So that panic buying looks really silly now...

[anonymous-user]

martin84 said:

How was bringing the entire nation to a stand-still, etc, etc, .

Well, I just carried on as normal, as did pretty much everyone else. The country was not anywhere near at a 'stand-still'. There was no crisis.

Unless you wanted to see one.

[Trommel]

b0rk said:

RBS/HBOS could have avoided bailouts if the local regulator (FSA) had basically been competent to regulate such complex global banks and didn't assume the bankers knew best

Don't underestimate the then government's influence over the "independent" regulator.

[martin84]

NoNeed said:

martin84 said:

For a worldwide financial crisis? Lots of people.

No for our exposure to the problem, who was at fault for that? who allowed our banks to lend into these dodgy markets?

The question should be who told our banks to lend into these dodgy markets and the answer is nobody.

If the Government dictated where our banks could and could not lend you'd call it interfearing socialist state. Banks pay their executives big money so surely they are responsible for where their bank does and does not lend?

You're allowed to throw your money into the sea, but the decision whether to do so or not is up to you.

Are you saying bankers so inept, useless and child like that if you offer them something bad they'll do it so the Government has to hold their hand? People paid as much as bankers should be responsible for the decisions they make.

[AndrewW-G]

martin84 said:

The question should be who told our banks to lend into these dodgy markets and the answer is nobody..

WRONG - the US passed a series of laws, starting with a social housing bill passed in the last days of the Carter administration and reinforced by an amendment passed by Clinton, that essentially forced major mortgage lenders in the US to lend to sub prime. The mortgage books were then bundled together and sold on, as they have been for centuries.

It's all been covered before poppet

[NoNeed]

martin84 said:

NoNeed said:

martin84 said:

For a worldwide financial crisis? Lots of people.

No for our exposure to the problem, who was at fault for that? who allowed our banks to lend into these dodgy markets?

The question should be who told our banks to lend into these dodgy markets and the answer is nobody.

If the Government dictated where our banks could and could not lend you'd call it interfearing socialist state. Banks pay their executives big money so surely they are responsible for where their bank does and does not lend?

You're allowed to throw your money into the sea, but the decision whether to do so or not is up to you.

Are you saying bankers so inept, useless and child like that if you offer them something bad they'll do it so the Government has to hold their hand? People paid as much as bankers should be responsible for the decisions they make.

Didn't your leader and his side kick ed 2 recently slate cameron for not getting the banks lending

you are starting to sound desperate you havn't addressed any of my points with any level of credability.

Laws and regulations are there for a reason Labour removed that regulation so Labour are at fault.

If using your mindset that they should have known it was wrong then why not remove murder laws? It is an extreme example but one that fits. Incidently it wasn't a worldwide bank crisis as many countries banks and indeed many of our own banks were not directly affected, it was only the stupid ones you know the ones that Labour were awarding gongs and honours to.

Sir fred anyone?

Edited by NoNeed on Sunday 15th April 19:28

[martin84]

AndrewW-G said:

WRONG - the US passed a series of laws, starting with a social housing bill passed in the last days of the Carter administration and reinforced by an amendment passed by Clinton, that essentially forced major mortgage lenders in the US to lend to sub prime. The mortgage books were then bundled together and sold on, as they have been for centuries.

Jimmy Carter was President in 77-81, are you suggesting that was the UK Labour Party's fault as well?

NoNeed said:

Didn't your leader and his side kick ed 2 recently slate cameron for not getting the banks lending

Banks have gone from one extreme to the other. Five years ago they'd throw money at things knowing they'd never get it back, now they'll only lend if you've already got the money which sort of defeats the object. Sky News had an interesting interview with Alastair Darling about how he essentially fell off his chair when he saw the state of RBS' books. I mention Darling as he is often credited on PH will being an unfortunate puppet who might've actually done a better job if he was left to his own devices.

I used to think banks were big enough, smart enough and paid themselves enough to make their own decisions. Clearly you think differently.

NoNeed said:

you are starting to sound desperate you havn't addressed any of my points with any level of credability.

Somebody who sits there and says every single event for 13 years was entirely, completely and 100% the fault/responsibility of the Government has no right to use the word credibility, even if he does spell it wrong.

You're coming across as a complete moron mate, claiming absolutely everything is entirely Labour's fault. Banks pay their top people x amount of millions to make the right decisions and generate profits for their bank, I dont see how these people can be totally absolved of blame just because you dont like the Labour Party. You seem to suggest we need to treat our Banks like 3 year olds because they cannot be trusted?

Who was responsible for the early 90s recession then? Remember the Tories had been in for over a decade so im assuming absolutely everything was entirely their fault. Nobody else can be responsible for any of it surely?

NoNeed said:

Laws and regulations are there for a reason Labour removed that regulation so Labour are at fault.

Funny, earlier on it was RBS/HBOS could have avoided bailouts if the local regulator (FSA) had basically been competent to regulate such complex global banks and didn't assume the bankers knew best.

PH's argument seems to flip flop daily between this and what you said. One of you says the regulators didn't do their job, the other says there were no regulators. Which is it?

