That's an interesting article. But, to correct one small-but-important error, Digby Jones was not a "Labour Minister" - he has never been a Labour Party member. He could equally have been a Minister in a Conservative Government. Gordon Brown included him in his "Government of all the Talents". Which, from my point of view, is a really good thing to do. A Government shouldn't just be formed exclusively from members of one party. People with specific talents and experience should be welcomed in to a Government even if they are not members of that Party.
If you wanted a successful business you put the right people in the right place that won't just tow the line but will offer a different opinion and stance
That's an interesting article. But, to correct one small-but-important error, Digby Jones was not a "Labour Minister" - he has never been a Labour Party member. He could equally have been a Minister in a Conservative Government. Gordon Brown included him in his "Government of all the Talents". Which, from my point of view, is a really good thing to do. A Government shouldn't just be formed exclusively from members of one party. People with specific talents and experience should be welcomed in to a Government even if they are not members of that Party.
He served as The Minister of State for Trade and Investment under a Labour government, although not a Labour party member.
He is a very knowledgeable man and people should take heed of what he says.
I agree that all parties should make use of the best people.
The Tory's used Frank Field, which I also think was a good move.
You make no comment on the statements about The Tory plans to reduce the deficit quicker than Labour and spend more on the NHS than Labour ?
If you wanted a successful business you put the right people in the right place that won't just tow the line but will offer a different opinion and stance
You see this is where I find Ukip's line a bit daft. They often trot out the line that people like Ed Miliband and Ed Balls (and for that matter, David Cameron and George Osbourne) have never run a business, so they shouldn't be in Government. That's nonsense. If you are in the top job, you surround yourself with the best talents you can. Far better for a politician to take the leadership role and bring onboard current industry experts; than have someone who *used* to run a business (10, 15, 20 years ago?) trying to run the economy.
If you extend Ukip's argument (that you have to have run a business in order to be Chancellor or PM), then you have to conclude the following as well:
You have to have been a police officer to be Home Secretary You have to have been foreign to be Foreign Secretary You have to have been a farmer to be the Secretary of State for the Environment You have to have been to school to be Schools Minister* You have to have served in the armed forces to be Defence Minister Etc, etc...
(*Actually this one is true. In fact, someone in my class at school went on to be Schools Minister).
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
Actually it can be proven in a statistically meaningful way but since you most likely have not even a basic grasp of statistic mathematics I won't waste time explaining it to you. Since I actually have a degree-level understanding of statistic analysis and calculation, I know it isn't impossible to prove this.
If I could be bothered, I would ask you to explain how it already *had* been proven, as per your initial comment ("a proven phenomenon").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours. It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
This is ludicrous! You are the one who is becoming increasingly impolite as people challenge your views and throwing a little tantrum every day now.
Pot. Kettle.
............I don't question the validity of a statement just because I find it inconvenient to my political beliefs or ideology.
No, by your own admission you just tell them they are ignorant and misinformed.
The article says this is a result of regulatory and structural reforms since the recession, so presumably they were enacted (probably rightly) by the Conservatives.
Someone has also quoted one of their bigwigs moaning about the uncertainty an EU refferendum would cause, again this is solely a Tory/UKIP policy, not one Labour are proposing.
So it seems, if HSBC do leave Britain, it'll be due to current and future Tory policy and nothing to do with Labour.
I apologise. Sometimes my dark humour works in my head but not in print. It was a poor attempt at being amusing which obviously failed big time. (Nonetheless, as it's the banks' HQ staff that get the big wedge come bonus time and Labour wants to harvest bankers' bonuses to pay for absolutely everything, it may cause them some significant issues if they've all buggered off.)
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
Actually it can be proven in a statistically meaningful way but since you most likely have not even a basic grasp of statistic mathematics I won't waste time explaining it to you. Since I actually have a degree-level understanding of statistic analysis and calculation, I know it isn't impossible to prove this.
If I could be bothered, I would ask you to explain how it already *had* been proven, as per your initial comment ("a proven phenomenon").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours. It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
This is ludicrous! You are the one who is becoming increasingly impolite as people challenge your views and throwing a little tantrum every day now.
