|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 7, 2024 8:58:04 GMT
"'He doesn't stand for me', the self-described 'petite blonde pocket rocket' added. 'He doesn't represent anything I believe in, or any of the people around here. He doesn't represent us, he's not from here.'" Blimey Oldie, she sounds just like the woman you were praising just the other day. Are they quoting from the same script? No idea, I don't know who you are quoting It's the girl who threw the milkshake.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 7, 2024 7:40:33 GMT
"'He doesn't stand for me', the self-described 'petite blonde pocket rocket' added. 'He doesn't represent anything I believe in, or any of the people around here. He doesn't represent us, he's not from here.'" Blimey Oldie, she sounds just like the woman you were praising just the other day. Are they quoting from the same script?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 18:12:49 GMT
Do you think putting VAT onto Private School fees is a good idea? Do you think the "British Energy Company" will be able to deliver cheap power? Do you agree with the setting up of another "Border Force"? Labour are targeting a 'Stable Economy'. Personally I would prefer a successful economy. What do you think? Labour have promised not to increase Income Tax, VAT or National Insurance. They have also said they will not borrow any more. Printing money would be inflationary, so where is the money coming from to pay for their policies? Labour have not said how they would return illegal immigrants. They have no plan for that. How would you return illegals? I have no opinion on their policies until I can read them in black and white with the detail attached. At this stage everything is just a soundbite, click bait and deflection from the actual record of the last, disastrous, 14 years. But the things I have listed are already declared among their Six Pledges They are not speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 15:30:56 GMT
Do you think putting VAT onto Private School fees is a good idea? Do you think the "British Energy Company" will be able to deliver cheap power? Do you agree with the setting up of another "Border Force"? Labour are targeting a 'Stable Economy'. Personally I would prefer a successful economy. What do you think? Labour have promised not to increase Income Tax, VAT or National Insurance. They have also said they will not borrow any more. Printing money would be inflationary, so where is the money coming from to pay for their policies? Labour have not said how they would return illegal immigrants. They have no plan for that. How would you return illegals?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 15:23:40 GMT
Poor, very poor Oldie. No need to stoop down to those levels. Where is your sense of humour Nobby. But previously you have to admit the lady from Clacton nailed it I don't think casting Nigel Farage in a German uniform is funny. Did she nail it? Not really. Her complaints should be directed at the local council. As for "he doesn't come from round here" well that applies to probably 80% of all MP's. It's her opinion though. With less than 24hrs notice, 2,000 people turned up to greet him.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 14:42:54 GMT
Poor, very poor Oldie. No need to stoop down to those levels.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 14:40:38 GMT
No point going after the Tories. They are finished. The election is all about how far down the Tories will fall. Labour have won it already. The spotlight has to be on Labour as we all want to know what they are going to do. So far, from the few policies we know, it doesn't look good.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 12:49:51 GMT
Taxes will go up under Labour, but they're not being honest about it.
"The Sky News host pressed the shadow defence secretary on whether Labour would raise capital gains tax, stamp duty or the number of council tax bands. A Labour frontbencher has refused to rule out the party hiking property taxes if Sir Keir Starmer wins the General Election. Sky News presenter Kay Burley grilled John Healey on Chancellor Jeremy Hunt's challenge for Labour to match a new Tory pledge not to increase capital gains tax, stamp duty or the number of council tax bands. But Mr Healey repeatedly refused to rule out the move during the punchy interview this morning. He said: "There are dozens and dozens of specific taxes. The ones that are most important are those that cost working people the most. "We will not raise taxes on working people, we will not raise income tax, we will not raise VAT, we will not raise national insurance. Our plans do not require us to start looking at raising taxes across the board." Pressed on if Labour would increase capital gains tax, Mr Healey said: "Our plans do not require us to start looking at raising taxes..." On stamp duty, he added: "We will not raise the taxes that are most important to working people." Asked several more times about stamp duty, Mr Healey insisted he is "not going to go through the list". Burley said: "Why not it's really important?" Mr Healey replied: "The taxes that are most important to people - income tax, VAT and national insurance - will not be raised under a Labour government." The Sky News presenter then turned to council tax bands, saying: "Capital gains tax is really important to a lot of people, stamp duty really important to a lot of people. What about council tax bands? That affects almost all of us. What are you going to do about that?" Mr Healey said: "Our plans do not require us to look at raising taxes across the range of dozens of taxes there are." But Burley pressed: "I'm specifically asking you about council tax, property tax and the council tax bands." The Labour frontbencher said: "I'm not going to go through a list, we could be spending the next hour doing this. There are hundreds of taxes." Burley said: "Those three, what are you going to do about those? I'm asking you specifically about those taxes. You are not going to change them, is that right?" Mr Healey insisted Labour is "not going to start raising taxes across the board". The Sky host replied: "Dear oh dear, you need to answer the question because if you don't people are going to think you're going to put the taxes up." The shadow defence secretary said: "Where we have plans to change the taxes we've spelt those out and we've said what that money that we can raise will be used to do." Burley ended the interview, saying: "You're not ruling it out. You won't deny it."
