ltdgas
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 811
|
Post by ltdgas on Jun 5, 2024 20:46:23 GMT
Reform on 17 points 👍👍2 points behind the tories , ld on 10 points , talk we will overtake the tories after the week Come on the people’s party 👍👍
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,522
|
Post by oldie on Jun 5, 2024 20:46:23 GMT
You don't believe in profit generation, you don't believe in the way the mechanics of a free market. Who is the Commie?? I don’t believe in using the race card as he obviously is But do you believe in a free market?
|
|
ltdgas
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 811
|
Post by ltdgas on Jun 5, 2024 20:49:03 GMT
I don’t believe in using the race card as he obviously is But do you believe in a free market? [br You’re really testing my f**king patience I don’t believe in using the f**king race card , now just f**k off with your thick as mince commie mates Tosser
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,522
|
Post by oldie on Jun 5, 2024 20:51:53 GMT
But do you believe in a free market? [br You’re really testing my f**king patience I don’t believe in using the f**king race card , now just f**k off with your thick as mince commie mates Tosser Do you believe in a free market? Yes/No
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 5, 2024 23:12:42 GMT
Gething says he has asked his party to carry out a review into how donations are handled. And he has asked the senedd’s standards committee to look at how the rules operate. But he says it is wrong to change the rules retrospectively. He says he is grateful for the support he has had. Many people of colour know what it is like to be vilified, he says. I also want to recognise that, like me, so many people of colour have been traduced and vilified merely for raising concerns about how some of these debates have been handled. Our lived experience should matter and be respected. We still have a very long way to go. He says Labour has always offered pairs to other parties when MSs are too ill to vote. And he says the refusal of the Tories to offer pairs today, when two Labour MSs are ill, reflects badly on them. Updated at 17.13 BST 16.38 BST Takes a 200,000 backhander the plays the race card , typical commie The point being missed is that that the two 'ill' members can vote remotely/electronically. This is standard practice. Both of the 'ill' members had been sacked as Ministers. They were not 'ill' but they did not want to support him !
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 5, 2024 23:14:39 GMT
[br You’re really testing my f**king patience I don’t believe in using the f**king race card , now just f**k off with your thick as mince commie mates Tosser Do you believe in a free market? Yes/No Oldie, why are you wittering on about a 'free market' ? What has that to do with the context of the discussion about the Welsh First Minister?
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,522
|
Post by oldie on Jun 6, 2024 4:07:41 GMT
Do you believe in a free market? Yes/No Oldie, why are you wittering on about a 'free market' ? What has that to do with the context of the discussion about the Welsh First Minister? Or much at all in reality. But just a response to the comments by one or two who label anyone who disagrees with them a HAMAS loving anti Semitic, communist.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,522
|
Post by oldie on Jun 6, 2024 4:42:04 GMT
Back to the GE and proposed taxation. This made me laugh, from The Spectator "My colleague Ross Clark has shown how the Tories cooked up that £2,000 figure. They worked out the total cost of what they think Labour will do, using standard HM Treasury costings. Then, they divided that by the number of in-work households (18.4 million). This is a subset of the 21.4 million total UK households, so no pensioners or workless households. By choosing a smaller denominator, you concentrate the increase and conjure up a scarier figure. Then they quadruple-counted. So they took each year’s estimate for tax rise and then added them together over four years and – presto! – you end up with £2,000." Then "Add up all four years (as the Tories did for their Labour calculation) and you end up with a £320 rise in year one, £620 in year two, £930 in year three and £1,150 in the final year. So: a sum of £3,020 per working household. Except this would be just as misleading as the £2,000 figure that Sunak used so often in the debate last night." Full article www.spectator.co.uk/article/on-sunaks-maths-tories-will-lift-taxes-by-3000-per-household/
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 6:31:29 GMT
Here's the thing Oldie. Labour are not denying the fact that households will have to pay. They are just arguing about the amount that the Tories are claiming it will be.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,522
|
Post by oldie on Jun 6, 2024 7:25:35 GMT
Here's the thing Oldie. Labour are not denying the fact that households will have to pay. They are just arguing about the amount that the Tories are claiming it will be. That is not calculable until the full manifesto is released. The big question here is whether the Prime Minister stood on TV and knowingly mislead the audience and millions of viewers. All the evidence is that he did exactly that. Whilst, with almost laughable hypocrisy, leading a Government which has presided over tax policies which have resulted in the highest tax take in living memory, has more in the pipeline and has recently released a budget that has unanswered questions on departmental spending cuts. This is the truth Nobby. Like you I wish there was a more radical alternative than the two main political parties. But there is not, it certainly not Reform who are a single issue party, immigration, led by a blustering, self obsessed buffoon, who appeals to the lowest common denominator.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,522
|
Post by oldie on Jun 6, 2024 7:43:23 GMT
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,522
|
Post by oldie on Jun 6, 2024 7:49:38 GMT
Yeah but Angela Rayner.
