Bob Diamond resigns

[mjdgreg]

I have followed this debate with great interest and have learned a great deal from both sides of the argument. Fair play to Billy he keeps coming back for more, if it had been a boxing match the referee would have stepped in ages ago to protect him from any further punishment.
I declare the winner on points to be:

mgdgreg (congratulations)

Thank you for your support. I'm sure you had an open mind before you started following this thread and I am pleased that you have been persuaded by the excellent case I've made. I must admit I'm surprised one of the moderators hasn't stepped in to close the thread to save poor Billy from further serious punishment. Ah well, while ever he keeps arguing I'll keep taking him apart.

[RedJ]

Wondered when Micks mate/relation/other personality would reappear!

[Donnywolf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCzbdbL0XXI

Last Post PLEEEEEEAAAAAAASE

[MachoMadness]

The moral of the story is, you can win an argument simply by saying you've won over and over again. If only I'd known this when I was at uni, my dissertation would've been a doddle.

[mjdgreg]

Ahem.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18908882

You've done it again! pmsl. Brilliant contradiction. Only a few days ago you said:


'By the way, why should we take the IMF word as being gospel? Why should we assume that they are correct in saying that if there wasn't a deficit reduction plan then things would have gone tits up? They have been wrong on every other prediction about the UK economy recently.

In 2009, they predicted a -0.4% contraction in the UK for 2010. They didn't believe that Brown's fiscal stimulus would work. Actual outcome? 2.1% growth, even allowing for the economy crashing into reverse in Q4 after the Coalition cuts started (remember Gideon blaming it all on the snow?)

In 2010, after the Election, they predicted that there would be 2.1% UK growth in 2011. They said that the Coalition deficit reduction plan would add confidence to the economy. Actual result? 0.6% growth as the economy went into flatline mode.

In 2011, they predicted that the UK would grow by 1.6% in 2012. Result? Well, we contracted by 0.3% in the first quarter, and even the most optimistic forecasts indicate that we flatlined at best in Q2. So we would need a pretty spectacular recovery over Summer and Autumn to come remotely close to the IMF prediction.

So, the IMF has been wrong on every call in predicting the UK performance. They didn't believe that Brown's stimulus would produce growth. It did. They didn't believe that Osborne's spending cuts would cripple growth. They have done.

Wrong at each turn. Why should we listen to them on the deficit?'

So how you can post a link to an IMF report is totally amazing. It doesn't even back up your argument. Best laugh I've had for ages. You were obviously in bad need of a 3 week holiday.

[mjdgreg]

The moral of the story is, you can win an argument simply by saying you've won over and over again. If only I'd known this when I was at uni, my dissertation would've been a doddle.

Sounds like you don't like my pugnacious debating style. I can live with that. People are far too modest in this country. If you win a debate hands down then you shouldn't be ashamed about proclaiming your victory. Be honest and admit that you have been persuaded by my excellent destruction of Billy's thesis.

[mjdgreg]

Sums Gordon up nicely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0650Cg60gB0

[The L J Monk]

Oh dear:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18977084

[mjdgreg]

Oh dear:

Given the disastrous debt legacy left behind by Labour I would say we're doing very well considering. We need a recession to get the economy re-balanced and re-structured. There are still far too many public sector jobs that need to be cut and spending is nowhere near being brought under control.

My solution would be to put up interest rates and get the housing bubble deflated quickly instead of prolonging the agony. Cut taxes and spending much further and stop believing in the fantasy of borrowing for consumption.

[The L J Monk]

How long do you want it to go on for Mick?

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/228112002508263424/photo/1/large?tw_p=twt

[mjdgreg]

How long do you want it to go on for mjdgreg?

That's an irrelevant question. How long do I think it will go on for? I don't think we'll see average growth above 2% for about 10 years. We need this rate just to stand still given the size of population. So in real terms things are not going to get any better for at least 10 years. Given that this is what is likely to happen, the sensible amongst us will prepare accordingly and not  believe the bullshit spouted by politicians.

I'd be grateful if all you lefties out there stopped for a second and thought about who is to blame. If any of you have got any level of intelligence then you will quickly realise that the vast bulk of the blame lies with Gordon Brown. This is a recession made in Downing Street when he was Chancellor and then Prime Minister.

