Politics - Page 101 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic - Entertainment/News

  #1001  
Old 11.05.2010, 12:39 AM
Substitute's Avatar
Substitute Substitute is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 25.10.2008
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruschi 54 View Post
Give Miliband the leadership and a year to reshape the party and give it new direction, and you might be looking at a two/three term Labour government, again.
I suspect we're going to be looking at a lot of Labour governments over the next few years unless STV comes in (AV+ is strongly in Labours favour).

BUt in any case Miliband is the same kind of package as Cameron - a Blair impersonator. But what Cameron provides in toff-ness, Miliband provides in harshness. He's not a nice speaker - presentationally he is shocking. I don't where people get the idea to the contrary and the polls a while back even showed that people considered him less 'blokey' than Cameron. I'm not doubting he could be a good leader but I don't think he's the charasmitic kind the public will lap up.
Reply With Quote
  #1002  
Old 11.05.2010, 08:54 AM
leebladedawg's Avatar
leebladedawg leebladedawg is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 25.11.2005
Posts: 17,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Substitute View Post
Oh get off bashing the people! It's the peoples fault for taking loans they couldn't pay back! - never mind it was the banks who incurred debt that they couldn't pay back to give them these loans. And before we all get pious and start criticising fellow men lets bear in mind the system (and one higlighted certainly during the Blair years and maybe earlier) is geared for you to take out this debt - it works better when we do. You can say you don't need to take out these debts and it is true - but the system is biased to you taking out these debts (I dread to think what proportion of people have a mortgage) and at the end of the day if the bank are giving you money they have to be responsible enough to make sure you can pay it back.

People get the idea that we are stealing the money from the bank or something. No they are giving it to me to make profit - if they have bad business sense they can't then blame us (and legally this applies also) for taking up their offer. If anything it just shows their credit-check system is flawed (and it is). (Imagine if you bought food at a restaurant and fell ill from it and the restaurant had the nerve to criticise you for ordering it and not checking it for food poisoning).

Erstwhile they have been investing in a very risky system that is all confidence and bravado and many have done so in an irresponsible way - I am not taking the blame for that. (People think it's a skill but 80% of investors, this is according to the FT, can't even out perform the index of the market they are investing in.)

And as for not seeing it coming, well my Grandad did. He's not some financial expert, he just a retired doctor who has the wisdom of time. So exclude Gordon Brown from the wall-street experience but having said that he failed to notice that almost every crash comes after a boom market. He mistakenly thought that it could continue - the best time to save your money is in a boom and it's best to invest it after a crash. But even if he couldn't predict the crash, unhealthy example of debt accumulation and public sector spending has royally screwed us over.
Well Substitute it seems to me that your more than happy to throw the blame at Brown for screwing us over but not the society that happily took advantage of the boom period, in essence you want your cake and when you have had too much and the bill comes you want to blame the Chef.

Sure the system is biased and geared to for us to rely on debt, after all everyone needs a house/bank account but its not the fault of Gordon or individual bank managers/staff etc for as to how much a single person decides to take out on a credit card or what house they decide to ask for a mortage etc. Sure the banks have a responabilty to help the customer pay back the mortage but are you suggesting that if a Bank has reservations that a Client may not be able to afford the repayments then the client doesnt have any responseabilty either??? Seems to me they are both as guilty as each other

The simple truth is as humans we are all selfish and greedy to an extent which is why we have as a country and individuals ran up such huge debts, sure some may take more responsabilty than others but where all to blame.

Also isnt it ironic how your arguing how the Banks have made such a **** up whilst at the same time supporting the Tories because they favour the private sector and its the private sector who will bail this country out ie the banks
Reply With Quote
  #1003  
Old 11.05.2010, 08:56 AM
leebladedawg's Avatar
leebladedawg leebladedawg is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 25.11.2005
Posts: 17,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Substitute View Post
I suspect we're going to be looking at a lot of Labour governments over the next few years unless STV comes in (AV+ is strongly in Labours favour).

