W(B)ankers

[RonnieP]

Crosby, Hornby, McKillop you bankers took one helluva beating today, Maggie Thatcher, Winston Churchill where are you and any of your ilk to pull us out of the st that Gordon, Tony and their fecking hangers on have put us in?

[anonymous-user]

Was Churchill a good peace time leader?

I thought Thatcher closed down much of the manufacturing in this country which encouraged a reliance on the financial services and the city.

I'm not convinced those two would be much use.

[henrycrun]

Agreed. However the word you are looking for is Bwkers

[RonnieP]

You will be turning the lights out El, except there will be no power

Edited by RonnieP on Friday 13th February 22:51

[Jagdpanther]

Ahhhh the friday evening rant...

[GTIR]

Where is that popcorn smiley?

[Jagdpanther]

I don't know whether to sit and see where this goes or go an moan about that talentless fkwit Ross?!

[eharding]

el stovey said:

Was Churchill a good peace time leader?

Compared to Blair and Brown as wartime leaders, in wars of their own making, Winston wins hands down. I note that Churchill was voted out in 1945 by an electorate sold a pack of lies by sorry bunch of socialisist spivs offering the same something-for-nothing pseudo-idealistic bullsh!t whilst having nothing really to offer except an agenda of building a mountain of parasitic bureaucratic red tape and the apparatus to support it.

Damn, I'm getting deja vu.

[Fittster]

eharding said:

el stovey said:

Was Churchill a good peace time leader?

Compared to Blair and Brown as wartime leaders, in wars of their own making, Winston wins hands down. I note that Churchill was voted out in 1945 by an electorate sold a pack of lies by sorry bunch of socialisist spivs offering the same something-for-nothing pseudo-idealistic bullsh!t whilst having nothing really to offer except an agenda of building a mountain of parasitic bureaucratic red tape and the apparatus to support it.

Damn, I'm getting deja vu.

Churchill was the architect of much of the welfare state.

[Semi hemi]

GTIR said:

Where is that popcorn smiley?

Here ye go

[eharding]

Fittster said:

eharding said:

el stovey said:

Was Churchill a good peace time leader?

Compared to Blair and Brown as wartime leaders, in wars of their own making, Winston wins hands down. I note that Churchill was voted out in 1945 by an electorate sold a pack of lies by sorry bunch of socialisist spivs offering the same something-for-nothing pseudo-idealistic bullsh!t whilst having nothing really to offer except an agenda of building a mountain of parasitic bureaucratic red tape and the apparatus to support it.

Damn, I'm getting deja vu.

Churchill was the architect of much of the welfare state.

You're confusing...again...the difference between the provision of an ultimate safeguard against real destitution and poverty, as any civilised society should strive to achieve - as Churchill well understood - against what is effectively an industry - that generates, in essence, nothing - built on top of it.

[Fittster]

eharding said:

Fittster said:

eharding said:

el stovey said:

Was Churchill a good peace time leader?

Compared to Blair and Brown as wartime leaders, in wars of their own making, Winston wins hands down. I note that Churchill was voted out in 1945 by an electorate sold a pack of lies by sorry bunch of socialisist spivs offering the same something-for-nothing pseudo-idealistic bullsh!t whilst having nothing really to offer except an agenda of building a mountain of parasitic bureaucratic red tape and the apparatus to support it.

Damn, I'm getting deja vu.

Churchill was the architect of much of the welfare state.

You're confusing...again...the difference between the provision of an ultimate safeguard against real destitution and poverty, as any civilised society should strive to achieve - as Churchill well understood - against what is effectively an industry - that generates, in essence, nothing - built on top of it.

There were plenty of safe guards already in place before Churchill decided the state should provide them. Without his contributions to domestic politics we would have the reliance on the state we see today.

[215cu]

Fittster said:

eharding said:

Fittster said:

eharding said:

el stovey said:

Was Churchill a good peace time leader?

Compared to Blair and Brown as wartime leaders, in wars of their own making, Winston wins hands down. I note that Churchill was voted out in 1945 by an electorate sold a pack of lies by sorry bunch of socialisist spivs offering the same something-for-nothing pseudo-idealistic bullsh!t whilst having nothing really to offer except an agenda of building a mountain of parasitic bureaucratic red tape and the apparatus to support it.

Damn, I'm getting deja vu.

Churchill was the architect of much of the welfare state.

You're confusing...again...the difference between the provision of an ultimate safeguard against real destitution and poverty, as any civilised society should strive to achieve - as Churchill well understood - against what is effectively an industry - that generates, in essence, nothing - built on top of it.

There were plenty of safe guards already in place before Churchill decided the state should provide them. Without his contributions to domestic politics we would have the reliance on the state we see today.

