Ukip And The Bnp

[Cambon]

All of the analysis and everything he has ever said has always pointed towards Mr Brown being essentially opposed to Britain joining the €. Which is also, incidentally, very much what old - Labour have mostly always also argued.

 

So where is the evidence that Mr Brown has now changed his mind about Britain joining the € ? Why do you say that ? Is it based on serious analysis ? The markets do not agree with you.

 

Brown in 1997 stated that he thought the uk would benefit from being in the euro, when the time was right, based of 5 key criteria being met. Blair, in a speach in 2001 stated that he wanted the uk to have joined the euro within 4 years. If any mind changing has been made it is that for some unknown reason the Socialist Labour Party are for some reason no longer socialist and no longer want to join Europe, which has been their aim since the establishment of the common market several decades ago. Perhaps it is the usual labour spin that is putting you off, but joining the euro has always been labour's aim.

[pongo]

ETA ^ - you are wrong Cambon or misunderstanding the signals. Blair was pro, Brown was anti. Between them they represented the entire panorama. Brown's criteria were such that they could not be achieved. This is how all of the commentators read it. He might as well have said he was in favour of joining but not until the end of the rainbow.

 

-------

 

Also Cambon, there would not essentially be anything un-Conservative about Britain joining the €. €-skepticism is not an inherently Conservative position. You will also find just as many €-skeptics on the old left.

 

€-skepticism is deeply rooted in the lower-middle-class flag waving unionist tradition within the Conservative Party and represented by many Conservative Party candidates. It is the white-van-man, suburban, Daily Mail wing of Britain and the Conservative Party. The wing of the Conservative Party which basically thinks that Britain is best, whatever.

 

The 1980s was about the alliance of two factions within the Conservative Party: the (once) new economic liberalism and flag-waving Unionism. That alliance is no longer nearly so well defined IMO since there is nothing in economic liberalism which is essentially anti €. The Conservative Party is no longer the default party of business.

[Cambon]

ETA ^ - you are wrong Cambon or misunderstanding the signals. Blair was pro, Brown was anti. Between them they represented the entire panorama. Brown's criteria were such that they could not be achieved. This is how all of the commentators read it. He might as well have said he was in favour of joining but not until the end of the rainbow.

 

Blair was pro and Brown is even more so. Prior to 1997, he was blatently so. Brown's criteria was only a delaying tactic because he wanted the glory of leading the UK into Europe. He still does and given any opportunity, he will, whether it is good for the country at the time or not. This is because when the uk joins the euro it will be successful (eventually), but it will be his name that will go down in history, and that is what he wants. That is all.

 

What should go down in history is how brown lead the country into the biggest depression of all time.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

When Blair first came into power "New Labour" as they called themselves were in fact quite close to being conservative. However, They have moved slowly but surely further left as Blair's time moved on. Since Brown got in the leftward progression has accelerated at a massive pace, to the current point where the state now has much contol of the banking system, they have dumbed down the education system, installed big brother style surveylance, increased taxes on everyone expecially the poor, and basically screwed the economy with an unsustainable situation of low (manufactured) inflation. Brown now knows he is going and is clinging on for dear life, in the hopes that he can get his ID cards and DNA database, link the pound with the euro and then railroad us into the europe without a referendum. Hardly a conservative approach.

 

But you seem to be missing some of the effects of current circumstances that would have been responded to in the same manner whether it was the Labour Party or the Conservatives.

 

The banks were taken off because of the consequences of what would happen if they were left to collapse. The Tories would have done the same. And now many banks have been nationalised and the state has a bigger role in banking - but the Tories would have done the same in the circumstances as well. Market 'liberalisation' or whatever you want to call it cannot work or be allowed to work - this has been demonstrated by the financial crisis.

 

I think that the Tories outlook on some of these issues you have listed are simply framed in opposition to those of Labour, not for any serious ideological issue, as the ideology of the two parties do not differ much. If it weren't for the Tories desperation in wanting to get into office I cannot see little reason why they would oppose much of what Labour has done, such as ID cards and surveillance. It would serve them well.

 

Referendum on Europe? That isn't traditional. Britain doesn't do referendums. I agree it would be more democratic but in a land where the voters largely have little clue about politics other than what they read in the papers it is more democratic to ask them to vote on it, but whether the outcome will lead to wise choice is another matter.

