• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

You have this blind faith in EM, but why don't you try reading the BBC comments on his broadcast and you'll see what the views of the nation are. The bottom line is thy people will not vote for a PM they do not "like"

The sort of people who leave comments on the BBC's website are not representative of the population as a whole(and certainly not of the section of it likely to vote Labour), in the same way that the sort of people who leave comments on the Guardian's website, are not representative of the Guardians readership as a whole.
 
The sort of people who leave comments on the BBC's website are not representative of the population as a whole(and certainly not of the section of it likely to vote Labour), in the same way that the sort of people who leave comments on the Guardian's website, are not representative of the Guardians readership as a whole.

No, but they represent a highly diverse section of the general public and the mood of Britain. A far higher volume of people are likely to visit the BBC website (rich,poor or middle class) and therefore is a good indicator...far more so than the guardian website. What would you say the volume of traffic on the BBC website is versus the Guardian traffic?

Are you seriously telling me that you think Miliband has the minerals to run a country? You must be an awful judge of character. what's more is you are not listening to me or anyone else on this thread, you seem completely blinkered and obsessed with labour (and worryingly EM).
 
Are you seriously telling me that you think Miliband has the minerals to run a country? You must be an awful judge of character. what's more is you are not listening to me or anyone else on this thread, you seem completely blinkered and obsessed with labour (and worryingly EM).

Coming from someone who compared Miliband with Hitler that's :hilarious:
I hope you heard the parts of his speech where he mentioned his immigrant parents refugee background.They were both Jewish refugees from the Nazis.
 
I fear Boy Miliband the Betrayer will end up leading a Lib/Lab coalition in 2015. I'd like to see the Tories ditch Cameron, appoint David Davis and prop up their lack of a majority via a deal with UKIP.
 
Coming from someone who compared Miliband with Hitler that's :hilarious:
I hope you heard the parts of his speech where he mentioned his immigrant parents refugee background.They were both Jewish refugees from the Nazis.

God you're tiresome.

Saying that, and I quote, "I'd rather have hitler than Miliband" is not drawing a comparison, it's tantamount to saying I'd rather a grizzly bear babysit my daughter than Gary glitter...

I don't much care one iota about his Jewish background, it's another nonsensical non-point that you've decided to home in on and ignore the more relevant points of my argument as you know deep down that EM is a humourless, spineless excuse for a man.
 
God you're tiresome.

Saying that, and I quote, "I'd rather have hitler than Miliband" is not drawing a comparison, it's tantamount to saying I'd rather a grizzly bear babysit my daughter than Gary glitter...

I don't much care one iota about his Jewish background, it's another nonsensical non-point that you've decided to home in on and ignore the more relevant points of my argument as you know deep down that EM is a humourless, spineless excuse for a man.

What argument? Neil F.does argument.You just do abuse and opinion.
 
Is he going to get a personality transplant and stop looking like a bit of a knob ? :smile:

I couldnt stand Cameron, but he at least looked like the smarmy creep that makes peoples' skin crawl that he is. Everything about Ed is wrong.

Jam_Man, I've edited for accuracy. Hope you don't mind.
 
One of the major problems with our economy in my opinion is that it is more corporatist than capitalist. That is that a number of sectors can do as they please because they know that the government (funded by the taxpayer) will stand behind them. That stifles innovation, reduces productivity and rewards failure. It isn't just the banks and energy firms but also the health and education sectors.

Milliband's problem here is that his party is owned by and run for those vested interests: the unions. He has no creditbility on the issue.

Really? The bank that I used to work for didn't even recognise the unions. The banks failed, and were bailed out. I don't see how that is anything to do with the unions.

Let's be honest here. Every party is run by those with vested interested. They just have different vested interests. The tories are run by the public school brigade, and have vested interest in allowing their mates to make as much money as possible.

I guess you just have to decide which vested interests are in keeping with your own.
 
Really? The bank that I used to work for didn't even recognise the unions. The banks failed, and were bailed out. I don't see how that is anything to do with the unions.

It doesn't. At no point did I claim it did.

Every party is run by those with vested interested. They just have different vested interests. The tories are run by the public school brigade, and have vested interest in allowing their mates to make as much money as possible.

