Who is most hated - Thatcher or Blair

[legzr1]

crankedup said:

We know how the three main culprits were all involved. But its the bankers who bear the brunt of the blame for the crisis and continuance of disclosures of serious malpractice and criminality confirms public opinion is spot on, the financial industry has been utterly corrupt and its contempt for its customers exposed. You can wriggle all you like and post sill excuses, facts remain.

Well said.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

You may consider that the 'banks screwing over the World economy' is nonsense, don't walk down any High St suggesting that if I were you! You gripe about Unions but prefer to pass over the banking crisis along with the criminality and double dealing. Double standards any one!

Once again you've either not read or not understand any post I've written about the banking crisis - I've never denied that certain bankers conttributed to the crisis, simply that many people seek to overlook the huge involvement of governments and individuals, as it suits their politics to do so.

I've also supported the fullest penalties for any bankers found guilty of crimes.

But that wouldn't fit your rhetoric, so no wonder you choose to ignore or misrepresent this.

crankedup said:

Not everybody agrees public service unions are a 'problem'. Personally I believe that a vast array of public service workers are badly underpaid.

The surveys suggest otherwise.

crankedup said:

I do not agree for one moment that these unions represent a problem, certainly are not having an adverse impact on the public.

You don't think teachers' strikes and tube drivers' strikes adversely affect the public?

crankedup said:

The unions in the U.K. are the most regulated, by legislation, in the World. The impact upon the population that you mention is extremely modest.

See above...

I disagree with your assertions that 'certain bankers' contributed to the crisis. The problem with this is that you seek to diminish the severity of the banking industries widespread and deeply ingrained corrupt working practices. 'Certain bankers' is a wildly under statement of actuality.

Teachers and tube drivers represent a tiny fraction of public service workers in the U.K. However, I do agree that tube drivers going on strike causes inconvenience to London City workers and teachers strikes also cause inconvenience to parents and guardians.

We choose to live in a democratic society but gripe when workers exercise their 'Rights'. For these people to strike means losing wages, do you think they want to take this action of striking and do you not agree that the Union responsible has had to comply with stringent legislation before authorising official strike action.

Surveys can show all they like but are meaningless in the real world, as we all know much variance can be achieved by pollsters dependant on who, how,where and when the poll was achieved. Regards of that imo public sector workers are badly under paid. My sense is that compared to the private sector that is not the case, for which I suggest their pay must be scandalously poor. As the forth most wealthy Country its difficult to see why this is.

[NicD]

yes, thats is our point, it should be, for both groups

anyway, where do you get your stats? 99% of what?

[s2art]

crankedup said:

s2art said:

crankedup said:

s2art said:

crankedup said:

s2art said:

crankedup said:

Having agreed that Union representation can work in industry we can only conclude that weak Governments lack of sensible regulations, pertaining to Unions, led to the ultimate industrial troubles of the 1970s. Or put another way sat back for too long. Pity, a great pity for our Country.

When you look at the effort Labour, and the Heath governments, put in from the late 60's to the late 70's to try and curtail the worst of the Union excesses I am afraid you are wrong. It took a Thatcher to confront them head on and win. There was no alternative.

I have seen very little effort from those Governments in terms of new legislation to bring Unions back to reasonable behaviour. The late seventies shows that Government was beginning to take the problem seriously.
I am not suggesting that the 1970s 'lets go on strike' mentality was right and proper, not good for the Country. I am saying Governments must hold a share of responsibility for letting the power of Unions grow to the extent of Unions ruling bosses.

Wilson, Barbera Castle and Callaghan tried their best. The problem is that the unions 'owned' Labour. Heath tried and the miners brought down the government in short order, just as all the unions destroyed Callaghans in the winter of discontent. Basically Labour couldnt do it as the union movement had too much power in the party. You need to do some research, start with 'In place of strife'.