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 11:54:00 GMT
Yes, I think the Biometric lanes here are open for UK and EU nationals, but not the other way when entering the EU. Then the EU system is just bizarre. They don't do themselves any favours do they. I was in France last year but the airport in Bordeaux was so ancient and dilapidated that I was just glad to get through. It was a manual passport check as I recall. I use the Channel Tunnel a lot, and there are days where there are large queues for the French passport control at Calais with only one or two booths open. The queues stretch right back to the shopping area at times.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 11:35:13 GMT
Yes, I think the Biometric lanes here are open for UK and EU nationals, but not the other way when entering the EU.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 11:00:31 GMT
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 But you're wrong Oldie. Don't rely on someone on X to feed you information. The information is freely available on the internet! I thought you were the one who demanded 'facts' all the time! You are trying to pin something on him that just isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 10:58:03 GMT
I am actually highlighting the complete and utter farce of entering/exiting the EU at Border Control! Maybe But you write in away on the EU as ""Outraged of Tunbridge Wells" So if the EU instigated Biometric Facial Recognition you wouldn't have a problem? They already have biometric facial recognition. It compares your face with the photo on your passport, but not available for those outside the EU, although once again, with my British Passport and my German Residence Permit I could use those lanes to go through passport control ! I'm not 'outraged', more nonplussed at what is going on.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 10:35:05 GMT
There are some weird things going on with the EU. For example, I hold a German Residence Permit. In the past, when I present this with my passport, my passport would not get stamped, either entering or leaving the EU. This changed. Now, when I enter the EU I present the Permit and my passport does not get stamped, but if I leave the EU then even with the Permit my passport gets stamped ! Why? I've no idea. One guy at the French passport control did say something about my wife has to be with me, and as she wasn't the passport gets stamped! WTF! My passport is collecting exit stamps, but no entry stamps, and nobody at passport control are querying this. No, I've no idea either! Two weeks ago I flew from Frankfurt to Zurich and then to Bristol. My passport was not stamped. I travel to Germany every six weeks. Sometimes I drive and sometimes I fly. I live and reside in the UK, but I work in Germany. This freedom of movement and working in the EU is now impossible according to Remainers. Next up the EU want to take our fingerprints! In my own country that only happens if I commit a crime! What right does the EU have to take my fingerprints at passport control? Can you imagine the outcry here if the government insisted on taking the fingerprints of everyone entering? I can already hear the screams of 'facists' and 'Police State', yet nobody from the Remain side are saying anything about the EU introducing this. The best part about Brexit? We are no longer in the EU. They have been taking fingerprints on entry to the States for eons. With the level of cross border travel I can understand it, within the EU especially so. The thing is I think it's crude, here in the UK we have been using biometric facial recognition for years and nobody kicks up a fuss. In fact it's quite a relief after a long flight to see all those gates open. So it's a bit daft to kick up a fuss over finger prints I am actually highlighting the complete and utter farce of entering/exiting the EU at Border Control!
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 10:06:43 GMT
There are some weird things going on with the EU. For example, I hold a German Residence Permit. In the past, when I present this with my passport, my passport would not get stamped, either entering or leaving the EU. This changed. Now, when I enter the EU I present the Permit and my passport does not get stamped, but if I leave the EU then even with the Permit my passport gets stamped ! Why? I've no idea. One guy at the French passport control did say something about my wife has to be with me, and as she wasn't the passport gets stamped! WTF! My passport is collecting exit stamps, but no entry stamps, and nobody at passport control are querying this. No, I've no idea either! Two weeks ago I flew from Frankfurt to Zurich and then to Bristol. My passport was not stamped. I travel to Germany every six weeks. Sometimes I drive and sometimes I fly. I live and reside in the UK, but I work in Germany. This freedom of movement and working in the EU is now impossible according to Remainers.
Next up the EU want to take our fingerprints! In my own country that only happens if I commit a crime! What right does the EU have to take my fingerprints at passport control? Can you imagine the outcry here if the government insisted on taking the fingerprints of everyone entering? I can already hear the screams of 'facists' and 'Police State', yet nobody from the Remain side are saying anything about the EU introducing this. The best part about Brexit? We are no longer in the EU.
|
|
|
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 β some of the best-paid and supposedly most experienced banking and business people in the country β 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" β 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 β led by chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin and chairman Sir Tom McKillop β 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 β such as a focus on risk, liquidity and capital β 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 Β£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.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 9:14:48 GMT
Friday night could be fun. Rayner debating with Mordaunt and Farage on tele. Get the popcorn ready, as the Growler may self combust !
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 9:12:47 GMT
I think the bookies are having pricing up Reform as nobody has a clue where the 'silent majority' votes are going! Polls are a waste of time as the polling industry has got things consistantly wrong for the last ten years. How many of the major polling companies got Brexit right? How many of the major polls gave Boris an eighty seat majority? In both of those cases they underestimated the 'silent majority'.
If Reform get five seats it'll be a minor miracle! What will be more interesting is the total amount of votes they pick-up nationwide. UKIP didn't win any seats, but they put the fear of God into all the other parties with their vote share, which led to the Brexit Referendum.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jun 6, 2024 9:03:21 GMT
Yeah but Angela Rayner. "Rishi Sunak was paid cΒ£5 million in his 20s as partner in a hedge fund at the heart of 2008 RBS crash which taxpayers bailed out for Β£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 Β£50bn in October 2007 biggest takeover in banking history. A year later RBS crashed Taxpayer spent Β£45.5bn bailing out RBS TCI made Β£555 million profit 2007/08 largely due to ABN sale deal Sunak was one of 19 TCI partners who shared Β£93+ million of the TCI ABN share profit in 2008 Sunak probably walked away with Β£5 million while we bailed out RBS Financial Services Authority said re bank crash βit is clear that the (RBS) acquisition (of ABN Amro) undoubtedly contributed significantly to RBSβs 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 β some of the best-paid and supposedly most experienced banking and business people in the country β 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" β 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 β led by chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin and chairman Sir Tom McKillop β 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 β such as a focus on risk, liquidity and capital β 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."
|
|
|
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?
|
|