Pot. Kettle.
............I don't question the validity of a statement just because I find it inconvenient to my political beliefs or ideology.
No, by your own admission you just tell them they are ignorant and misinformed.
That's if they actually post something that's ignorant or misinformed.
That's an interesting article. But, to correct one small-but-important error, Digby Jones was not a "Labour Minister" - he has never been a Labour Party member. He could equally have been a Minister in a Conservative Government. Gordon Brown included him in his "Government of all the Talents". Which, from my point of view, is a really good thing to do. A Government shouldn't just be formed exclusively from members of one party. People with specific talents and experience should be welcomed in to a Government even if they are not members of that Party.
Presumably, no further comment apart from interesting, as you don't like what he says, about The Tories plans to reduce the deficit quicker than Labour and The Tories plan to put more money into The NHS than Labour.
The story makes no mention of the election and is focussed on regulatory changes since the crash. Obviously some will spin anything to make it anti Labour! Interesting that this is the bank which has been caught hiding billions of client money from the tax man of various EU nations in Switzerland and Panama. Not to mention money laundering in their Mexican subsidiaries!
If banks choose to move because they don't like the regulatory regime, are you suggesting that the government of the day, whatever colour, should just roll over and give them the framework they want?
Put aside for one minute the Tory rhetoric about the global crash being down to Labour because deregulation started under Thatcher and Reagan in 1980. Every serious economist on the planet stated that the 2007-09 crash was down to lax regulation and a misunderstanding of risk. The real question is what framework we need in place to mitigate (not prevent) the next crash.
This is a highly specialised area and the fact that I've read two or three books on the subject doesn't begin to qualify me to comment on what's needed and what might restrict banks too much. But one liners blaming a potential government aren't going to add anything to the discussion either.
Again, Labour have missed a trick by not proposing a strategy to the electorate around financial services. I could look but I haven't been presented with the blue and red policies on this major area of our economy. All I see is a rediculous proposal from the blues to have a referendum on Europe to satisfy political pressure from UKIP and 30-40 anti Europe tory MPs. it is my perception that is is a far higher threat than the SNP supporting a left of centre government for their own ends.
Leaving the EU right now is rediculous particularly when one considers that sensible forces across the continent need all the support the can get to get through the next few years. That's right, just like the SNP, we can leverage our independence and strength to help bring sanity and growth to our continent.
History. Every time Labour get in, many wealth creators leave the country. It's a fact.
I don't think that can be called evidence.
I agree. As I said, I honestly can't be bothered to spend hours trying to answer this from years gone by, apart from all the obvious pop stars and sports stars and the like who move overseas with their money to avoid high tax regimes.
ba it's not falling for tory lies it's witnessing the shambolic way that labour left the country ran the country and lied to the country,
I voted for them I assisted in them coming in to power with that vote,
I have since voted them out and have witnessed an upturn in the country and the money being spent by businesses to confirm that upturn
On that basis they get the same level of trust as labour did when I voted for them, nothing can be proven in one term nothing can detract from the situation that we were in, labour didn't cause it labour didn't create it but they were the captain of our ship and unfortunately the buck stopped there,
People need to stop being so aligned to a party due to the hatred and despising of another, and vote with an open mind based on what they see, not past nonsense, highest employment figures in years, a sign we are coming out of the hole as a result of people working
So many vote based on past feelings yet neither party resembles any of them from 20-30 years ago that it's quite astounding that people still vote like a football club allegiance
And I voted for the government in 2010. I feel they lied to me then and the have been lying ever since and they have been running an extremely negative campaign. As stated previously I won't be voting Labour either.
If there was any other real option that would actually get in and I mean realistically get in then I wouldn't vote for either party, shame that's not an option I'd love to see another party have a go
That's an interesting article. But, to correct one small-but-important error, Digby Jones was not a "Labour Minister" - he has never been a Labour Party member. He could equally have been a Minister in a Conservative Government. Gordon Brown included him in his "Government of all the Talents". Which, from my point of view, is a really good thing to do. A Government shouldn't just be formed exclusively from members of one party. People with specific talents and experience should be welcomed in to a Government even if they are not members of that Party.