"Rishi Sunak was paid cÂŁ5 million in his 20s as partner in a hedge fund at the heart of 2008 RBS crash which taxpayers bailed out for ÂŁ45.5 BILLION
Sunak was partner in TCI hedge fund which aggressively pushed for the sale of ABN Amro Bank RBS-led consortium then bought ABN for £50bn in October 2007 biggest takeover in banking history. A year later RBS crashed Taxpayer spent £45.5bn bailing out RBS TCI made £555 million profit 2007/08 largely due to ABN sale deal Sunak was one of 19 TCI partners who shared £93+ million of the TCI ABN share profit in 2008 Sunak probably walked away with £5 million while we bailed out RBS Financial Services Authority said re bank crash “it is clear that the (RBS) acquisition (of ABN Amro) undoubtedly contributed significantly to RBS’s vulnerability."
This has copied from a post on the other forum.
Just think, all of that is a matter of historical fact, not illegal of course.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 8:55:21 GMT
Here's the thing Oldie. Labour are not denying the fact that households will have to pay. They are just arguing about the amount that the Tories are claiming it will be. That is not calculable until the full manifesto is released. The big question here is whether the Prime Minister stood on TV and knowingly mislead the audience and millions of viewers. All the evidence is that he did exactly that. Whilst, with almost laughable hypocrisy, leading a Government which has presided over tax policies which have resulted in the highest tax take in living memory, has more in the pipeline and has recently released a budget that has unanswered questions on departmental spending cuts. This is the truth Nobby. Like you I wish there was a more radical alternative than the two main political parties. But there is not, it certainly not Reform who are a single issue party, immigration, led by a blustering, self obsessed buffoon, who appeals to the lowest common denominator. Once again you are missing yet another point. Sunak is toast, history. It doesn't matter what he says as such. What is important is what the the next Labour Government will do! If families will be forced to pay more, whether it's 2,000 or 3,000 quid, they have the right to know! All this bluster about whether Sunak is telling lies is just deflection. You are arguing about how the calculation was made but the real issue is that Labour don't deny the rise, but dispute the amount. Labour will form the next government. We have the right to know their intentions. If they are not honest about this, then just what will they be honest about?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 9:03:21 GMT
Yeah but Angela Rayner. "Rishi Sunak was paid c£5 million in his 20s as partner in a hedge fund at the heart of 2008 RBS crash which taxpayers bailed out for £45.5 BILLION Sunak was partner in TCI hedge fund which aggressively pushed for the sale of ABN Amro Bank RBS-led consortium then bought ABN for £50bn in October 2007 biggest takeover in banking history. A year later RBS crashed Taxpayer spent £45.5bn bailing out RBS TCI made £555 million profit 2007/08 largely due to ABN sale deal Sunak was one of 19 TCI partners who shared £93+ million of the TCI ABN share profit in 2008 Sunak probably walked away with £5 million while we bailed out RBS Financial Services Authority said re bank crash “it is clear that the (RBS) acquisition (of ABN Amro) undoubtedly contributed significantly to RBS’s vulnerability." This has copied from a post on the other forum. Just think, all of that is a matter of historical fact, not illegal of course. Be serious. RBS was a basket case. It was common knowledge that they bought ABN without doing any Due Diligence as they jumped in and bought them at the last minute with a hostile bid. I personally have extensive experience of Due Diligence as I used to work for one of the world's leading IT Outsourcing companies. I've worked on Due Diligence for the outsourcing of companies like JP Morgan and DuPont. In both of those cases the DD took just over one year to complete. This deal had nothing to do with Sunak and his company. "One of the big unanswered questions around the failure of Royal Bank of Scotland has always been: what on earth was the board thinking in sanctioning the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro in 2007? Today we have an answer: the board wasn't thinking in any meaningful sense. The directors – some of the best-paid and supposedly most experienced banking and business people in the country – relied for their due diligence on two lever arch folders and a CD. Extraordinary.
