I doubt if he is the only person bankrupt under this spiv government.

You're not seriously blaming the government for Griffin's bankruptcy, are you?

Really?

People should remember that Sir Geoff scored a ton in what he says was his best innings ever after that run out and that Randall scored the winning runs in the2nd innings with Geoff at the other end. His century in the next test at Headingley was his 100th first class ton and in the same game Randall took the catch to win the match and the Ashes. All part of the plan!

Shame...next

Having shared an England dressing room in the early 70's with Mr Boycott I can assure you all that he was not universally appreciated by his fellow players, as you'd expect he was very opinionated not just about batting performance but all aspects, picked up on every little mistake out in the field and let the miscreants know about it at the breaks, I once witnessed he and Alan Knott almost come to blows when he criticised one wicket keeping mistake - and I myself was accused of theft by him then when someone else pointed out his error he just stomped off in a mood, not big enough to apologise - no I'm not a fan



Eh ?

Me ?

Play for England ?

No I was 12 years old and the England dressing room "gopher", running errands for the players for £5 a day courtesy of my uncle who was one of the managers at Headingley, funny thing was that I barely knew any of them and hated cricket

No.

It's just a statement that others will be made bankrupt during this governments term and more will be when the next government gets power and so on. It's part of the current system.

It's not unique nor is it a story that is any different to others whose financial skills are not as sound as they should be

Gordon Brown could write a book on how to fix the global economy.

Actually, hang on a sec...

He could!

Out of memory wasn't Mr Boycott along with Mr Botham pretty good with his fists against the fairer sex?

Roughie-toughies indeed.

Keeping his bank balance in the black?

Really, you believe that Brown could have rescued our economy....sheesh

I'm not one to be uncritical of Brown, but the economy was in growth by May 2010 – that's simply a fact – while various commentators have been moving to the view that, had Brown not decided to bail out the banks, the situation would have been a very great deal worse. The other thing he is now being credited with is keeping the UK out of the euro.

The complete guide to dentistry by Shane Macgowen

The question was could he [size=200=#FF0000WRITE A BOOK

[/sizerepeat!!!

=#FF0000[size=200WRITE A BOOK
[/size
The answer is yes

Was that too difficult for a right winger to understand? I have made it bigger and coloured it in to be helpful like the social person I am











It seems like it to me further evidence, if any more was needed , that right wing people are those who screw/support economies based on ignorance and GREED and blame everyone else for their faults and misunderstanding.

Oh and compared to the current incompetent in charge of the treasury and his minions, Brown has more knowledge of economics that the entire lot put together. The reason for the global meltdown was RIGHT WING GREED and lack of scrutiny and accountability as required by right wingers.

I notice none of the unaccountable, unelected people involved in this meltdown of the world economies have ever been brought to book, especially by right wing governments but always lay the blame on others particularly the poorer sections.

"I have nothing, so nobody else should either", New Year, same Sin Bin

I'm sorry but no matter what I cannot extrapolate your comment from what I posted.

Oh great right winger who knows all, and wants to control all because they may take it off you ( paranoia) please do enlighten me on your methodology.

I agree re the Tories they are hopeless, however it was a Socialist government that further relaxed the rules that allowed the banks to get into such difficulties.

You cannot absolve Brown/Labour of any blame. Economically he did after all sell all the gold just before the price of gold went through the roof!! Very sound economic thinking?

Making mistakes is not a criminal offence - if it were there wouldn't be a business leader left out there. They get brought to book by losing their job. Plenty of bankers, many high profile, lost their jobs - quite rightly - as a result of the crash. If you don't think that is the case who is still running a big bank that was running one prior to the crash?

Yes, but there's losing your job, and then there's losing your job banker style. which is more akin to winning the lottery, with a seven figure payoff, including shares and a pension that would make Croesus weep. Not to mention being ushered into some more cosy minted directorships as soon as the dust has settled. Adam Applegarth who screwed Northern Rock, got a £3/4m payoff for example, or Steve Crawshaw of Bradford & Bingley who jumped ship moments before it sank (taken poorly, it seems) with benefits that included a £1,800,000 pension pot. Or Joe Cassano, who basically bankrupted AIG to the tune of $11bn and was "fired" - except he was also retained as a "consultant" albeit on a miserly $1m a MONTH. Or Chuck Prince of Citi bank who also was fired - with a $140,000,000 golden handshake. Or do you remember Fred "the Shred" Goodwin's pension pot being doubled from £m to £16m because he has "retired" 10 years early? But to be fair to Fred he DID agree to reduce his pension to a pitiful £342,500 a year from £555,000 so it seems churlish to even mention that he had taken an estimated £2.7 million tax-free lump sum.

