TB Opinion Poll

Who would you vote for if the General Election were today

  • Labour

    Votes: 14 24.6%
  • Conservative

    Votes: 9 15.8%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 21 36.8%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 3 5.3%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 2 3.5%
  • SNP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • BNP

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • None

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Total voters
    57
Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

Status
Not open for further replies.
we already have proportional representation :)


(in Northern Ireland)
 
I struggle to see what sort of regulation would have had a material effect on the course of history. But I agree, the speech looks pretty misguided now.

well if we had the Glass-Steagull Act back the government would let investment banks fail and the people's money would be safer

the Republicans repealed it in 1999 and gave the thumbs up so that investment banks can play with deposits of savers again for the first time since...er the depression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
 
well if we had the Glass-Steagull Act back the government would let investment banks fail and the people's money would be safer

the Republicans repealed it in 1999 and gave the thumbs up so that investment banks can play with deposits of savers again for the first time since...er the depression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the regulatory approach we adopted was the correct one, just that at the time of the speech mentioned, Brown or any other Chancellor who happened to have been in office would have struggled to have got the type of legislation necessary into effect. There wasn't enough support in the political world or the financial world at that time.

My personal opinion is that repealing Glass-Steagull was the correct decision, but should have been accompanied by strict reserve requirements and regulation over what securities could be held in what proportions.
 
Three utter, utter ****s on Channel 4 right now

I wouldn't employ any of the useless feckers in the lowest of paid jobs, and I certainly wouldn't want to give them the keys to the Treasury

Osborne in particular is a complete and utter shitwipe
 
In my opinion there are only two parties that are capable of running the country and one of them has had it's chance. I will vote Tory because I believe they will improve the things that are important to me ie the NHS. I also think they have a better grasp of how to reduce the national debt.

They are clueless on both counts and possibly even dangerous in my opinion
 
Your point about unemployment and public sector jobs is complete nonsense. The only parts of the public sector that have significantly increased since Labour came to power are NHS and teaching.

Don't suppose you know what percentage of the extra staff employed in the health service by Nu-Labour are in managerial, administrative or non-nursing roles do you?

I'll take your best guess if you don't know exactly.
 
I don't think I do deserve any condescending remarks at all. I was merely quoting the widely reported govt statistics, not just in the Daily Mail but on the BBC as well.

UK unemployment records further fall

There are regional differences in the unemployment figures

The number of people unemployed in the UK has fallen again, leaving the jobless rate at 7.8%, figures show.

Total unemployment stood at 2.45 million for the three months to January, down 33,000 on the figure for the previous three months.

But long-term unemployment, covering those out of work for more than a year, rose by 61,000 to 687,000.

The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance fell by 32,300 to 1.59 million in February.

Unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds fell by 34,000 to 715,000, but among the over-50s, joblessness rose by 14,000 to 398,000.


I'm not at all sure where this is from or why you are quoting it. It does nothing to support the assertions you made in post #23 which is what this strand of the thread is all about.
 
I'll take your best guess if you don't know exactly.

3% of NHS staffing is management. Approximately 45,000 out of nearly 1.5m.

This seems exceptionally low to me. Economies of scale I guess. Despite this, the Government has published plans to reduce this figure by 30% over the next four years. I recall seeing that NHS admin costs generally were about half that in the US which suggests that they are very low.

For me, proportions of management are less important than the quality of management. A good/bad manager makes a massive net impact.

My view of NHS management was influenced by Gerry Richardson's investigation a couple of years ago. He saw management and consultants clashing over who knew best. In most cases, consultants thought they knew best despite having no concept of management and budgets. Managers were largely intimidated and threatened by highly paid and highly skilled consultants. My conclusion was that being an NHS manager was a thankless and incredibly complex job.

Your point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1639
2Chelsea1735
3Arsenal1733
4Nottm F1731
5Bournemouth1728
6Aston Villa1728
7Manchester C  1727
8Newcastle1726
9Fulham1725
10Brighton1725
11Tottenham 1723
12Brentford1723
13Manchester U1722
14West Ham1720
15Everton1616
16Palace1716
17Leicester1714
18Wolves1712
19Ipswich1712
20Southampton176

Latest posts

Back
Top