The gory details can be found in the section titled "management, governance and culture" – which is the most revelatory in Monday's report. The Financial Services Authority emerges elsewhere with no credit whatsoever (just six supervisors on RBS's tail, little independence of mind and a self-satisfied and slavish devotion to Gordon Brown's "light touch" view of financial regulation). But the directors of RBS – led by chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin and chairman Sir Tom McKillop – surely deserve most opprobrium. The account provided by Johnny Cameron, head of the investment banking division, of the ABN Amro deal is jaw-dropping and deserves quoting at length: "One of the things that went wrong for RBS was that, and I say this to many people, we bought NatWest as a hostile acquisition. We did no due diligence. We couldn't because it was hostile. After we bought NatWest, we had lots of surprises, but almost all of them were pleasant. And I think that lulled us into a sense of complacency around that. The fact is that the acquisition of ABN was also hostile. We got bits and pieces of information but fundamentally it was hostile. There's this issue of did we do sufficient due diligence. Absolutely not. We were not able to do due diligence that was part of doing a hostile acquisition." Let's get this clear: the hostile takeover of NatWest in 1999 yielded pleasant surprises so the board therefore believed that all hostile takeovers yield pleasant surprises. A six-year-old could spot the flaw in that logic. There were 17 members of the RBS board at the time and one confessed to the FSA that none ever said he or she was worried by the ABN deal. As the report coyly puts it: "It is very difficult to reconcile this approach with the degree of rigorous testing, questioning and challenge that would be expected in an effective board process dealing with such a large and strategic proposition." How did such a culture of complacency come about? The non-executives don't claim to have been intimidated by Goodwin, even if they don't appear to have challenged executives on many occasions (the scaling down of an investment in Bank of China in 2005 and the reduction of some proposed bonuses are given as examples). Instead, the non-executives appear to have swallowed whole the view that RBS primarily should be pursuing growth in revenue and profits. Fundamentals of banking – such as a focus on risk, liquidity and capital – became secondary. Page 236 of the report says the RBS board did not formally approve a group liquidity policy. The monthly risk report at the beginning of 2007 recorded past and current risks rather than being forward-looking; nobody seems to have stopped to question the usefulness of a backward-looking risk report. Two of its main recommendations are clearly worth adopting. First, the regulator should have the authority to block takeovers; the FSA, circa 2007, would not have had the courage to stop the ABN deal but it's better that regulators are given the power to say 'no'. Second, directors of failed banks should face legal sanctions (fines or bans) on non-legal penalties (bans or the forfeit of pay) given the importance of banks the wider economy. A few individuals might be deterred from accepting directorships at banks. But volunteers would be encouraged to engage their brain when confronted with a mega-deal that smelled rotten at the time."
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,522
|
Post by oldie on Jun 6, 2024 9:25:07 GMT
That is not calculable until the full manifesto is released. The big question here is whether the Prime Minister stood on TV and knowingly mislead the audience and millions of viewers. All the evidence is that he did exactly that. Whilst, with almost laughable hypocrisy, leading a Government which has presided over tax policies which have resulted in the highest tax take in living memory, has more in the pipeline and has recently released a budget that has unanswered questions on departmental spending cuts. This is the truth Nobby. Like you I wish there was a more radical alternative than the two main political parties. But there is not, it certainly not Reform who are a single issue party, immigration, led by a blustering, self obsessed buffoon, who appeals to the lowest common denominator. Once again you are missing yet another point. Sunak is toast, history. It doesn't matter what he says as such. What is important is what the the next Labour Government will do! If families will be forced to pay more, whether it's 2,000 or 3,000 quid, they have the right to know! All this bluster about whether Sunak is telling lies is just deflection. You are arguing about how the calculation was made but the real issue is that Labour don't deny the rise, but dispute the amount. Labour will form the next government. We have the right to know their intentions. If they are not honest about this, then just what will they be honest about? Listen Nobby, We haven't seen the manifestos yet of either party. We cannot know, that's the point
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,522
|
Post by oldie on Jun 6, 2024 9:29:46 GMT
Yeah but Angela Rayner. "Rishi Sunak was paid c£5 million in his 20s as partner in a hedge fund at the heart of 2008 RBS crash which taxpayers bailed out for £45.5 BILLION Sunak was partner in TCI hedge fund which aggressively pushed for the sale of ABN Amro Bank RBS-led consortium then bought ABN for £50bn in October 2007 biggest takeover in banking history. A year later RBS crashed Taxpayer spent £45.5bn bailing out RBS TCI made £555 million profit 2007/08 largely due to ABN sale deal Sunak was one of 19 TCI partners who shared £93+ million of the TCI ABN share profit in 2008 Sunak probably walked away with £5 million while we bailed out RBS Financial Services Authority said re bank crash “it is clear that the (RBS) acquisition (of ABN Amro) undoubtedly contributed significantly to RBS’s vulnerability." This has copied from a post on the other forum. Just think, all of that is a matter of historical fact, not illegal of course. Be serious. RBS was a basket case. It was common knowledge that they bought ABN without doing any Due Diligence as they jumped in and bought them at the last minute with a hostile bid. I personally have extensive experience of Due Diligence as I used to work for one of the world's leading IT Outsourcing companies. I've worked on Due Diligence for the outsourcing of companies like JP Morgan and DuPont. In both of those cases the DD took just over one year to complete. This deal had nothing to do with Sunak and his company. "One of the big unanswered questions around the failure of Royal Bank of Scotland has always been: what on earth was the board thinking in sanctioning the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro in 2007? Today we have an answer: the board wasn't thinking in any meaningful sense. The directors – some of the best-paid and supposedly most experienced banking and business people in the country – relied for their due diligence on two lever arch folders and a CD. Extraordinary.