Unfortunately the only quicker way out of our mess would be if I was elected as the benevolent dictator of the country with a term of 25 years. I'd soon get things moving in the right direction.

[5minstogo]

Who is Bob Diamond?

[Filo]

Who is Bob Diamond?

Neil`s twin brother!

[jucyberry]

Who is Bob Diamond?

I've forgotten, that's a sign of how long this thread has dragged on....

[mjdgreg]

Who is Bob Diamond?

He's a product of the last Labour government and is one of the reasons the country is bankrupt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Diamond_(banker)

[Filo]

Who is Bob Diamond?

He's a product of the last Labour government and is one of the reasons the country is bankrupt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Diamond_(banker)

Would you like to explain to us thicko`s how Labour was involved in appointing him Goup CEO of Barclays plc?


you`ll probably ignore the question and produce some waffle and something you`ve found via google and then try to pass it off as your own words

[mjdgreg]

Would you like to explain to us thicko`s how Labour was involved in appointing him Goup CEO of Barclays plc?

Where did I say that? He was a product of the lax regulatory framework that Labour encouraged. He took reckless gambles and was dishonest with his customer's money knowing full well Gordon would bail him out if necessary. He epitomised all that was wrong with Labour's cosy relationship with the banks.

[Filo]

Would you like to explain to us thicko`s how Labour was involved in appointing him Goup CEO of Barclays plc?

Where did I say that? He was a product of the lax regulatory framework that Labour encouraged. He took reckless gambles and was dishonest with his customer's money knowing full well Gordon would bail him out if necessary. He epitomised all that was wrong with Labour's cosy relationship with the banks.

And the Tories de regulated in the first place

[mjdgreg]

And the Tories de regulated in the first place

Labour were in power. Not the Tories. Labour could have tightened up regulation. They didn't. They loosened it to the point there was no point in having regulation. They are to blame. End of.

[Draytonian III]

If you dont vote you cant comment on the government, either party, for or against

[Filo]

And the Tories de regulated in the first place

Labour were in power. Not the Tories. Labour could have tightened up regulation. They didn't. They loosened it to the point there was no point in having regulation. They are to blame. End of.

Right, we`re in agreement that the Tories De regulated the banks?

Now you can`t go bleating that the other party did n`t put that regulation back in place can you, when it`s de regulation you wanted in the first place, damned if you do and damned if you don`t, Cameron would have kicked a right fuss up if Labour re regulated would n`t they?

[mjdgreg]

Right, we`re in agreement that the Tories De regulated the banks?

Now you can`t go bleating that the other party did n`t put that regulation back in place can you, when it`s de regulation you wanted in the first place, damned if you do and damned if you don`t, Cameron would have kicked a right fuss up if Labour re regulated would n`t they?

I've never said I wanted de-regulation. What I do want is proper regulation. Anyway, what the Tories got up to before Labour came to power is not the issue. Labour only had 13 years to sort things out. When Labour came to power they completely changed the way the banks were regulated. So they did re-regulate as you put it. They just re-regulated in a totally inept way.

I have graphically explained where they went wrong in previous posts. The regulatory framework they put in place was useless and we are all now paying the price. Trying to pin the blame on the Tories totally misses the point. Labour were in power for 13 years. They are responsible for their actions. We are all suffering the consequences of their ineptitude.

[mjdgreg]

If you dont vote you cant comment on the government, either party, for or against

Why not? Is it now a condition of free speech that you can only exercise this right if you vote? That's a new one on me. There's no point voting in Doncaster unless you are a Labour supporter. No matter how bad the Labour council have been over the years we always end up with Labour MPs. This says a lot about the lack of political awareness of the majority of the people that vote in this town.

If I had my way there would be plenty of people in this town that would be denied the right to vote because they are clueless when it comes to politics and are a danger to the well-being of the country. 

[CusworthRovers]

..............starting with you

There's more to this world than Economics. It needs to be balanced with Social issues. Finding that equilibrium is the key

[mjdgreg]

..............starting with you

There's more to this world than Economics. It needs to be balanced with Social issues. Finding that equilibrium is the key

I'm not exaggerating when I say I consider my vote to be worth at least 1000 votes of the general public. People should be made to sit an exam to qualify for getting the vote. I would be quite happy to set the questions. Depending on how well you did in the exam would determine the weight your vote carried.

