On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:58, Paul Cundell wrote:

>> Voting :
>> 
>> I have not
>> I reserve my right to vote
>> But  probably won't
>> 
> 
> You also reserve the right to perform a volte face as soon as you're found
> out?


Found out of what ? Not expressing myself clearly ? 



> 
>> whats wrong with barclays of HSBC ? Neither took bail outs and Barclays
>> shares at 50p were a steal
> 
> LIBOR rate?


It is a negotiated rate. It always was. 
It could so easily be set by the market , there are already futures contracts 
so let it be the b-spline though the curve.

You set people in charge of something that they can control for their own 
profit and this is what happens. They want to profit
Just like they all wanted to profit at Liverpool council when Hatton was in 
charge. Innocent my arse.

See also Cash for honours, Peter Hain, Tessa Jowell ask her about your next 
remortgage, the death of David kelly…I could sit here all night….


> 
>> I loaded up to the gunnels on that one. I missed the bottom on HSBC by 30p
> but
>> its done well since. Standard Chartered was the real killing.
>> All locked away fro a rainy day
> 
> Why would we be interested?


Just incase you decided to back you own judgement and no longer be just a 
customer of HSBC but a sure holder





> 
>> Fucking amazing !
>> You sem to believe that the chancellor can waive his fingers and get the
> tanker
>> to stop and change direction
> 
> He has stopped the tanker - he's turned a growing economy into a triple dip
> recession.


So the downturn that the world suffered could have ben avoided. 
Yes it could , join the labour party in a place where the world s red. Mars.



> He's been in control for nearly 3 years, more than long enough for his
> policies to take effect.
> The facts don't lie.


Im sure you can pull the red will over the eyes on the doorstep , but under any 
real scrutiny it all falls apart and conveys a serious and misguided view, 
blinkered would be to kind , of a world where labour never made a mistake and 
finally put a home in the side of the ship that wil take decades to repair but 
is still leaking

I will do a full synopsis on this for you  over the weekend




> 
>> The spending increases already programmed in by Labour account for this.
> 
> Bollox, if his austerity had worked he'd be claiming success - it hasn't,
> it's failed and he must carry the can.


as I stated it takes time to stop a supper tanker
Increasing rates to 15 percent ( but thats the job of an independent bank of 
england) would not save sterling tomorrow

Queasing, printing money is the last hope. We devalue the debt, become a third 
world nation. There is no choice.

Growth itself is a flawed idea…more on third another day




> 
>>> two things which the Condems are slashing spending in now.
>> 
>> GOOD WE CANT AFFORD IT
> 
> Who says? Rob Woodmansey? Cos the government keep changing their mind about
> what we can and can't afford.


The ratings agencies, international markets, the people, who lend us the money



> They were going to tax pasties and caravans,

Id tax caravans out of existence. But not static ones.


> scrap free school milk
> sell off the forests, raise the retirement age for
> women, scrap coastguards, scrap the world service, scrap DLA, tax charity
> donations and raise fuel duty but they changed their mind.


They all sound reasonable targets to me. 




> 
>>> The coalition
>>> exaggerated the necessity to tackle the deficit in the short term
> possibly
>>> to use austerity
>> 
>> if you can't pay your mortgage you lose your house , correct ?
> 
> Another juvenile micro-economic statement which has very little to do with
> macro-economics.


Actually it is macro. 
Debt must be repaid…else the lender goes under
wh is th slender of last resort
The government







> 
>>> as justification for a smaller state
>> 
>> 
>> SMALLER STATE GOOD ! FEWER POLITICIANS AND QUANGOS TO WASTE
>> MONEY ON
> 
> That's not what they mean by a smaller state, what if it's your mobile
> library that goes - or your wife's job - just because Gideon wants to fund
> another round of quantitative easing. 

1. Quantitative easing is not funded
2. The chancellor does not decide , the bank of england does





> 
>>> to gain lower taxes
>> 
>> YES PLEASE
> 
> At what expense? Which of our social and welfare services would you like to
> dispose of first to pay for a tax cut?


Id like to cut large swathes through the government , local , regional , 
national and European.
SErvices come second


> 50000 nurses? Ambulances? Firemen?
> Road repairs? Where would you like to stop? 
> Thank god you don't vote, at least we can be safe in the knowledge you can't
> do any damage.
> 
> 

Thank god you will never get elected again in my lifetime

If we can't afford it…what s your solution ? Oh yes…borrow , borrow , borrow 
and borrow. Bankrupt there nation
I believe that Cameron probably id not want t win the last election, the 
chalice was so poisoned , such was the inheritance he would have done better to 
lose and let labour , new labour and the whole rotten to the core ideology, 
becuas very premise on which it is based is wrong.,,…wither on the rope, hang 
in the air to dry

Lovely to chat with you again Paul. You still are a passionate chap that is to 
be admired.



\







> 

_______________________________________________
Leedslist mailing list
Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
To unsubscribe, email [email protected]

MARCHING ON TOGETHER

Reply via email to