Presumably, no further comment apart from interesting, as you don't like what he says, about The Tories plans to reduce the deficit quicker than Labour and The Tories plan to put more money into The NHS than Labour.
Ignore the facts ?
No, I don't have much else to add, as there seems to be a massive paucity of facts in the article. But I also don't see the need to give a running commentary on my thoughts on other people's opinions - that would be crushingly dull for everyone! But, in short, the article is a summary of the opinions of two former Labour Government Ministers, neither of whom are in Government now and both of whom are now members of the House of Lords. They both have differing views. There's no surprise that the article, published in the Telegraph, gives more space to the person who is more critical of Ed Miliband than the one who supports him.
Digby Jones makes it clear he doesn't like capping of profits for private companies competing for NHS contracts; an £8 minimum wage. No surprise there either. For the record, I do.
There is no mention of the deficit or the NHS in the article. Both are, however, mentioned in a separate article that covers a poll, concentrating on undecided voters; and some spin on the IFS analysis of some of the parties' manifestos.
If there was any other real option that would actually get in and I mean realistically get in then I wouldn't vote for either party, shame that's not an option I'd love to see another party have a go
That's where you confuse me NLA, most of your posts on just about any subject are well thought out and reasoned (not that I agree with everything you write!). Yet it seems on this you have decided to believe one point of view and not question it. You probably care little for my opinion but I think you are better than that.
Have a look at what other sources are saying and then if you still vote Tory you know you have done it having examined all the options. Like you I wish there was a real option for change or an electoral system that reflected the opinion of the voters.
Fully understand that you have every right to tell me to do one!
I think the statement is pretty much true and doesn't directly mention the refugee tragedy - although this is clearly part of the aftermath of ousting Gadaffi - but the same sort of statement can be applied to Blair in Iraq. It is all a bit immotive. Milliband did warn about this at the time, but he does represent a party that can't really talk about this IMO.
What we have to acknowledge is that these refugees don't have homes or infrastructure so they don't have anywhere to go . And our (The west's) actions have contributed to that.
Does accusing your opponent of being directly responsible for murdering thousands of refugees count as negative campaigning?
This is what Miliband said.
“In Libya Labour supported military action to avoid the slaughter Gaddafi threatened in Benghazi. But since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious. David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya’s political culture and institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own.
“What we have seen in Libya is that when tensions over power and resource began to emerge, they simply reinforced deep-seated ideological and ethnic fault lines in the country, meaning the hopes of the revolutionary uprisings quickly began to unravel. The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided. And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle.”
So he is having a dig at foreign policy, rightly in this case. This is a manufactured argument.
Change the names and the countries and it could equally apply to Iraq and Afghanistan where we also didn't think about what would happen next.
Does accusing your opponent of being directly responsible for murdering thousands of refugees count as negative campaigning?
You’re really letting yourself down Fiiish – I really enjoyed reading your articulate, intelligent responses to Labour supporters on this thread but you seem to have thrown that out the window over the last day or so. Milliband’s comments sound fair enough, but I’d like to know what he would have anticipated and avoided that Cameron didn’t.