They tried their best is hardly an endorsement of legislation clamping down upon over active Unions imo. And that is what I am saying, I have done some research and stand by my previous comments. Weak Governments and it seems to me that you are agreeing! Also as you mention Labour was owned by Unions but who voted for Labour Governments. It was the will of the people. I have distinct recollection of how it was in the 1970s, I was contracted to procure repair maintenance on oil storage depots but couldn't enter the premises because I didn't hold a Union card.

No its not an endorsement, its a statement of reality. Labour couldnt do it. It took a Thatcher Tory government with a big enough majority and big enough balls to do the necessary. Heath didnt stand a chance. The general public didnt wake up to the fact that Labour was controlled by the unions until the winter of discontent. Even then the Thatcher government only just had enough power, and there were plenty of 'wets' who didnt have the stomach for the job. Its all very well saying that the governments of the day should have legislated better, but how were they going to get said legislation through against the wishes of their union paymasters?

But you are missing the point I have made and explained! these Governments were weak, you said so yourself. My point is this, AGAIN, where was the legislation???? to reign in the over active Unions. In the absence of any I say for the last time these Governments were weak. THAT IS MY STATEMENT, No point trying to broaden it out as I do not have any argument against the Thatcher Government legislation, that did happen. All your waffle about Union paymasters strengthens my point.

And you keep missing my point. Labour couldnt bring in appropriate legislation in the 60s or 70's because the unions owned Labour and the unions wouldnt allow it. Thats why there was no legislation. Its that simple. You can call that weak government, but Labour was created effectively by the unions, and prior to Kinnock and Bliar, the unions had the whip hand. Up until the late 80's/90's the Labour party was the political wing of the unions. It was never designed to represent all the electorate. That has changed now, but even now Unison has an unhealthy influence.

[legzr1]

Isn't this the 'race to the bottom' that people have been warning of since the coalition took power?

Minimum wage earners having to defend their right to withdraw labour whilst the top 5% of earners moan that their tax is paying for their over-generous pensions.

It's as corrupt as the worst of the bankers excesses.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

We know how the three main culprits were all involved.

So it's just an accident that you only ever focus on one of those culprits?!

crankedup said:

But its the bankers who bear the brunt of the blame for the crisis and continuance of disclosures of serious malpractice and criminality

That's your opinion which you are entitled to - plenty of people (including those with much more experience) would suggest otherwise.

crankedup said:

confirms public opinion is spot on, the financial industry has been utterly corrupt and its contempt for its customers exposed. You can wriggle all you like and post sill excuses, facts remain.

Given the number of people involved in criminal cases compared to those working in the banking sector, it would be much more accurate to say that parts of the financial sector were clearly corrupt.

However, I'd also say that as a proportion, the amount of fraud amongst politicians would be much higher than for the finance sector, as an obvious example.

You might well be able to say the same about criminal activities in many other professions!

Its no accident at all, I and millions of others blame the bankers if for no other reason then the fact that they were paid to do a job of work, they got caught out and are now rightly imo held in very low regard to be polite about it.

It is still an ongoing investigation where the corruption has been found to exist Numbers of those brought to justice is minimal, this merely adds to the public disdain of the industry as a whole. Unless of course the reporting is entirely wrong and the industry is a pure and white as driven snow.

I agree corruption within politics existed, at least those responsible have been brought to justice. Some others escaped though, much to the annoyance of some I guess.

The point of criminality amidst other industries is that it is the banking industry that affects every single person in the Country. Not the same thing with other industries, tesco for example.

I admire your staunch defence of the industry in which you work but it will be many years or some decades before the damage sustained to public confidence is repaired.

[sidicks]

NicD said:

yes, thats is our point, it should be, for both groups

anyway, where do you get your stats? 99% of what?

Finger in the air - what fraudulent practices are you aware of?

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

I disagree with your assertions that 'certain bankers' contributed to the crisis.

Evidence doesn't support you.

crankedup said:

The problem with this is that you seek to diminish the severity of the banking industries widespread and deeply ingrained corrupt working practices. 'Certain bankers' is a wildly under statement of actuality.

