How could she have done? :lol: She's been too busy fighting for re-election ever since she got put in to actually do anything in government :P

In her election campaign she hasn't shown any signs that she has plans to put the Aussie economy in reverse.

In her election campaign she hasn't shown any signs that she has plans to put the Aussie economy in reverse.

Well, neither did Clegg :heehee: I'm waiting until she's been elected to see what she'll do...

Well, neither did Clegg :heehee: I'm waiting until she's been elected to see what she'll do...

I'm praying she'll be alright and won't f*** up my chances of emigrating there. :lol:

 

I'd rather her than Abbott be in power. The ALP leader scares me.

All the evidence points to the VAT cut working extremely well - High St sales during the time it was in place (particularly at Xmas in both 2008 and 2009) were much higher than one would expect when the economy is in serious trouble - which consequently gave the private sector a much-needed boost.

 

That wasn't the only help the government gave anyway... they also provided hands-on help to businesses, saving many jobs, including at my town's Vauxhall plant which employs 20% of the town, which looked set to go under before the govt stepped in - and I have no doubt the Tories would've simply let it sunk.

While I wouldn't say it working extremely well. I do agree it was a healthy thing. One is inclined to think Gordon Brown was motivated by an impending election on the horizon, a case of doing the right thing for the worng reason perhaps. Whatever the reason it's a pity it was later reversed. A move from central to decentralised economic control is nearly always a gain to the country as a whole.

While I wouldn't say it working extremely well. I do agree it was a healthy thing. One is inclined to think Gordon Brown was motivated by an impending election on the horizon, a case of doing the right thing for the worng reason perhaps. Whatever the reason it's a pity it was later reversed. A move from central to decentralised economic control is nearly always a gain to the country as a whole.

Passing off things like this as fact isn't really the way forward. For example, look at Estonia and Latvia, who decided to do absolutely nothing with their economies during the financial crisis - bingo, 20% of their GDP erased!

Exactly! The two biggest banks in Scotland, hell, probably the entire country were nearly declared bankrupt overnight. First RBS [Which lets not forget owns approximately a trillion other banks :lol: many of which like Nat West are UK based] then Halifax Bank of Scotland. Up here you bank with either of those or Llyods TSB primarily. The rest have a smaller market share.

 

Letting the pair of them go to the wall would have literally destroyed the Scottish economy. After that, no amount of Stimulus would have gotten us to the position we are currently in. If they hadn't saved them the country would be ruined and it would have made Salmonds day, they would have handed him all he needed to win a referendum and gain independence for Scotland.

The maths says otherwise. All customers of the RBS and it's divisions could be paid out to 50K per personal account and every man, women and child in Scotland(and the UK) could of been given a clear 10K no questions asked, instead of the bailout - what an enormous stimulus that would of been.

Instead every man, women and child has a govenment debt which conservatively is a cool 15K; the government now has to extract that money from you (plus interest! - so will be about 20K if paid over the likely 5 years). If your a worker it will likely be more, because you have to cover for the children, unemployed and retired people etc.

Talk about p***ing money up the wall. Rooney behaviour is nothing on the bailout insanity.

The maths says otherwise. All customers of the RBS and it's divisions could be paid out to 50K per personal account and every man, women and child in Scotland(and the UK) could of been given a clear 10K no questions asked, instead of the bailout - what an enormous stimulus that would of been.

Instead every man, women and child has a govenment debt which conservatively is a cool 15K; the government now has to extract that money from you (plus interest! - so will be about 20K if paid over the likely 5 years). If your a worker it will likely be more, because you have to cover for the children, unemployed and retired people etc.

Talk about p***ing money up the wall. Rooney behaviour is nothing on the bailout insanity.

Your maths are wildly inaccurate. Many of RBS and HBOS's customers are small businesses who would have lost considerable sums, You also fail to take into account those who have more than 50K in their accounts.