For example if you can't even spell your own name you would not be given the vote. If the only correct answer you gave was naming who the current Prime Minister was then your vote would be worth 1% of someone like me. There are far too many people who just vote the way they do because that's the way their mum and dad did or that's how their mates vote. Others cast their vote purely based on class prejudice and who will give them the most benefits. No wonder Labour keep getting the chance to ruin the country.

[mjdgreg]

I've forgotten, that's a sign of how long this thread has dragged on....

You seem to be inferring that this thread has gone on too long. I'm sure there are many people out there who have benefited and continue to benefit from my excellent posts that would totally disagree with you. I give out far more useful information and advice about the state of the economy than the likes of the BBC.

I also advise people what to do to protect themselves. Please feel free to ignore my advice but don't come back on here moaning in the future that you got caught with your pants down. If I have persuaded just one person to never vote Labour ever again then my time has been spent very wisely.

[mjdgreg]

There's more to this world than Economics. It needs to be balanced with Social issues. Finding that equilibrium is the key

I'm afraid that you seem to fall into the category of not qualifying for the vote. You seem to be implying that social issues are as if not more important than economics. Wrong. If you don't get the economics right first, then you can forget all about social issues. Put social issues first, then you get into the mess that the last socialist government left us in.

[Draytonian III]

If you dont vote you cant comment on the government, either party, for or against

Why not? Is it now a condition of free speech that you can only exercise this right if you vote? That's a new one on me. There's no point voting in Doncaster unless you are a Labour supporter. No matter how bad the Labour council have been over the years we always end up with Labour MPs. This says a lot about the lack of political awareness of the majority of the people that vote in this town. Not everyone on this forum lives in Doncaster

If I had my way there would be plenty of people in this town that would be denied the right to vote because they are clueless when it comes to politics and are a danger to the well-being of the country. 

[Donnywolf]

If you dont vote you cant comment on the government, either party, for or against

Why not? Is it now a condition of free speech that you can only exercise this right if you vote? That's a new one on me. There's no point voting in Doncaster unless you are a Labour supporter. No matter how bad the Labour council have been over the years we always end up with Labour MPs. This says a lot about the lack of political awareness of the majority of the people that vote in this town.

If I had my way there would be plenty of people in this town that would be denied the right to vote because they are clueless when it comes to politics and are a danger to the well-being of the country. 

Mick

I cannot let this pass without comment. I have taken little interest in the original thread as I have far too little time to read endless “War and Peace “ length posts …BUT ….

… you are obviously trying to wind someone else up for a debate on Politics (a bit like Wives do when they are wrong and then switch the argument to a tangent issue)

We live in a Democracy. We have free speech.  People fought and died for the right to vote. One could argue they are still fighting or dying to bring Democracy** to peoples of other countries.

** (Aside : you could argue the USA and us have altogether different agendas)

The Suffragettes jumped through amazing “hoops” including one throwing themself under the Kings Horse in The Derby JUST to secure the right to vote and yet you seek to reverse all that just because people want to vote a certain way.

It IS one man and one woman one vote END OF and to say people cannot vote because the are mentally not up to it is an affront to all the people who have fought when they were disenfranchised

Lets face it --- the WHOLE Political system is corrupt but again that is an entirely different debate - and I have no wish to spend WEEKS debating this with you either because a) I have neither the time not the inclination and b) as I have said many times before we could swap points of view again and again and again and again and you would not be convinced by my arguments and I would not be swayed by yours

You may have valid points on the economy (who knows I have not read them) but your views on the qualities required to simply vote are simply flawed 

[mjdgreg]

I'm sorry but if you can't spell your own name you shouldn't have the vote. If you've voted Labour more than twice in your life you should no longer have the vote as you have proved conclusively that you haven't got a clue about politics.

Democracy is not all it's cracked up to be. Give me a benevolent dictator any day of the week. Look at Egypt. They have democratic elections and the Muslims get in. Why should the biggest religious sect get to say what goes? Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.