Except it isn't.

crankedup said:

Teachers and tube drivers represent a tiny fraction of public service workers in the U.K. However, I do agree that tube drivers going on strike causes inconvenience to London City workers and teachers strikes also cause inconvenience to parents and guardians.

We choose to live in a democratic society but gripe when workers exercise their 'Rights'. For these people to strike means losing wages, do you think they want to take this action of striking and do you not agree that the Union responsible has had to comply with stringent legislation before authorising official strike action.

Not sure the point you are making?

crankedup said:

Surveys can show all they like but are meaningless in the real world, as we all know much variance can be achieved by pollsters dependant on who, how,where and when the poll was achieved. Regards of that imo public sector workers are badly under paid. My sense is that compared to the private sector that is not the case, for which I suggest their pay must be scandalously poor. As the forth most wealthy Country its difficult to see why this is.

Your "sense" contradicts all known information, so isn't to be trusted.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Its no accident at all, I and millions of others blame the bankers if for no other reason then the fact that they were paid to do a job of work, they got caught out and are now rightly imo held in very low regard to be polite about it.

So don't be surprised if you get picked up on false statements.

Again, you want to blame the majority for the corrupt practices of a small minority. It makes no sense.

crankedup said:

It is still an ongoing investigation where the corruption has been found to exist Numbers of those brought to justice is minimal, this merely adds to the public disdain of the industry as a whole. Unless of course the reporting is entirely wrong and the industry is a pure and white as driven snow.

Yes, you believe all you read in the papers if it suits you to do so (and conveniently ignore all that does not). Strange that you see the lack of criminal convictions as supporting your own opinion not those who suggest that the abuse was not widespread. Given this illogical approach, nothing could ever change your opinion!

crankedup said:

I agree corruption within politics existed, at least those responsible have been brought to justice. Some others escaped though, much to the annoyance of some I guess.

The point of criminality amidst other industries is that it is the banking industry that affects every single person in the Country. Not the same thing with other industries, tesco for example.

I admire your staunch defence of the industry in which you work but it will be many years or some decades before the damage sustained to public confidence is repaired.

Indeed, but much of that is built on fiction rather than fact, as your posts demonstrate.

[NicD]

sidicks said:

NicD said:

yes, thats is our point, it should be, for both groups

anyway, where do you get your stats? 99% of what?

Finger in the air - what fraudulent practices are you aware of?

unfortunately, as I clearly pointed out, they are not against the law. I said you or I , well certainly, I think they SHOULD be.

all of the dubious MPs expense and incestuous hiring shenanigans.
All of the local body/BBC/Civil Service/NHS/quango redundancy payoffs to walk into another well paying job.
and pretty well everything done in the name of investment finance but frankly, i have no interest in justifying this, so thats it.
and lots more, but its extremely boring as so many vested interest feed from the trough and guard these practices so jealously.

[legzr1]

sidicks said:

Finger in the air

I'd guess the middle one...

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

I'd guess the middle one...

That's your trouble - too much guessing, too little knowledge...

[legzr1]

But I just know I'm right.

99% of my made up poll also agree.

[sidicks]

legzr1 said:

But I just know I'm right.

99% of my made up poll also agree.

In that case I take it all back, given you have evidence to support your opinion...

[crankedup]

SIDICKS believes the banking crisis was only caused by a few naughty people employed within the industry

For somebody who preaches 'show us your evidence' your own evidence to support your assertions seems somewhat thin!

[andymadmak]

crankedup said:

SIDICKS believes the banking crisis was only caused by a few naughty people employed within the industry

For somebody who preaches 'show us your evidence' your own evidence to support your assertions seems somewhat thin!