 

Plus you have failed to account for where the £50k per account would come from, and why it isn't in your figures. As others have said it's a sum that's extremely high. You also fail to take into account the administrative delays and inefficiencies. During the delayed time you would leave an extremely large proportion of Scotland WITHOUT MONEY.

 

Without said money, people would be cut off from electricity, gas, phone and so on and business would fail save for the large chains like Tesco et al providing they don't also have severe monetary issues.

 

Your idea is not only poorly thought out but reckless and from an economic point of view just plain moronic.

The maths says otherwise. All customers of the RBS and it's divisions could be paid out to 50K per personal account and every man, women and child in Scotland(and the UK) could of been given a clear 10K no questions asked, instead of the bailout - what an enormous stimulus that would of been.

Instead every man, women and child has a govenment debt which conservatively is a cool 15K; the government now has to extract that money from you (plus interest! - so will be about 20K if paid over the likely 5 years). If your a worker it will likely be more, because you have to cover for the children, unemployed and retired people etc.

Talk about p***ing money up the wall. Rooney behaviour is nothing on the bailout insanity.

 

RBS Group hold around 1 in 3 business accounts and corporate accounts in the UK, there are in the region of 4m+ registered companies in the UK so we are talking about roughly 1.5m company accounts held by RBS Group.

 

Leaving 1.5m companies with just 50k left is the most ludicrous thing I have ever read on this board, you are talking about in the region of 1m companies wiped out overnight, you are talking about companies not with RBS that rely on RBS business customers for orders so every supply chain in this country is affected, you are talking about the effective liquidation of many FTSE 100 companies if they are just left with 50k each, your crackpot proposals would put probably 8-10m people out of work on top of what is out of work now.

 

You are an intelligent guy on the whole Ricky but you have not thought this through one bit, it is beyond ludicrous what you were suggesting

Edited August 12, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

RBS Group hold around 1 in 3 business accounts and corporate accounts in the UK, there are in the region of 4m+ registered companies in the UK so we are talking about roughly 1.5m company accounts held by RBS Group.

 

Leaving 1.5m companies with just 50k left is the most ludicrous thing I have ever read on this board, you are talking about in the region of 1m companies wiped out overnight, you are talking about companies not with RBS that rely on RBS business customers for orders so every supply chain in this country is affected, you are talking about the effective liquidation of many FTSE 100 companies if they are just left with 50k each, your crackpot proposals would put probably 8-10m people out of work on top of what is out of work now.

 

You are an intelligent guy on the whole Ricky but you have not thought this through one bit, it is beyond ludicrous what you were suggesting

This is getting weird, I'm agreeing with you again. It's all very well to say that individuals should spread their risk by having several bank accounts but a business could not possibly limit themselves to a limit of £50K in a single bank account.

 

There is also no reason why someone who had a few hundred quid in an RBS account should get 50 grand while anyone without an RBS account would have got a much lower sum.

Your maths are wildly inaccurate. Many of RBS and HBOS's customers are small businesses who would have lost considerable sums, You also fail to take into account those who have more than 50K in their accounts.

In what way I am failing to take into count those people wth over 50K? They can lose it simple - that was the FSA policy, or as I already posted the government could even cover it, still considerably less then bailing out the banks. And for the silly reference to business see the reply below to JustinBieber.

 

Plus you have failed to account for where the £50k per account would come from, and why it isn't in your figures. As others have said it's a sum that's extremely high.

Firstly it could come the same way as borrowing, given that it's a less amount then the cost of bailing out the banks. But in fact there is another useful source - although it would take time for the government to realise it's value. It comes from the assets of the bust bank. RBS had enough capital and assets to cover all it's customers bank account money. It just could not cover it's investment gambling, aka CDS and derivatives.

 

You also fail to take into account the administrative delays and inefficiencies. During the delayed time you would leave an extremely large proportion of Scotland WITHOUT MONEY.