Now we've dealt with your stupidity can we get back to the thread topic?

[AndrewW-G]

martin84 said:

AndrewW-G said:

WRONG - the US passed a series of laws, starting with a social housing bill passed in the last days of the Carter administration and reinforced by an amendment passed by Clinton, that essentially forced major mortgage lenders in the US to lend to sub prime. The mortgage books were then bundled together and sold on, as they have been for centuries.

Jimmy Carter was President in 77-81, are you suggesting that was the UK Labour Party's fault as well?

You asked who / what was behind what the labour part spun as being the "banking crisis" and you were told . . . . Deregulation of the banking industry in the UK, allowed sub prime debts to be packaged and traded by UK based banks. The deregulation was instigated by Winky and his sidekick Ed Ballsup, by moving the regulation to an organisation that was not fit for purpose.

All of which is just perpetuation the smokescreen, that all our woes are due to the banks. THE BANKS DIDN'T FORCE THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT TO BORROW AND THEN SPEND TRILLIONS WE DON'T HAVE, ON STUFF WE DIDN'T / DON'T NEED.

I'd suggest getting this topic moved to the NP&E forum

[NoNeed]

I havn't said banks were not at fault i said labour allowed them to do what they were doing they even gave them awards and honours.

That was reckless and stupid and yes labours fault.

You worry about a few small queues on petrol forecourts yet remain completly ignorant of events that were much much worse so much worse that it will be a problem for at least a generation.


It was labours fault.


P.S I think it is you that is coming accross as the moronic one but i will leave you to the petty name calling.

[martin84]

NoNeed said:

I havn't said banks were not at fault i said labour allowed them to do what they were doing they even gave them awards and honours.

That was reckless and stupid and yes labours fault.

Labour allowed them to do it. What a tired excuse. I'm allowed to fill my car with slurry but if I choose to do so who's fault is it?

Giving them honours for it was stupid I agree, giving Sir Fred a knighthood was quite hilarious and the fact is Labour sucked up to the City for a decade and the city then brought it all crashing down round their ears.

NoNeed said:

You worry about a few small queues on petrol forecourts yet remain completly ignorant of events that were much much worse so much worse that it will be a problem for at least a generation.

No, its just the petrol queues were the actual topic of the thread. You know, before you lot turned it into an anti-Labour rant for no reason.

[NoNeed]

martin84 said:

Now we've dealt with your stupidity can we get back to the thread topic?

The very definition of stupidity could be that believing the recent panic buying of fuel was any more than a minor inconvenience to the average motorist. It could also be starting a thread to moan about it more than a week AFTER the event. It could also be believing that the minor inconvenience was anywhere near as bad as the fuel problems in 2000 when labour ignored a few farmers and lorry drivers then allowed them to actually bring the nation to a standstill with filling station only allowing emergency services to re-fuel.


But seriously, where do you think the petty name calling is going to get you?

Edited by NoNeed on Sunday 15th April 21:15

[martin84]

NoNeed said:

The very definition of stupidity could be that believing the recent panic buying of fuel was any more than a minor inconvenience to the average motorist.

Actually what I saw was genuine panic and fear. What comes through to me the most is how people are obviously very afraid for their jobs at the moment. If they cant get to work they wont get paid and the sheer terror in people the moment that looked a possibility was quite telling. I feel its a symbol of the stage we're at as a country.

NoNeed said:

It could also be starting a thread to moan about it more than a week AFTER the event.

The reason I started the thread yesterday is because yesterday the Union's announced a deal was on the table and it looks highly likely there will be no strike. It would've been hard to start such a thread before it happened.

NoNeed said:

It could also be believing that the minor inconvenience was anywhere near as bad as the fuel problems in 2000 when labour ignored a few farmers and lorry drivers then allowed them to actually bring the nation to a standstill with filling station only allowing emergency services to re-fuel.

Well from a personal point of view I wasn't old enough to drive in 2000 but my parents had a 4-star car at the time and no station ran out of that so we never had a problem. The protests of 2000 passed us by. However the protests in 2000 were for a very good reason and its the sort of thing we need to see again. And even back then, Tory leader William Hague did his bit for getting the bandwagon going.

[NoNeed]

martin84 said:

NoNeed said:

The very definition of stupidity could be that believing the recent panic buying of fuel was any more than a minor inconvenience to the average motorist.

Actually what I saw was genuine panic and fear. What comes through to me the most is how people are obviously very afraid for their jobs at the moment. If they cant get to work they wont get paid and the sheer terror in people the moment that looked a possibility was quite telling. I feel its a symbol of the stage we're at as a country.

NoNeed said:

It could also be starting a thread to moan about it more than a week AFTER the event.

The reason I started the thread yesterday is because yesterday the Union's announced a deal was on the table and it looks highly likely there will be no strike. It would've been hard to start such a thread before it happened.

NoNeed said:

It could also be believing that the minor inconvenience was anywhere near as bad as the fuel problems in 2000 when labour ignored a few farmers and lorry drivers then allowed them to actually bring the nation to a standstill with filling station only allowing emergency services to re-fuel.

