway Barry!......
I am confused as to regulation. Brown and Blair simply adopted Thatcher's slavish attitude to big business and none of them wanted to see regulation. As self-regulation doesn't work what would you like to see that wouldn't fly in the face of your free-market and small government beliefs?
The banking crisis, and Pfizer, illustrate all that is wrong in my mind with profit driven industries in that they have no allegiance other than 'to their sharholders' which is a euphemism for maximising profit at any cost. There has to be a better way but it lies somewhere between Marxist state control and total deregulation and I am not sure what that looks like!
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Sorry! Got carried away!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
how's that for service mark?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
getting back to peter's comment earlier, every member is entitled to a view and that should be respected.
some of the comments seem to be getting personal and just alienates other members.
people who look in will not join if they think that someone will go for their throat if they say the wrong thing.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
blimey,
it's all getting a little heated on our friendly family forum.
peter; this time we agree barryw should tone down a little, at the end of the day we want varied contributors, not all one sided, and should be able to disagree without p;ersonal abuse.
i for one said footballers (many)are overpaid, so it has been raised on this very forum before, but most forumites were happy for it to continue.
We do need to look at these bonus's not out of any jelousy but to give the correct impression that we are all in this together.
at the moment it doesnt appear to be the case.
well done roger for standing out on this one
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Mark - back to something sensible to discuss properly.
I think you mis-read Mrs T's attitude to regulation and that of the Conservatives.
First of all it was Mrs T who first brought in retail Financial Services regulation with the 1986 Financial Services Act. So that alone demonstrates that Conservatives are not against regulation per se'
The point is that it has to be the right regulation.
Mrs T also did not play around with the Bank of England's role in regulating the banks activities, she knew better than that and indeed John Major also.
It was Brown in 1997 who changed the whole regulation structure for financial services including the banks. He instituted the Financial Services Authority of whom I have a direct experience which has a much more interventionist approach to regulation in the retail side and initially more hands off in the banking side of things . it certainly has been far from successful in its role. Brown's biggest mistake though was introducing a tri-partied approach to bank regulation. Instead of one clear regulator to whom they answered whole thing was split between the FSA, Treasury and Bank of England.
I can demonstrate one impact of that change as told to me by friend was a bank Chief Exec prior to 1997 and just after. He was required to take his senior management team to the BoE every quarter to be grilled on every aspect of his banking operations. The BoE had some very draconian powers if they did not like the answers. After 1997 and the tri-partied regime coming into play all that ended.
Remember - Brown, at the annual Mansion House banquet in the City, in a now infamous speech actively encouraged the banks to make use of his new looser regime and to take risks. We have actually this week seen him, most uncharacteristically, admit he made a mistake over bank regulations and from him that is quite something! He of course is full of excuses and even in his comments downplays his role and the environment that he created. He toughened regulation where it was least needed and loosened it where it was most needed.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
how smug of you barryw
your first line does you no justice
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
It is a fact Keith.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw
im for getting as many people as possible to post
your first line will have the opposite affect
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
You are right there Keith again we see the true side of Barry.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Barry
Thatcher & Co started the process and I would be surprised if, 13 years later, they hadn't gone down the same route as Brown and Blair. Of course this is all speculation and it's easy for a new governement to claim the moral high ground. My concern is that governments now seem to becoming servants to big business and the average voter's needs feel as if they are being sacrificed for profit and political power. I have been involved in the electoral process long enough to know that parties promise all and generally deliver little, if anything, once in power. The recent financial debacle adds to this with all sides trying to point score and I find it makes me lose interest and belief in anyone seeking my vote.
Thanks, Howard, for deleting my earlier multiple postings!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Vic and Keith - you do like to stir, pity you don't put as much thought into making constructive posts. Look at Mark as an example.
Mark -
I do understand where you are coming from but do bear in mind that Mrs T, while deregulating in a lot of areas such as currency controls and lending probably set up more regulatory processes than any other PM in other respects. She also had plenty of time to do what Brown did and, indeed there were voices urging her to do so in her time but she stood firm against it. Her views and attitudes are often misrepresented and misunderstood and knowing her as I do I am convinced that she certainly would not have gone down the same road as Brown. Remember she had an old fashioned attitude to sound money and finance and certainly disapproved of excessive spending 'on tick'.
As for what you are saying about business. We have to remember that ultimately it is businesses that generate all the wealth thats sustains public spending and public services. All other spending by government including that on the 'secondary' public sector, in other words businesses that derive all or a large part of their revenue from taxes, is totally dependant upon private sector businesses being successful. It is right that the needs of business takes the priority over most things but the problem is that this has simply not been the case in reality over the last 13 years. Businesses have been loaded with more and more red tape, rules and regulations and are much more highly taxed than most competitors. This impacts on profitability and their ability to compete and succeed in worldwide markets. Even small businesses found that they were being dragged into regulations from which prevuious governmetns would have excused them from. This is why increasingly we have seen major British businesses being bought up by foreigners while in the 80's there was a boom of British businesses expanding overseas.
Odd though - the one area of business that was chosen by Brown to be given the green light to really take risks and had the regulations reduced was the banks....The one area in which Mrs T and John Major kept the tightest regulation. As I have said before, regulation is not all bad but it has to be the right regulation. Brown misjudged that as he did with so much more in his time, including levels of public spending, the PFI, gold sales etc... That man was truly a one man disaster zone for this country
I will end it there - I have to get up at 4am and have a long day tomorrow!
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Barry just the facts mate just the facts.