BUt in any case Miliband is the same kind of package as Cameron - a Blair impersonator. But what Cameron provides in toff-ness, Miliband provides in harshness. He's not a nice speaker - presentationally he is shocking. I don't where people get the idea to the contrary and the polls a while back even showed that people considered him less 'blokey' than Cameron. I'm not doubting he could be a good leader but I don't think he's the charasmitic kind the public will lap up.
But surely the public have just voted and shown that they dont want a Charasmatic but with no real substance leader like Dave or otherwise he would have got the overall majority, therfore lets find someone with substance and not someone trying to be the next Obama
Reply With Quote
  #1004  
Old 11.05.2010, 10:15 AM
Substitute's Avatar
Substitute Substitute is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 25.10.2008
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leebladedawg View Post
But surely the public have just voted and shown that they dont want a Charasmatic but with no real substance leader like Dave or otherwise he would have got the overall majority, therfore lets find someone with substance and not someone trying to be the next Obama
Try telling that to Labour. I personally would be much more tempted to going back to voting for Labour for any of the candidates bar D.Milliband.
Reply With Quote
  #1005  
Old 11.05.2010, 10:37 AM
Substitute's Avatar
Substitute Substitute is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 25.10.2008
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leebladedawg View Post
Well Substitute it seems to me that your more than happy to throw the blame at Brown for screwing us over but not the society that happily took advantage of the boom period, in essence you want your cake and when you have had too much and the bill comes you want to blame the Chef.
No, I'll happily blame the banks as well. In fact, on a global scale, more as Gordon Brown could only dream about having those kind of spending deregulations. He should know - he helped create them. In any case I'm not going to blame the people for taken out loans they were offered and, less so, given the example comes from above with any government. The banks should have said no to some people (lots by the sound of it) and should certainly have displayed better financial sense. The people don't take a loan unless they offered one, and they shouldn't be offered one if the banks puts in the time and thinks they can't pay it back. (For what it's worth I have no private debts just debt to the government from top-up fees and student loans - which weren't as big a problem pre-Labour).

Quote:
Originally Posted by leebladedawg View Post
Sure the banks have a responabilty to help the customer pay back the mortage but are you suggesting that if a Bank has reservations that a Client may not be able to afford the repayments then the client doesnt have any responseabilty either??? Seems to me they are both as guilty as each other
Well if they are offering the loan to the customer the bank has to do the due dilligence. But if they are in the midst of the loan the client has responsibility - that is not losing his wordly possesions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leebladedawg View Post
The simple truth is as humans we are all selfish and greedy to an extent...
No disagreeing here. But it was the system that allowed us to rack up these debts. Imagine if the banks had not allowed 5-times your salary mortgages (or whatever the high was) particularly in America. Sure less people would own houses but is that a bad thing? It's not in Germany etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by leebladedawg View Post
Also isnt it ironic how your arguing how the Banks have made such a **** up whilst at the same time supporting the Tories because they favour the private sector and its the private sector who will bail this country out ie the banks
Scary isn't it? But I'm not supporting the private sector as a nicetie but as a neccessity, warts and all. To paraphrase a man on question time, "giving our money to Labour, we might as well set fire to it". And he's largely right because a) it doesn't provide the growth this country needs (the private sector will need to provide that) and b) we don't get our moneys worth out of it. It is just racking up debts to make the country look richer, to all intents and purposes, and whomever is in power, Miliband, Clegg, Cameron etc. you will soon find public sector reliance drop.

We are going to have to rely on the private sector to provide this growth - it's just a question of whether you want to make it easier and quicker for them .

Last edited by Substitute; 11.05.2010 at 10:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #1006  
Old 11.05.2010, 12:49 PM
leebladedawg's Avatar
leebladedawg leebladedawg is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 25.11.2005
Posts: 17,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Substitute View Post
No, I'll happily blame the banks as well. In fact, on a global scale, more as Gordon Brown could only dream about having those kind of spending deregulations. He should know - he helped create them. In any case I'm not going to blame the people for taken out loans they were offered and, less so, given the example comes from above with any government. The banks should have said no to some people (lots by the sound of it) and should certainly have displayed better financial sense. The people don't take a loan unless they offered one, and they shouldn't be offered one if the banks puts in the time and thinks they can't pay it back. (For what it's worth I have no private debts just debt to the government from top-up fees and student loans - which weren't as big a problem pre-Labour).