Believe it or not, the welfare state was extended more by Neville Chamberlain.

All Labour have done and my god do they know how to f-ing go on about it was 'The Beveridge Report'. A list of the unaffordable detailed by the clueless on how to pay for it.

Each Labour administration since 1945 starts out making a load of bribes, sorry, promises and then proceeds to bankrupt the country and put more out of work than when they took office.

[cardigankid]

Fittster said:

eharding said:

el stovey said:

Was Churchill a good peace time leader?

Compared to Blair and Brown as wartime leaders, in wars of their own making, Winston wins hands down. I note that Churchill was voted out in 1945 by an electorate sold a pack of lies by sorry bunch of socialisist spivs offering the same something-for-nothing pseudo-idealistic bullsh!t whilst having nothing really to offer except an agenda of building a mountain of parasitic bureaucratic red tape and the apparatus to support it.

Damn, I'm getting deja vu.

Churchill was the architect of much of the welfare state.

Christ there's always one isn't there. Churchill would turn in his grave if he could see what has become of the country he did so much to save. If you are suggesting that Churchill supported Attlee's agenda you are well off beam.

Where we are however is the result of a flaw in democracy which Churchill did not foresee, so far as I can tell, which is that once you have universal unqualified suffrage the bribery of the electorate becomes more and more extravagant until the society collapses. Securing the bribe becomes a lot more important to people than the health of the economy or anything else. Public services, particularly in the form of public sector employment, is just another form of creating a bribed constituency. It is inefficiency which kills the country in the end.

That inefficiency was massively promoted by the huge bureaucracies which were set up after WW2. It is certainly true to say that the centralised control of industry and the unquestioning obedience to Civil Service diktat which were instituted in two World Wars, by Churchill and others, did a great deal to assist that bureaucratic monster, which survives today.

The Bankers are central to the course of this because the whole moneylending and borrowing culture, whioch they profit from enormously, oils the wheels on the road to catastrophe.

What should happen is that:-

1. The true, broken down, cost of the Public Sector should be made public and a start should be made to rein it back to what the country needs and can afford
2. Tax rates should be lowered to what is fair - fairness is the cornerstone of the tax system and only those who pay tax, HOWEVER LITTLE THEY ACTUALLY PAY, should be entitled to vote. This on the principle that you should not be prepared to take advantage of a system to which you do not contribute.
3. There should be laws controlling usury, of a type which would probably be familiar to civilisations throughout the centuries. Only last week I got a typical invitation to 'consolidate my debt' on a credit card with an APR of more than 34%. If we don't recognise that as criminal there is something wrong with our moral compass.

[fido]

cardigankid said:

3. There should be laws controlling usury, of a type which would probably be familiar to civilisations throughout the centuries. Only last week I got a typical invitation to 'consolidate my debt' on a credit card with an APR of more than 34%. If we don't recognise that as criminal there is something wrong with our moral compass.

Surely it would be better to increase the rate of borrowing (to say 50% for 'sub-prime' types) so that the f3ckless don't borrow too much, or are you proposing that we lend at a lower rate of interest to all and sundry .. ?

[RonnieP]

That Dutch koran bashing MP summed it up pretty well( not that I particularly support his view) that we have become Chamberlain, not Churchill people, aka a spineless nation?

[ewenm]

As long as we've got someone to heap blame upon, even better if it fits with our prejudices too...

[RonnieP]

Only people we have to blame are the greedy, feckless people, City bankers, Gordon and his mates with their snouts in the trough, oh and all of us for letting them for getting away with it for so long.

[cardigankid]

fido said:

cardigankid said:

3. There should be laws controlling usury, of a type which would probably be familiar to civilisations throughout the centuries. Only last week I got a typical invitation to 'consolidate my debt' on a credit card with an APR of more than 34%. If we don't recognise that as criminal there is something wrong with our moral compass.

Surely it would be better to increase the rate of borrowing (to say 50% for 'sub-prime' types) so that the f3ckless don't borrow too much, or are you proposing that we lend at a lower rate of interest to all and sundry .. ?

It is a grave error to think we can all live by lending each other money at spiralling rates. Usurous interest rates only end up with borrowers (who will always be with us) in impossible positions. The problem with the feckless is the easy availability of money and they don't generally worry too much about the interest rate, because they think that they are going to be able to pay it back. That is why there are rules about moneylending in Islam, and why persons charging excessive rates of interest in medieval Germany got their hands chopped off. Cards at 34% are criminal and an a shocking reflection on our supposedly civilised society.

All I am suggesting is a limit on the percentage of any asset including houses which a retail borrower can finance, and limits on the interest rates which can be charged. if there was a savings regime which wasn't just a rip off that would help too.