 

Without said money, people would be cut off from electricity, gas, phone and so on and business would fail save for the large chains like Tesco et al providing they don't also have severe monetary issues.

The money could be start being paided out next day. Go open an account with another bank. See previous post to Tyron.

 

Your idea is not only poorly thought out but reckless and from an economic point of view just plain moronic.

It's not my idea. I take no credit for the idea of not bailing out banks. Not doing something that has been discussed by thousands of people and for example in the US, not bailing out the banks was openly put forward on TV.

 

RBS Group hold around 1 in 3 business accounts and corporate accounts in the UK, there are in the region of 4m+ registered companies in the UK so we are talking about roughly 1.5m company accounts held by RBS Group.

 

Leaving 1.5m companies with just 50k left is the most ludicrous thing I have ever read on this board, you are talking about in the region of 1m companies wiped out overnight, you are talking about companies not with RBS that rely on RBS business customers for orders so every supply chain in this country is affected, you are talking about the effective liquidation of many FTSE 100 companies if they are just left with 50k each, your crackpot proposals would put probably 8-10m people out of work on top of what is out of work now.

 

You are an intelligent guy on the whole Ricky but you have not thought this through one bit, it is beyond ludicrous what you were suggesting

What a silly strawman post.

 

I guess you did not read what I have written multiple times, that 'those people' 'per personal account' etc. FFS, does that really sound like a business to you?

In additional I made it clear in a prevous post that 'the government could of even paided out the full amount in every account to every bank and still paided out significantly less then they did by bailing out the banks'.

 

 

There is also no reason why someone who had a few hundred quid in an RBS account should get 50 grand while anyone without an RBS account would have got a much lower sum.

God, help us. Surely I do not have to explain the amount is upto 50K. :wacko: If someone has a few hundred quid in the bank they get a few hundred quid back. Not 50K, that is the max per person per account. See http://www.politics.co.uk/news/economy-and...036;1243389.htm

 

Passing off things like this as fact isn't really the way forward. For example, look at Estonia and Latvia, who decided to do absolutely nothing with their economies during the financial crisis - bingo, 20% of their GDP erased!

I've no idea what you are getting at with that. My statement is in reply to the effects of lowering VAT. Estonia has a VAT rate of 20%, while in Latvia it is 21%, both higher then the positive effects of lowering it in the UK to 15%.

Fascinating stuff Ricky but what happens with the BUSINESS accounts ?

 

Do they get the full amount back ? if so from who ? do they get nothing ? are they limited to 50k ? explain what happens with business accounts under your proposals

 

I have a Lloyds TSB business account for my company and there is not a seperate trading arm for business accounts, they go bust tomorrow the business accounts do too

When the Daily Mail leads with a headline of "Coalition honeymoon over", you know the worm is starting to turn.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...-Coalition.html

 

Very interesting voting intentions poll in that article - if you factor out the 17% undecided, the Tories are on 35%, Labour are on 34% and Lib Dems are on 15%. On a uniform swing, Labour would be just 17 seats off an overall majority and 26 seats ahead of the Tories.

When the Daily Mail leads with a headline of "Coalition honeymoon over", you know the worm is starting to turn.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...-Coalition.html

 

Very interesting voting intentions poll in that article - if you factor out the 17% undecided, the Tories are on 35%, Labour are on 34% and Lib Dems are on 15%. On a uniform swing, Labour would be just 17 seats off an overall majority and 26 seats ahead of the Tories.

 

If I was Cameron I would cut the Lib Dems loose and rule as a minority Tory government helped by the Ulster Unionists, Labour/Lib Dems would never bring down the government unless they can find a billionaire to bankroll them.

 

The economy is doing well despite what the doom and gloom merchants in the media who love to talk Britain down say, Britons understand the need for savage cuts, Cameron is popular so the Lib Dems are well and truly the weakest link in the chain so need to be cut loose.