[pongo]

ETA ^ - you are wrong Cambon or misunderstanding the signals. Blair was pro, Brown was anti. Between them they represented the entire panorama. Brown's criteria were such that they could not be achieved. This is how all of the commentators read it. He might as well have said he was in favour of joining but not until the end of the rainbow.

 

Blair was pro and Brown is even more so. Prior to 1997, he was blatently so. Brown's criteria was only a delaying tactic because he wanted the glory of leading the UK into Europe. He still does and given any opportunity, he will, whether it is good for the country at the time or not. This is because when the uk joins the euro it will be successful (eventually), but it will be his name that will go down in history, and that is what he wants. That is all.

 

You are making it up as you go along, no ?

 

Mr Brown was always a €-skeptic. He is famous for it. Perhaps not fundamentally opposed to the idea - but famously privately skeptical the time would ever be right, as he saw it. And as a pragmatist, he knows that the majority of the British public are so brainwashed by anti - € propaganda that it cannot happen during his political lifetime.

 

It seems almost as if you want to associate Gordon Brown with everything which you do not like - and a big dollop of anti Labour rhetoric from the 1970s - but I think you are on roughly the same side as him re joining the €. Though perhaps for different reasons.

 

Personally I finding the £ annoying. I have a lot of respect for Gordon Brown and wish he would have been more pro €. Tough job he has. I'm not particularly anti Conservative either although I'm not keen on the flag wavers.

[Cambon]

You are making it up as you go along, no ?

 

Mr Brown was always a €-skeptic. He is famous for it. Perhaps not fundamentally opposed to the idea - but famously privately skeptical the time would ever be right, as he saw it. And as a pragmatist, he knows that the majority of the British public are so brainwashed by anti - € propaganda that it cannot happen during his political lifetime.

 

No.

 

Brown has always wanted closer ties with Europe. Also, I don't think you are right about the majority of the british public being brainwashed. I think the majority don't give two hoots whether we are pound or euro. But as you said it is unlikely they will be given the option to decide.

 

Had we been in the euro, the current recession problems in the UK would be much worse for several reasons, not least of which is the UKs ability to decide how to get out of recession (e.g. printing money to devalue the pound).

[Cambon]

But you seem to be missing some of the effects of current circumstances that would have been responded to in the same manner whether it was the Labour Party or the Conservatives.

 

The banks were taken off because of the consequences of what would happen if they were left to collapse. The Tories would have done the same. And now many banks have been nationalised and the state has a bigger role in banking - but the Tories would have done the same in the circumstances as well. Market 'liberalisation' or whatever you want to call it cannot work or be allowed to work - this has been demonstrated by the financial crisis.

 

Only one bank has been nationalised - Northern rock. A smaller building society has also been nationalised. The Labour spin also puts RBS and Lloyds into the frame. However, they are still quoted on the stock exchange, so they are not nationalised. The government asked Lloyds to take over HBOS and offered support if they did in return for shares, which they have got. RBS got a capital injection in return for shares.

 

All the bullshit about tax payers money being used to bail out the banks is spin. The UK government is as much investing in the banks for a large return as any other investor.

 

However, here is where the tory/labour difference comes in. Labour doesn't want to lose control of the banks. Lloyds are nearly in a position to buy back the first step of government owned preference shares. RBS is doing pretty well and even Northern Rock is talking about trying to buy it's way to being a public company again. Later today the chancellor with the dodgy eyebrows is going to make a speach which is going to hit banking stocks badly. Watch for a drop tomorrow, it has actually already started. The point of this speach is to slow the advance of the banks to try to prevent them from buying themselves back, or at least slow down their progress. As I said, they don't want to lose control.

[Sebrof]

Brown ... hopes that he can ... link the pound with the euro and then railroad us into the europe without a referendum. Hardly a conservative approach.

 

All of the analysis and everything he has ever said has always pointed towards Mr Brown being essentially opposed to Britain joining the €. Which is also, incidentally, very much what old - Labour have mostly always also argued.

 

So where is the evidence that Mr Brown has now changed his mind about Britain joining the € ? Why do you say that ? Is it based on serious analysis ? The markets do not agree with you.

 

Perhaps the recent statement from Broon's saviour and right hand man, "Lord" Mandy, provides compelling evidence.

 

S

[Sebrof]

But you seem to be missing some of the effects of current circumstances that would have been responded to in the same manner whether it was the Labour Party or the Conservatives.