I find the whole election thing a real issue tbh, I really want to see the great things and people we have in this country get back something tangible that they can feel has made this place better,
For me I really want to see young people not being misled and in a situation where they dont see that the world goes round due to people starting life sometimes at the bottom of the career path and fighting and trying to reach up that ladder, instead they become so disenchanted so led to believe that having to do the tasks and jobs that are not full of prestige and kudos are not worthwhile, and as such seemingly give up at around 13-14 and take the option of benefits and lack of aspiration to feel a sense of pride and self respect in doing the best job no matter what and give life a go
I want to see the seeds of recovery in the financial situation and stability to not de rail that
I want a party that represents people that work and reward getting yourself self sufficient and living within your means, not encouraging you to risk it through irresponsible borrowing, I want there to be a better security blanket for those that fall off that path and assist them to get back on
I want a country that has a military strength that is something that others need to be aware of and fearful of if you piss it off
I want hardline laws on anyone who is willing to cause terror and fear through hatred of any kind whether that be racial or religion
I want rapists murders and child sex offenders never free to walk amongst us,
If someone came along with all those I'd vote for them,
So right now I have to pick from who can give some of those things
And those that I think are the most important now
That's financial stability and consistent attention to what has grown the economy so far
Getting people into work and any kind of work
Not supporting those that can work but don't and making their lives more financially difficult until they have to change for themselves
To me that only can allow me to vote tory and that's how I will vote but remembering that the decision has been heavily influenced by the decisions and actions of the last government who had sole control and a hell of a long time to make a difference, I guess I just don't trust them regardless of what they put in their manifesto as they have still never accepted or taken responsibility for their mistakes and not in the indirect way they word any of their statements
Do I think that they will make the whole country feel that they are doing the right thing no it can never happen
Quite an interesting perspective from the point of view of the city / banks.
I run the account for a major high street bank at our agency, and their advertising / marketing budgets have been put on hold until after the election. Same thing happens every 5 years, but the caution is far more pronounced this time around.
In short - senior figures there (along with their colleagues from across the industry) are utterly terrified at the thought of Labour winning power. In short - they are predicting the economy to crash if they get in to number 10, especially with the prospect of it being done with the SNP in tow.
It's quite prudent for a bank to reel in its advertising during and election campaign regardless of who is standing and who is likely to win. The reason isn't that "they are terrified" of this result, that result or anything else, it's because advertising and promotions are only one part of the marketing mix. A key part of that mix is the product offering. Product offerings for banks are not as stable as for for many other businesses. If you are selling cars, beer, shampoo etc. you generally get a quite a long run in on any market changes and so there is less likelihood that your product offering would need to change at short notice. That isn't quite the same in banking as changes in the political arena (not necessarily bad changes, but neutral and even good ones - in fact especially good ones) could lead, directly or indirectly, to changes in your product offering. Rather than waste your money advertising one product now, and then have to pay out again to re-advertise a re-vamped product, it makes far more sense to ride out the couple of months of the campaign, keep your powder dry and then do your promotions when you've a better understanding of what landscape is.
Comments
If you wanted a successful business you put the right people in the right place that won't just tow the line but will offer a different opinion and stance
He is a very knowledgeable man and people should take heed of what he says.
I agree that all parties should make use of the best people.
The Tory's used Frank Field, which I also think was a good move.
You make no comment on the statements about The Tory plans to reduce the deficit quicker than Labour and spend more on the NHS than Labour ?
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1LDJZ_enGB602GB602&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Lord+Digby+Jones
To use loss of life to gain votes is totally unacceptable, Ill advised and a true sign of his character
If you extend Ukip's argument (that you have to have run a business in order to be Chancellor or PM), then you have to conclude the following as well:
You have to have been a police officer to be Home Secretary
You have to have been foreign to be Foreign Secretary
You have to have been a farmer to be the Secretary of State for the Environment
You have to have been to school to be Schools Minister*
You have to have served in the armed forces to be Defence Minister
Etc, etc...
(*Actually this one is true. In fact, someone in my class at school went on to be Schools Minister).
(Nonetheless, as it's the banks' HQ staff that get the big wedge come bonus time and Labour wants to harvest bankers' bonuses to pay for absolutely everything, it may cause them some significant issues if they've all buggered off.)
Also known as telling the truth.
Ignore the facts ?
Interesting that this is the bank which has been caught hiding billions of client money from the tax man of various EU nations in Switzerland and Panama. Not to mention money laundering in their Mexican subsidiaries!
If banks choose to move because they don't like the regulatory regime, are you suggesting that the government of the day, whatever colour, should just roll over and give them the framework they want?
Put aside for one minute the Tory rhetoric about the global crash being down to Labour because deregulation started under Thatcher and Reagan in 1980. Every serious economist on the planet stated that the 2007-09 crash was down to lax regulation and a misunderstanding of risk. The real question is what framework we need in place to mitigate (not prevent) the next crash.