The gory details can be found in the section titled "management, governance and culture" – which is the most revelatory in Monday's report. The Financial Services Authority emerges elsewhere with no credit whatsoever (just six supervisors on RBS's tail, little independence of mind and a self-satisfied and slavish devotion to Gordon Brown's "light touch" view of financial regulation). But the directors of RBS – led by chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin and chairman Sir Tom McKillop – surely deserve most opprobrium. The account provided by Johnny Cameron, head of the investment banking division, of the ABN Amro deal is jaw-dropping and deserves quoting at length: "One of the things that went wrong for RBS was that, and I say this to many people, we bought NatWest as a hostile acquisition. We did no due diligence. We couldn't because it was hostile. After we bought NatWest, we had lots of surprises, but almost all of them were pleasant. And I think that lulled us into a sense of complacency around that. The fact is that the acquisition of ABN was also hostile. We got bits and pieces of information but fundamentally it was hostile. There's this issue of did we do sufficient due diligence. Absolutely not. We were not able to do due diligence that was part of doing a hostile acquisition." Let's get this clear: the hostile takeover of NatWest in 1999 yielded pleasant surprises so the board therefore believed that all hostile takeovers yield pleasant surprises. A six-year-old could spot the flaw in that logic. There were 17 members of the RBS board at the time and one confessed to the FSA that none ever said he or she was worried by the ABN deal. As the report coyly puts it: "It is very difficult to reconcile this approach with the degree of rigorous testing, questioning and challenge that would be expected in an effective board process dealing with such a large and strategic proposition." How did such a culture of complacency come about? The non-executives don't claim to have been intimidated by Goodwin, even if they don't appear to have challenged executives on many occasions (the scaling down of an investment in Bank of China in 2005 and the reduction of some proposed bonuses are given as examples). Instead, the non-executives appear to have swallowed whole the view that RBS primarily should be pursuing growth in revenue and profits. Fundamentals of banking – such as a focus on risk, liquidity and capital – became secondary. Page 236 of the report says the RBS board did not formally approve a group liquidity policy. The monthly risk report at the beginning of 2007 recorded past and current risks rather than being forward-looking; nobody seems to have stopped to question the usefulness of a backward-looking risk report. Two of its main recommendations are clearly worth adopting. First, the regulator should have the authority to block takeovers; the FSA, circa 2007, would not have had the courage to stop the ABN deal but it's better that regulators are given the power to say 'no'. Second, directors of failed banks should face legal sanctions (fines or bans) on non-legal penalties (bans or the forfeit of pay) given the importance of banks the wider economy. A few individuals might be deterred from accepting directorships at banks. But volunteers would be encouraged to engage their brain when confronted with a mega-deal that smelled rotten at the time." I have no doubts over your knowledge of the regulations governing financial services. The issue here is the hypocrisy of a party led by people who made millions out of the wild west of industry upto 2008 which the taxpayers had to bail out. And then chasing Angela Raynor for £2-3k on alleged undeclared capital gains on house sale.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 9:44:12 GMT
Be serious. RBS was a basket case. It was common knowledge that they bought ABN without doing any Due Diligence as they jumped in and bought them at the last minute with a hostile bid. I personally have extensive experience of Due Diligence as I used to work for one of the world's leading IT Outsourcing companies. I've worked on Due Diligence for the outsourcing of companies like JP Morgan and DuPont. In both of those cases the DD took just over one year to complete. This deal had nothing to do with Sunak and his company. "One of the big unanswered questions around the failure of Royal Bank of Scotland has always been: what on earth was the board thinking in sanctioning the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro in 2007? Today we have an answer: the board wasn't thinking in any meaningful sense. The directors – some of the best-paid and supposedly most experienced banking and business people in the country – relied for their due diligence on two lever arch folders and a CD. Extraordinary.