 

Personally I would like to see Cameron kicked out by David Davis but I think that won't happen before 2015, then we can have a serious right wing agenda again

In our High Street yesterday afternoon there were 4 people with clipboards trying to get people to sign a "Stop The Cuts" petition. I refused and told them straight that the cuts were necessary to reduce the deficit and was rudely sworn at! :o Not many people were actually signing and I doubt many of the general public care about whether there are cuts or not. I don't know anyone that's really bothered.

Edited August 15, 201014 yr by Common Sense

In our High Street yesterday afternoon there were 4 people with clipboards trying to get people to sign a "Stop The Cuts" petition. I refused and told them straight that the cuts were necessary to reduce the deficit and was rudely sworn at! :o Not many people were actually signing and I doubt many of the general public care about whether there are cuts or not. I don't know anyone that's really bothered.

 

I bet those 4 could be seen at the G8 riot in London looting banks and throwing rocks at police :manson:

 

Can't stand people like those 4 you mention above, I too would have refused to sign

 

 

 

The economy is doing well despite what the doom and gloom merchants in the media who love to talk Britain down say, Britons understand the need for savage cuts, Cameron is popular so the Lib Dems are well and truly the weakest link in the chain so need to be cut loose.

 

And yet you agreed with those doom and gloom merchants leading up to the election ... the Broken Britain Brigade! Make your mind up.

 

You're right though ... only a party with shedloads of millions is going to dislodge Dave and Nick ... oh but it does help to have the whole of the media (Mirror and Guardian notwithstanding) behind you.

 

Norma

Edited August 15, 201014 yr by Norma_Snockers

And yet you agreed with those doom and gloom merchants leading up to the election ... the Broken Britain Brigade! Make your mind up.

 

You're right though ... only a party with shedloads of millions is going to dislodge Dave and Nick ... oh but it does help to have the whole of the media (Mirror and Guardian notwithstanding) behind you.

 

Norma

 

I was desperate to get rid of Labour, I hope I never have to see another Labour government in my lifetime although I suspect given the cyclical nature of politics they will be back in power in around 15 years.

 

The Lib Dems have no business sitting at the same table as the tory's, they are obstructing, watering down and we are neutering policy to appease the Lib Dems and are having to share a platform with political opposites.

 

A party that LOST seats at the last election has the bare faced cheek to demand AV which could potentially change the face of government forever not that there is the slightest chance of the public voting for AV but the fact that these little pipsqueaks are laying down the law despite performing abysmally at the last election shows some nerve, the tories should tell the Lib Dems to go fukk themselves and pursue a conservative platform of legislation without the Lib Dems sticking their beaks in.

Edited August 15, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

I doubt many of the general public care about whether there are cuts or not. I don't know anyone that's really bothered.

Really? Because I'd say the vast majority of people care if there's a recession or not, or whether their benefits/budgets get cut or not.

If I was Cameron I would cut the Lib Dems loose and rule as a minority Tory government helped by the Ulster Unionists, Labour/Lib Dems would never bring down the government unless they can find a billionaire to bankroll them.

 

The economy is doing well despite what the doom and gloom merchants in the media who love to talk Britain down say, Britons understand the need for savage cuts, Cameron is popular so the Lib Dems are well and truly the weakest link in the chain so need to be cut loose.

 

Personally I would like to see Cameron kicked out by David Davis but I think that won't happen before 2015, then we can have a serious right wing agenda again

 

There's no Ulster Unionist MPs in Parliament. The one who used to be part of that party left and was re-elected as an independent, in specific protest against the party's pact with the Tories. There is the DUP who traditionally are allied with the Tories, but they've spoken of their anger at Cameron's pact with their rival Ulster Unionists, and have been heavily critical of the cuts. They would demand no cuts at all for Northern Ireland if they were to join up with them - and even then, that would still leave Cameron 11 short of a majority, and that's not even taking into account the very real possibility of Tory backbenchers voting against the government on key issues.