And you think that the banking crisis was caused by lots of naughty people, indicative of a culture of naughtiness ( to use your vernacular) within the banking sector. I could put a rofl smilie to that just as easily. Your opinion is no more valid in this regard that Sidicks. However, the balance of evidence presented to date would seem to suggest that Sidicks view is probably the more accurate. Hundreds of thousands of people are employed in the banking industry and there has been nothing shown to date that would suggest that a majority, or even a significant minority were involved in anything hooky. Bizarrely your own beloved Coop bank seems to have been amongst the most culturally corrupt, so perhaps your judgement might not be the most reliable arbiter of things in this matter?

Anyway, it's pretty clear that the "banking crisis" was a product of more than one factor. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic played a mighty role too. I could go so far as to say that without the likes of Clinton, Brown et al and the actions that they took for political gain which sowed the seeds of the catastrophe that followed then there would have been no banking crisis. But that would be just my opinion, and you'd be quite within your rights to rofl smilie me for expressing it.

[Rovinghawk]

andymadmak said:

Anyway, it's pretty clear that the "banking crisis" was a product of more than one factor.

There's sufficient blame/culpability for everyone to have a share. I include those who borrowed money that they shouldn't have.

[turbobloke]

andymadmak said:

Bizarrely your own beloved Coop bank seems to have been amongst the most culturally corrupt, so perhaps your judgement might not be the most reliable arbiter of things in this matter?

And about to fail the latest BoE stress tests apparently. At least according to the CoOp Bank itself.

[crankedup]

legzr1 said:

Isn't this the 'race to the bottom' that people have been warning of since the coalition took power?

Minimum wage earners having to defend their right to withdraw labour whilst the top 5% of earners moan that their tax is paying for their over-generous pensions.

It's as corrupt as the worst of the bankers excesses.

This is only of interest to those caught in the net of 'race to the bottom'. For those currently fortunate enough to escape the net these people do not recognise a problem. Its the usual short term selfish attitudes often expressed by the unaffected, dressed over with excuses such as 'global competition'.

[crankedup]

andymadmak said:

crankedup said:

SIDICKS believes the banking crisis was only caused by a few naughty people employed within the industry

For somebody who preaches 'show us your evidence' your own evidence to support your assertions seems somewhat thin!

And you think that the banking crisis was caused by lots of naughty people, indicative of a culture of naughtiness ( to use your vernacular) within the banking sector. I could put a rofl smilie to that just as easily. Your opinion is no more valid in this regard that Sidicks. However, the balance of evidence presented to date would seem to suggest that Sidicks view is probably the more accurate. Hundreds of thousands of people are employed in the banking industry and there has been nothing shown to date that would suggest that a majority, or even a significant minority were involved in anything hooky. Bizarrely your own beloved Coop bank seems to have been amongst the most culturally corrupt, so perhaps your judgement might not be the most reliable arbiter of things in this matter?

Anyway, it's pretty clear that the "banking crisis" was a product of more than one factor. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic played a mighty role too. I could go so far as to say that without the likes of Clinton, Brown et al and the actions that they took for political gain which sowed the seeds of the catastrophe that followed then there would have been no banking crisis. But that would be just my opinion, and you'd be quite within your rights to rofl smilie me for expressing it.

Agreed that the Co-op bank has caught me out, along with hundreds of thousands of others. But at least I held up my hands and admitted I had misjudged them and have found it to be a massively embarrassing misjudgement on my part.

I notice that you use the term 'culturally corrupt' and Co-op was seemingly worst amongst them, so at least some sort of agreement with my pov regarding corruption in the banking system, and still it is going on!!

I am not arguing against the facts that other influences were involved within the financial crisis of 2008. That is not the issue nor basis of my disagreement with sidicks on this thread. I am fully aware of the historical background leading to the meltdown, starting off with Thatchers beloved (by some) de-regulation legislation.

An insight into the high st retail banks reveals that wrong-doing was found, especially in Barclays Bank, misleading customers for reasons of earning a bonus for a sale. Banking is a corrupt and dirty business, always has been and is unlikely to change any time soon.