Well from a personal point of view I wasn't old enough to drive in 2000 but my parents had a 4-star car at the time and no station ran out of that so we never had a problem. The protests of 2000 passed us by. However the protests in 2000 were for a very good reason and its the sort of thing we need to see again. And even back then, Tory leader William Hague did his bit for getting the bandwagon going.

You are supposed angered by the panic buying yet want to see further fuel shortages?

The fact labour could have prevented it completely escapes you too. Jack Straw was the main culprit. Hague made one very small comment that was on the money.

The panic buying was a minor inconvenience at most. Certainly not the massive political fk up you want it to be.

But seriously, where do you think the petty name calling is going to get you?

[martin84]

NoNeed said:

You are supposed angered by the panic buying yet want to see further fuel shortages?

I'm angered by the Government's handling of this non-strike. I don't want to see fuel shortages but the country needs to see lower fuel prices. If these shortages were as a result of a constructive anti-fuel duty protest I'd support it, yet instead the shortages were self inflicted nonsense.

Current fuel prices are damaging the economy, everybody knows that and protesting the nicey nicey way with petitions and Robert Halfon's black Focus hasn't had the desired effect. Politicians don't respond to that.

NoNeed said:

The fact labour could have prevented it completely escapes you too. Jack Straw was the main culprit. Hague made one very small comment that was on the money.

I'm glad they didn't prevent it. They were racking up fuel duty for no good reason at the stage and at the very least the protests did end the escalator and force Gordon Brown to backtrack a little in a couple of future budgets.

NoNeed said:

The panic buying was a minor inconvenience at most. Certainly not the massive political fk up you want it to be.

Fuel prices are going to be the next massive political implosion whether we panic buy it or not.

[AndrewW-G]

martin84 said:

Fuel prices are going to be the next massive political implosion whether we panic buy it or not.

In which case, plan for that eventuality. I'm currently doing a whole heap of hard landscaping at W-G towers, many trips to the tip, builders merchants etc. in my ratty Mitsu Challenger, all using fuel that cost me 90p/L, by running SVO . . . . . do something similar and it no longer becomes the pressing issue that it became a few weeks ago and 12 years ago

[martin84]

I don't intend to plan for the eventuality. When the petrol price issue breaks into a proper crisis (which it will) it needs to cause the most disruption humanly possible to force the Chancellor's hand. Government has had almost 20 years on the fuel duty gravytrain, beginning when Oil was $10 a barrel and OPEC had more control over the price. The gravy train needs to end if we're ever to get out of this mess.

[Some Gump]

I agree that bloke suggesting fill a jerry can did a poor job.

however, I can't get how anyone rational can put the plame on the government, rather than the unions. Just make being a money grabbing, co-worker leeching, hypocritical lefty illegal, and we won't have any of this bks again.

[martin84]

Some Gump said:

however, I can't get how anyone rational can put the plame on the government, rather than the unions.

Because the Union's didn't do anything. It may escape your notice but there never was any strike. Actually the Union's members did more deliveries and hours than usual.

Some Gump said:

Just make being a money grabbing, co-worker leeching, hypocritical lefty illegal, and we won't have any of this bks again.

Agreed, that law would put the entire Government put in prison

By the way, the irony of your post is excellent. You spout about 'rational' in the first bit and then come out with that

[AndrewW-G]

martin84 said:

I don't intend to plan for the eventuality. When the petrol price issue breaks into a proper crisis (which it will) it needs to cause the most disruption humanly possible to force the Chancellor's hand. Government has had almost 20 years on the fuel duty gravytrain, beginning when Oil was $10 a barrel and OPEC had more control over the price. The gravy train needs to end if we're ever to get out of this mess.

Unfortunately the massive amount of tax it raises, is one of the few things propping up government spending.

We can slash taxes as soon as we can slash expenditure . . . . something that I doubt will happen, irrespective of the colour of the ties in power, just look at the noise generated by trying to decrease the year on year increases in government spending. When we get to the point that we HAVE to slash spending, there will be riots, they wont be justified, but we will have them.

[Welshbeef]

The fuel solution is synthetic petrol.

Saw it on a James May show. They are making it in the desert in the USA using mirrors to get the temps high enough to create it using water and drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere Apparently this thing can currently make 1 gallon per day. It physically isn't that big so you could have >1 in your back garden.
Or of course this could be Africa's chance to become a super power. Cover the Sahara with these things along with solar panels... Electric and petrol solved plus cars couldn't be blamed for global warming any more.

Plus of course middle east oil countries suddenly have no power at all.

[Randy Winkman]

AndrewW-G said:

WRONG - the US passed a series of laws, starting with a social housing bill passed in the last days of the Carter administration and reinforced by an amendment passed by Clinton, that essentially forced major mortgage lenders in the US to lend to sub prime. The mortgage books were then bundled together and sold on, as they have been for centuries.

It's all been covered before poppet

That might be the PH view darling, but in the real world, that was just a small part of it.