This is a highly specialised area and the fact that I've read two or three books on the subject doesn't begin to qualify me to comment on what's needed and what might restrict banks too much. But one liners blaming a potential government aren't going to add anything to the discussion either.
Again, Labour have missed a trick by not proposing a strategy to the electorate around financial services. I could look but I haven't been presented with the blue and red policies on this major area of our economy. All I see is a rediculous proposal from the blues to have a referendum on Europe to satisfy political pressure from UKIP and 30-40 anti Europe tory MPs. it is my perception that is is a far higher threat than the SNP supporting a left of centre government for their own ends.
Leaving the EU right now is rediculous particularly when one considers that sensible forces across the continent need all the support the can get to get through the next few years. That's right, just like the SNP, we can leverage our independence and strength to help bring sanity and growth to our continent.
40% of something is better than 50% of nothing.
Digby Jones makes it clear he doesn't like capping of profits for private companies competing for NHS contracts; an £8 minimum wage. No surprise there either. For the record, I do.
There is no mention of the deficit or the NHS in the article. Both are, however, mentioned in a separate article that covers a poll, concentrating on undecided voters; and some spin on the IFS analysis of some of the parties' manifestos.
You are becoming hysterical now. Step away from the keyboard for a few days for your own sanity!
Have a look at what other sources are saying and then if you still vote Tory you know you have done it having examined all the options. Like you I wish there was a real option for change or an electoral system that reflected the opinion of the voters.
Fully understand that you have every right to tell me to do one!
What we have to acknowledge is that these refugees don't have homes or infrastructure so they don't have anywhere to go . And our (The west's) actions have contributed to that.
“In Libya Labour supported military action to avoid the slaughter Gaddafi threatened in Benghazi. But since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious. David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya’s political culture and institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own.
“What we have seen in Libya is that when tensions over power and resource began to emerge, they simply reinforced deep-seated ideological and ethnic fault lines in the country, meaning the hopes of the revolutionary uprisings quickly began to unravel. The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided. And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle.”
So he is having a dig at foreign policy, rightly in this case. This is a manufactured argument.
Change the names and the countries and it could equally apply to Iraq and Afghanistan where we also didn't think about what would happen next.
At least you still have your sense of humour!
For me I really want to see young people not being misled and in a situation where they dont see that the world goes round due to people starting life sometimes at the bottom of the career path and fighting and trying to reach up that ladder, instead they become so disenchanted so led to believe that having to do the tasks and jobs that are not full of prestige and kudos are not worthwhile, and as such seemingly give up at around 13-14 and take the option of benefits and lack of aspiration to feel a sense of pride and self respect in doing the best job no matter what and give life a go
I want to see the seeds of recovery in the financial situation and stability to not de rail that
I want a party that represents people that work and reward getting yourself self sufficient and living within your means, not encouraging you to risk it through irresponsible borrowing, I want there to be a better security blanket for those that fall off that path and assist them to get back on
I want a country that has a military strength that is something that others need to be aware of and fearful of if you piss it off
I want hardline laws on anyone who is willing to cause terror and fear through hatred of any kind whether that be racial or religion
I want rapists murders and child sex offenders never free to walk amongst us,
If someone came along with all those I'd vote for them,
So right now I have to pick from who can give some of those things
And those that I think are the most important now
That's financial stability and consistent attention to what has grown the economy so far
Getting people into work and any kind of work
Not supporting those that can work but don't and making their lives more financially difficult until they have to change for themselves
To me that only can allow me to vote tory and that's how I will vote but remembering that the decision has been heavily influenced by the decisions and actions of the last government who had sole control and a hell of a long time to make a difference, I guess I just don't trust them regardless of what they put in their manifesto as they have still never accepted or taken responsibility for their mistakes and not in the indirect way they word any of their statements
Do I think that they will make the whole country feel that they are doing the right thing no it can never happen
Stephen Hawking - voting Labour
Can you see where I am going with this..?