 

The banks were taken off because of the consequences of what would happen if they were left to collapse. The Tories would have done the same. And now many banks have been nationalised and the state has a bigger role in banking - but the Tories would have done the same in the circumstances as well. Market 'liberalisation' or whatever you want to call it cannot work or be allowed to work - this has been demonstrated by the financial crisis.

 

Only one bank has been nationalised - Northern rock. A smaller building society has also been nationalised. The Labour spin also puts RBS and Lloyds into the frame. However, they are still quoted on the stock exchange, so they are not nationalised. The government asked Lloyds to take over HBOS and offered support if they did in return for shares, which they have got. RBS got a capital injection in return for shares.

 

All the bullshit about tax payers money being used to bail out the banks is spin. The UK government is as much investing in the banks for a large return as any other investor.

 

With respect, Cambo, once the taxpayer has over 50%, the company is effectively nationalised.

 

And had the tax-payer not pumped in a huge amount of cash, those banks would have gone under. It's going to be quite a while before the tax-payer sees his money back, though in the long run it is to be hoped that he will get it back in full. So "bailed out" is a perfectly fair description.

 

S

[P.K.]

Oh dear Mr Cambon. "Tap tap tap, rattle rattle rattle" - keep beating that tired little "Brainless Brown Basher" drum.

 

Of course the banks haven't been nationalised, that's why they are still quoted. BUT the majority shareholder controls them. For example UK PLC bought up over 40% of Lloyds for about £18 billion (from memory). Now stretch your grey a bit and think very very hard. What would be the best news for Flash about his government intervening to prevent the collapse of banks like Lloyds and Joe Public shareholder losing all his dosh? Did you say "The banks returning to profit and paying the money back!" Well done, that's the right answer.

 

But there is a problem. Can you guess what it is? Your complete and utter bollocks statement "Labour doesn't want to lose control of the banks" is just putting a "Brainless Brown Basher" spin on the mechanics. Here's a little clue to help you.

 

Dear me, "The point of this speach is to slow the advance of the banks to try to prevent them from buying themselves back" - it's just share dealing and issues with the Government as a shareholder. Personally after the way the likes of Lloyds let themselves go to the brink my preference would be to not let them "manage" their business for a while yet...

[Cambon]

Of course the banks haven't been nationalised, that's why they are still quoted. BUT the majority shareholder controls them. For example UK PLC bought up over 40% of Lloyds for about £18 billion (from memory). Now stretch your grey a bit and think very very hard. What would be the best news for Flash about his government intervening to prevent the collapse of banks like Lloyds and Joe Public shareholder losing all his dosh? Did you say "The banks returning to profit and paying the money back!" Well done, that's the right answer.

 

But there is a problem. Can you guess what it is? Your complete and utter bollocks statement "Labour doesn't want to lose control of the banks" is just putting a "Brainless Brown Basher" spin on the mechanics. Here's a little clue to help you.

 

Dear me, "The point of this speach is to slow the advance of the banks to try to prevent them from buying themselves back" - it's just share dealing and issues with the Government as a shareholder. Personally after the way the likes of Lloyds let themselves go to the brink my preference would be to not let them "manage" their business for a while yet...

 

Actually, Lloyds were doing fine until the government persuaded them to take over HBOS. I personally believe that the truth about HBOS' debt was hidden, because it would take an idiot to agree to such terms. However, by hiding the HBOS debt, or whatever, they managed to get two banks for the price of one. Now, that was a brilliant move.

 

As for your comments about Lloyds not being able to manage themselves, that are so far from the truth it is unbelievable. Read your own link. The point of the link is to show how well they are doing and the fact that they are buying back the non voting preference shares (as I indicated earlier) only goes to prove this. However, the speed at which the banks are recovering has come as a bit of a shock to the old government who need to stem it somehow.

 

As for your first points about paying the money back, you are so far from the mark it is unbelievable. Take Lloyds for example. UKFI own 43% of Lloyds at an cost price average of £1.15 per share. If Lloyds bought all of UKFI's shares for £1.15 each, the tax payer would get all it's money back, just as you think is "the right answer". But, hang on, the governement would no longer have a say in the running of the bank! what if UKFI waited until the price got to £2.30? and sold half the shares, getting all the tax payer's money back and still having a 21.5% say in the running? Even better, what if UKFI didn't sell any of the shares, gained loads of asset over the value of what UKPLC has put in, allow dividends to be paid (so take income from the shares) and still be the larges shareholder. WOW! what a lot to think about. You see you can call me a brown basher, but the negative spin he has put on the banking situation means that UKPLC want their money back. They don't realise what they have really done because the spin doctors have dug the hole so deep. The banks recovering this quickly means the government needs to buy time to figure out how to convince the public that they need to keep the bank's shares, well at least until the middle of next year, after which it will not be Labour's problem.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What are your objections to the government being the largest shareholder?