Well if they are offering the loan to the customer the bank has to do the due dilligence. But if they are in the midst of the loan the client has responsibility - that is not losing his wordly possesions.



No disagreeing here. But it was the system that allowed us to rack up these debts. Imagine if the banks had not allowed 5-times your salary mortgages (or whatever the high was) particularly in America. Sure less people would own houses but is that a bad thing? It's not in Germany etc.




Scary isn't it? But I'm not supporting the private sector as a nicetie but as a neccessity, warts and all. To paraphrase a man on question time, "giving our money to Labour, we might as well set fire to it". And he's largely right because a) it doesn't provide the growth this country needs (the private sector will need to provide that) and b) we don't get our moneys worth out of it. It is just racking up debts to make the country look richer, to all intents and purposes, and whomever is in power, Miliband, Clegg, Cameron etc. you will soon find public sector reliance drop.

We are going to have to rely on the private sector to provide this growth - it's just a question of whether you want to make it easier and quicker for them .
No i want to protect the public sector and allow the private sector to succeed but over a longer period, have saw nothing from the Tories or private sector to suggest that the Tory cuts are going to allow the private sector to pull us out and create jobs in any quick time. Fair enough my way may take longer and we may have to keep belts tightend for longer but if we can save more public sector jobs this way then all the better, if we can do it somehow by making the wealthy part of society pay more taxes even better
Reply With Quote
  #1007  
Old 11.05.2010, 12:57 PM
Bretts's Avatar
Bretts Bretts is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 02.09.2008
Posts: 5,969
Default

LBD wont be happy until his beloved Communist party get into power
Reply With Quote
  #1008  
Old 11.05.2010, 01:06 PM
Raider12's Avatar
Raider12 Raider12 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 05.09.2003
Posts: 11,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Substitute View Post
I suspect we're going to be looking at a lot of Labour governments over the next few years unless STV comes in (AV+ is strongly in Labours favour).

BUt in any case Miliband is the same kind of package as Cameron - a Blair impersonator. But what Cameron provides in toff-ness, Miliband provides in harshness. He's not a nice speaker - presentationally he is shocking. I don't where people get the idea to the contrary and the polls a while back even showed that people considered him less 'blokey' than Cameron. I'm not doubting he could be a good leader but I don't think he's the charasmitic kind the public will lap up.
Do you not think some of the population are going for the looks of the party leaders rather than there substance. Listen to the news, papers etc I feel as though that is how in some cases it is being presented.

This election has left us in a rather odd position with one party selling themself to the highest bidder, party politics changing to accomodate the Libs. There is no clear message or direction at this time, I suppose when a coalition is made there will be direction, but it will pull us all over the place as 2 parties can never see eye to eye on everything.

Get the next fe weeks over with and get us back to the polls in October.



Mark
Reply With Quote
  #1009  
Old 11.05.2010, 01:19 PM
Bretts's Avatar
Bretts Bretts is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 02.09.2008
Posts: 5,969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider12 View Post
goiDo you not think some of the population are ng for the looks of the party leaders rather than there substance. Listen to the news, papers etc I feel as though that is how in some cases it is being presented.

This election has left us in a rather odd position with one party selling themself to the highest bidder, party politics changing to accomodate the Libs. There is no clear message or direction at this time, I suppose when a coalition is made there will be direction, but it will pull us all over the place as 2 parties can never see eye to eye on everything.

Get the next fe weeks over with and get us back to the polls in October.




Mark
It seems to be the modern trend. Just look at the Americans love affair with Obama before their election. They lapped up the idea of voting for a black man as it made them feel good about themselves. It seemed to have the feel of the second coming of Christ by the time he was elected. I still think a lot of young people dont vote for the Tories because they still have this vision of old stuffy men in grey suits. Each party seems to want its own Tony Blair...............like you said Mark, style over substance.
Reply With Quote
  #1010  
Old 11.05.2010, 01:43 PM
Raider12's Avatar
Raider12 Raider12 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 05.09.2003
Posts: 11,694
Default

I just feel a lot of folk are that shallow, and thanks to them we will get rolled over.



Mark
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 01:46 PM.