The gory details can be found in the section titled "management, governance and culture" – which is the most revelatory in Monday's report. The Financial Services Authority emerges elsewhere with no credit whatsoever (just six supervisors on RBS's tail, little independence of mind and a self-satisfied and slavish devotion to Gordon Brown's "light touch" view of financial regulation). But the directors of RBS – led by chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin and chairman Sir Tom McKillop – surely deserve most opprobrium. The account provided by Johnny Cameron, head of the investment banking division, of the ABN Amro deal is jaw-dropping and deserves quoting at length: "One of the things that went wrong for RBS was that, and I say this to many people, we bought NatWest as a hostile acquisition. We did no due diligence. We couldn't because it was hostile. After we bought NatWest, we had lots of surprises, but almost all of them were pleasant. And I think that lulled us into a sense of complacency around that. The fact is that the acquisition of ABN was also hostile. We got bits and pieces of information but fundamentally it was hostile. There's this issue of did we do sufficient due diligence. Absolutely not. We were not able to do due diligence that was part of doing a hostile acquisition." Let's get this clear: the hostile takeover of NatWest in 1999 yielded pleasant surprises so the board therefore believed that all hostile takeovers yield pleasant surprises. A six-year-old could spot the flaw in that logic. There were 17 members of the RBS board at the time and one confessed to the FSA that none ever said he or she was worried by the ABN deal. As the report coyly puts it: "It is very difficult to reconcile this approach with the degree of rigorous testing, questioning and challenge that would be expected in an effective board process dealing with such a large and strategic proposition." How did such a culture of complacency come about? The non-executives don't claim to have been intimidated by Goodwin, even if they don't appear to have challenged executives on many occasions (the scaling down of an investment in Bank of China in 2005 and the reduction of some proposed bonuses are given as examples). Instead, the non-executives appear to have swallowed whole the view that RBS primarily should be pursuing growth in revenue and profits. Fundamentals of banking – such as a focus on risk, liquidity and capital – became secondary. Page 236 of the report says the RBS board did not formally approve a group liquidity policy. The monthly risk report at the beginning of 2007 recorded past and current risks rather than being forward-looking; nobody seems to have stopped to question the usefulness of a backward-looking risk report. Two of its main recommendations are clearly worth adopting. First, the regulator should have the authority to block takeovers; the FSA, circa 2007, would not have had the courage to stop the ABN deal but it's better that regulators are given the power to say 'no'. Second, directors of failed banks should face legal sanctions (fines or bans) on non-legal penalties (bans or the forfeit of pay) given the importance of banks the wider economy. A few individuals might be deterred from accepting directorships at banks. But volunteers would be encouraged to engage their brain when confronted with a mega-deal that smelled rotten at the time." I have no doubts over your knowledge of the regulations governing financial services. The issue here is the hypocrisy of a party led by people who made millions out of the wild west of industry upto 2008 which the taxpayers had to bail out. And then chasing Angela Raynor for £2-3k on alleged undeclared capital gains on house sale. No. The ABN fiasco was totally the fault of RBS, nobody else. Of course people made money from the buy-out. That's the way things work.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,522
|
Post by oldie on Jun 6, 2024 10:16:01 GMT
I have no doubts over your knowledge of the regulations governing financial services. The issue here is the hypocrisy of a party led by people who made millions out of the wild west of industry upto 2008 which the taxpayers had to bail out. And then chasing Angela Raynor for ÂŁ2-3k on alleged undeclared capital gains on house sale. No. The ABN fiasco was totally the fault of RBS, nobody else. Of course people made money from the buy-out. That's the way things work. And Sunak was a partner in the hedge fund that pushed for the takeover ABN by RBS. And made millions. There is no getting away from it Nobby
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 10:32:33 GMT
No. The ABN fiasco was totally the fault of RBS, nobody else. Of course people made money from the buy-out. That's the way things work. And Sunak was a partner in the hedge fund that pushed for the takeover ABN by RBS. And made millions. There is no getting away from it Nobby No. His Hedge Fund pushed for the sale of ABN. Nothing else. They had nothing to do with RBS. You've got your facts wrong.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,522
|
Post by oldie on Jun 6, 2024 10:34:16 GMT
And Sunak was a partner in the hedge fund that pushed for the takeover ABN by RBS. And made millions. There is no getting away from it Nobby No. His Hedge Fund pushed for the sale of ABN. Nothing else. They had nothing to do with RBS. You've got your facts wrong. See this equation Nobby 2+2=4 It doesn't matter which choice of 2 you choose, the answer is still 4
|
|