I don't disagree. This is a symptom of the party funding system we have. My point was that it is hypocritical for Milliband to claim he will stand up to vested interest groups when the Labour party is bankrolled by and run for the benefit of the unions.

I guess you just have to decide which vested interests are in keeping with your own.

I have no idea what that means.
 
It doesn't. At no point did I claim it did.

You implied it by putting the two sentences together. That is why I highlighted those two sections.


I have no idea what that means.

Tory: backers are usually rich people who want a party that is going to make them richer.
Labour: backers are usually the unions who want to look after workers' rights.

Which of those fits in with your own interests/beliefs?
 
Tory: backers are usually rich people who want a party that is going to make them richer.
Labour: backers are usually the unions who want to look after workers' rights.

It's political insight like this that makes the Zone the place to be.
 
You implied it by putting the two sentences together. That is why I highlighted those two sections.




Tory: backers are usually rich people who want a party that is going to make them richer.
Labour: backers are usually the unions who want to look after workers' rights.

Which of those fits in with your own interests/beliefs?

Surely Neil's point was that he supports neither and wants a capitalist system, rather than a corporatist system that makes you choose between the two.
 
You implied it by putting the two sentences together. That is why I highlighted those two sections.

You can't be serious? I listed some vested interest groups in this country. Two of those were banks and unions. How can you possibly interpret that as a link between the unions and the bank bailouts?




Tory: backers are usually rich people who want a party that is going to make them richer.
Labour: backers are usually the unions who want to look after workers' rights.

Which of those fits in with your own interests/beliefs?

That is a gross simplification. For the record I believe in low tax, small government economies. Markets are better at allocating capital but government has a role to play in protecting consumers for monopolistic suppliers (be they private or public institutions). In short I would consider myself to be a low tax, Rooseveltian trust-buster.
 
In short I would consider myself to be a low tax, Rooseveltian trust-buster.

Ironically,if the restrictions on the banks and the financial system that Roosevelt first imposed back in the 30's hadn't been progressively lifted by Reagan,Thatcher et al from the 80's onwards then Western capitalism wouldn't be in quite the mess it is today.
 
Ironically,if the restrictions on the banks and the financial system that Roosevelt first imposed back in the 30's hadn't been progressively lifted by Reagan,Thatcher et al from the 80's onwards then Western capitalism wouldn't be in quite the mess it is today.

I was talking about Teddy Roosevelt, not FDR, so no irony required.

What is ironic is that it was Clinton that repealed Glass-Steagall, the bill that separated retail and investment banking...
 
I was talking about Teddy Roosevelt, not FDR, so no irony required.

What is ironic is that it was Clinton that repealed Glass-Steagall, the bill that separated retail and investment banking...

Yes,(that's why I wrote et al). But if you read Stigliz's Freefall, he makes it quite clear that the bonfire on those 1930's FDR controls started under Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK, culminating in the city's Big Bang.Clinton was just continuing a process already started by Reagan.In the same way that many of Bush JR.'s financial advisors,in the Fed. and elsewhere, got jobs in the Obama administration, as Charles Ferguson(Inside Job)has pointed out.
 
I was reflecting on the issue of financial regulation this morning. How much regulation and how many regulators are required to prevent another banking collapse?

In my opinion I don't think it would ever be possible to prevent a banking collapse. In that case, why bother with regulation if it won't prevent anything? Why not focus on restricting the scale and activities of banks such that the damage from a banking collapse could be contained?

There is obviously a balance to be struck and I am not seriously advocating a total absence of regulation. Much of the debate revolves around deregulation as one of the causes of the 2008 crash, but was it? Is it not a bit simplistic to argue that banks were deregulated, there was a crash therefore deregulation was to blame?
 
I was reflecting on the issue of financial regulation this morning. How much regulation and how many regulators are required to prevent another banking collapse?

In my opinion I don't think it would ever be possible to prevent a banking collapse. In that case, why bother with regulation if it won't prevent anything? Why not focus on restricting the scale and activities of banks such that the damage from a banking collapse could be contained?

There is obviously a balance to be struck and I am not seriously advocating a total absence of regulation. Much of the debate revolves around deregulation as one of the causes of the 2008 crash, but was it? Is it not a bit simplistic to argue that banks were deregulated, there was a crash therefore deregulation was to blame?

I think it's hilarious to imagine that the regulators could prevent it.
 
Back
Top