[P.K.]

Mr Cambon, at least try not to bloat-quote!

 

So Lloyds were doing fine then? Err yes, after an enormous injection of public money to cover their enormous business losses. As to Lloyds not being able to manage themselves you've completely missed the very obvious point about the gov being the major shareholder. It's a very simple fact that what's the most profitable trading for Lloyds is not necessarily what's best for UK PLC. This may well depress the shares below what they may have achieved but the rest of the shareholders can hardly complain - they nearly ended up doing a KSFIOM! So your entire last paragraph, which clearly took a lot of effort, is a complete and utter load of old flannel based on entirely the wrong premise. Brown et al will consider trading their Lloyds shares when they're good and ready to relinquish control and not before. Naturally that will include input from their UK PLC agenda, so much for Lloyds "managing" their business. Who they sell to will be interesting as well. In the meantime Lloyds doing extremely well, boosting the public purse while the gov still hold their shares, is all good news for Flash so not selling their stake is the obvious thing to do.

 

I'm amazed you didn't realise that. Thinking about it, no I'm not...

[Cambon]

Mr Cambon, at least try not to bloat-quote!

 

So Lloyds were doing fine then? Err yes, after an enormous injection of public money to cover their enormous business losses. As to Lloyds not being able to manage themselves you've completely missed the very obvious point about the gov being the major shareholder. It's a very simple fact that what's the most profitable trading for Lloyds is not necessarily what's best for UK PLC. This may well depress the shares below what they may have achieved but the rest of the shareholders can hardly complain - they nearly ended up doing a KSFIOM! So your entire last paragraph, which clearly took a lot of effort, is a complete and utter load of old flannel based on entirely the wrong premise. Brown et al will consider trading their Lloyds shares when they're good and ready to relinquish control and not before. Naturally that will include input from their UK PLC agenda, so much for Lloyds "managing" their business. Who they sell to will be interesting as well. In the meantime Lloyds doing extremely well, boosting the public purse while the gov still hold their shares, is all good news for Flash so not selling their stake is the obvious thing to do.

 

I'm amazed you didn't realise that. Thinking about it, no I'm not...

 

Some interesting thinking from P.K. Loony Left Land.

 

However, it is tosh. Lloyds finances were always fine. They only received a cash injection AFTER they took over HBOS and it was part of the take over agreement made with the government, this was secured with 43% of common (voting) stock. However, for some unknown reason (most likely labour lies) the extent of HBOS debt was much worse than had been declared to Lloyds. So, Lloyds had to borrow more from the government, this time secured by preference shares. These shares are non-voting so do not increase the government's stake in Lloyds. However, Lloyds agreed not to pay any dividends until the preference shares were bought back, which is what is happening now.

 

Prior to HBOS, Lloyds were never in danger of doing a KFCIOM (Oh, yes, what happened there? The loony left stole the IOM's money.), neither is Barclays, Neither is HSBC.

 

As I said earlier, the government convincing Lloyds to take over HBOS so they could get control of both banks was a brilliant master stroke. So brilliant, in fact, that I don't believe they had the brains to come up with it. Actually, looking at the expenses scandle, of course they do. Their biggest downfall is all the spin they put on "bailing out the banks", which has all the loonies wanting there money back.

[Lawnmower]

and even Northern Rock is talking about trying to buy it's way to being a public company again. Later today the chancellor with the dodgy eyebrows is going to make a speach which is going to hit banking stocks badly. Watch for a drop tomorrow, it has actually already started. The point of this speach is to slow the advance of the banks to try to prevent them from buying themselves back, or at least slow down their progress. As I said, they don't want to lose control.

 

I am a bit reluctant to take lessons in economics from someone who cannot spell a basic word like 'speech' not once, but twice.

 

Brown is Pro-Europe, and anti (well not keen)-Euro.

 

As to Left and Right in relation to Europe - Margaret Thatcher campaigned to JOIN Europe in the Referendum - Arch Socialist Tony Benn campaigned AGAINST joining Europe.

 

Finally, can anyone tell me a good financial reason not to align with the Euro, apart from the spurious reason of losing the Queen's face from our currency?