They didn't NEED to run any more banks. people like Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehman Bros., who admitted to earning over $300,000,000 in just eight years. Lost their jobs? Don't make me feckin laugh.

While HM Opposition shouted that they didn't go far enough.
Bankers were devising financial instruments so complex that many who dealt in them didn't understand them.

That much became very apparent after the dust had settled and TV and radio commentators tried to explain the crash in very simple terms which went something like "We sell you this package of long term debt which is tied to bricks and mortar assets but we don't want it right now because we're getting more into short term debt, so here, its a bargain, your people will love you for buying it..." and they bought it, sight unseen it appears for no-one seemed to have bothered to look at what was inside the package.

I've occasionally bought fruit like that at the back of Leeds Market at 5pm on a Saturday evening, it always ends in tears.

Regardless of what the Tories wanted Brown was still in charge - he and Dowling cannot be absolved simply because they didn't go as far as the Tories wanted.

Agree re. that last point - these instruments/computer generated algorithms are almost impossible for most intelligent humans to understand just ask LTCM!!

Let's try this again: New Labour was/is not socialist, however much you and others like to pretend so.

There was a reason that one of Blair's earliest acts as leader was to ditch Clause 4, and in government, Labour continued down pretty much the economic path laid down in the early '80s. It continued with and developed further deregulation and privatisation as central planks of policy. These are not 'socialist' policies. To repeat: they were continuations of policies begun under Margaret Thatcher.

We have had this discussion numerous times - one thing both Blair and Brown did was increase the size of the state - that is classic Socialist policy and something that Thatcher worked against. So not sure how that is a continuation of Thatcherism?

Spending went up massively in health, education and government depts - selling all the gold off wasn't on the Tory agenda etc. What Blair/Brown did introduce was much greater state intervention, more PC etc again not really a right wing thing.

What they did continue was the control of the unions - that was out of necessity, they knew that Labour would not get elected again if they let the excesses of union power once again get out of hand. They also kept income tax low but increased NI to compensate, overall taxation increased under Blair/Brown again exactly what you expect from a Socialist government.

Back in the 1970s an old boss of mine had a formula for UK politics, "Two terms of Tories to lower income tax and get the books in order followed by two terms of Labour to put the public works back to where they were when the Tories took over".

All these years later it still seems like the perfect solution.

We have this conversation repeatedly because you refuse to pay attention and don't like facts that don't tally with your apparent desire to see everything in black and white (or red and blue).

Let's try again.



More was spent – that's because hospitals were falling apart and elderly people were dying on trolleys in hospital corridors. However, much of that extra spending was channelled in such a way that it went to private companies – PFI (created by John Major and continued under Blair) is but one example of how this happened.

Privatisation was continued and expanded. This is a fact. Privatisation is the antithesis of socialist policy.

And it was done not because services were struggling, but simply for ideological reasons – see the sale of NHS Logistics as an example.

Deregulation was continued. Deregulation is the antithesis of state control. Deregulation is the antithesis of socialist policy.

Now, not that long ago, you started copying and pasting a definition of what constituted a "supposed socialist" onto posts. Nowhere did that definition talk of deregulation and privatisation.

The spending on public services was required because chronic neglect was causing them to fall apart. The claims that record amounts were spent has been shown to be factually wrong.

In effect, New Labour's 'third way' was about continuing down the route set by Margaret Thatcher economically but softening it a tad by looking after the public services a bit better than she or Major had.

That, no matter how much you continue to try to spin it, does not equate to socialism.

Oh, and the business of the gold: so a bit like Maggie spending the North Sea gas revenues to keep the unemployed from starvation, then? Presumably she was a socialist too?