Nick Clegg
Because he's managed to silence all those smug, self-satisfied pricks who berated me for (begrudgingly, and for lack of a better alternative) voting Labour all those years.

"Mmm. Yah. Of course, the Lib Dems are the real party of the Left these days"

How's that working out for you?
(Monkey Tennis isn't Spartacus, Fri 17 Dec 2010, 12:02, 12 replies)

It still amazes me
that people make distinctions between the political parties when they both receive policy advice from the very same think tanks and organisations(Demos and its ilk).
In regards to labour, Brown sold the gold off and passed the Bank of England Act in 1998 allowing the Bank of England to deregulate the industry which led to the whole toxic debt crisis. It's a sad truth but the policy is handed down regardless of who's in power.
(Dagwood, Fri 17 Dec 2010, 13:25, closed)

Funny how the US had a problem with toxic debt at the same time, innit?
Must be coincidence.
( wotofco pissing in your swimming pool, Fri 17 Dec 2010, 13:44, closed)

it's not odd at all
considering the private banks that form the Federal Reserve in America are all largely part of the same central banking structure, alot of them UK based and even owned. JP Morgan, Warburgs, Rothchild etc. Paul Warburg's 1,600 page biography boasts about who actually owns the Fed in the later years after the structure was set up.
(Dagwood, Fri 17 Dec 2010, 16:15, closed)

That doesn't address my point
Blaming the toxic debt crisis on Brown's deregulation of banking is pretty short sighted if not parochial.
( wotofco pissing in your swimming pool, Fri 17 Dec 2010, 18:30, closed)

.
you're right it would be short sighted to blame Brown, that's why I didn't, I blamed the people who benefited from the deregulation. Brown was merely the stooge who happened to be in power to pass the bill they needed.

your original post I was responding to:
"Funny how the US had a problem with toxic debt at the same time, innit?
Must be coincidence."


I took it that your point being how can the deregulation caused by a central bank in England cause the toxic debt crisis in the US, by coinicidence as you put it.

I'll elaborate on my previous answer so I apologise in advance if this post gets a bit lenghty, its a complex issue and to be fair I probably explained it badly in my previous post

ok, to summarise: why does Brown passing the 98 B of E (Bank of England) act = giving the B of E court of directors complete automony = allowing deregulation of the banking industry = toxic debt in the US ?

and how is the Bof E linked to the US banking system?

the London banking houses ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914

The 1998 Act passed by Brown gave full automony to the court of directors at the B of E. The shareholders are the ones protected when the Bank of england nominees ltd was set up in 1977(BOEN).

It was after this deregulation that the toxic debt bundling began through their control of the banking structure in the US. They controlled and managed the areana in which the chaotic greed and selling was taking place. It's not rocket science to know that if you deregulate the industry every shark trying to make a quick buck would flood tthe system until it collapsed and needed to be rescued.

Party politics is irrelevant and superficial to this.

The B of E was granted an exemption by the Minister of State for Trade from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 ,as:
“it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders”.

So on the one hand, the British taxpayer underwrites the liabilities of the Bank and on the other (BOEN) can share in the profits, with no risk. Yet we aren't allowed to know who the beneficiary(s) of (BOEN) are

These banking families are the ones that deregulated the industry and have the most to gain form the debt crisis.

As it leads to bank centralisation and loan management on an exagerated and extremely profitable scale. If you look at the writings of the leading economists of the time and even the writings of John Maynard Keynes when the IMF was set up you'll see they wrote about the IMF's second phase taking over soveriegn debt. The whole setting up of the structure of the IMF was set up for this very purpose. just all Coincidence, as you put it?

*the first phase was the management of the structure of the debt based consumerist system, to be followed by the second phase the taking on by the IMF of sovereign debt and with it the financial management of each individual trading block and country. All engineered and written about 60 odd years ago.

"... we conclude that the [Federal] Reserve Banks are not federal ...
but are independent privately owned and locally controlled corporations...without day to day direction from the federal government " 9th Circuit Court, June 24, 1982

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board as ministers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money" -- Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923

"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it". — Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)
(Dagwood, Fri 17 Dec 2010, 19:59, closed)

Why doesn't that surprise me
I had this explained to me by a friend who works in 'The Square Mile' last year.

Apparently they did the same thing just before the great depression to buy up the smaller banks. He suggested if I had any savings I buy gold as they are willfully crashing the economy to allow the introduction of the huge rescue packages.

The price of a sovereign back then was around £180 from those pawn shops which was £180 more than I had spare at that time. I think he bought about 5 grands worth. 20 odd full sovereigns and 19 half sovereigns. He bought them back in March this year. He tells me each month how much Gold is increasing in value and each month I try to resist the urge to slap him.

Last time I checked those £180 sovs are now £220
(Miss B3thpot, Sat 18 Dec 2010, 22:30, closed)

Oh man
You were doing pretty well until you quoted Lindbergh and McFadden. You do realise that both those people were batshit mentalist anti-semites, don't you? That McFadden accused Wall Street of funding the Russian Revolution and Lindbergh was firmly on the side of the Nazis?
( wotofco pissing in your swimming pool, Sun 19 Dec 2010, 16:33, closed)

Ah, Brown and the gold.
The rightwing wankfest that refuses to die.

For a decent-enough debunking, see this.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 17 Dec 2010, 13:59, closed)

I'm not really Tory either
but it cannot be disputed that the 1998 BofE act was fundamental in deregulating the industry which is the key event to instigating the toxic debt. It's no great conspiracy that the central banks want to create a mechanism to increase their wealth and power just as they did in 1929. such as what we have today by creating a debt crisis so a larger more central structure like the IMF can move in. I'm not Labour bashing , I'm just saying that whom ever was in power would have been told to pass that act anyway.
(Dagwood, Fri 17 Dec 2010, 16:20, closed)

I read the link after I made a similar comment.
While I agree that the loss caused by gold prices is, perhaps, forgivable I notice that if you read the comments someone brings up the real problem: he sold the gold and spent the money.
If he sold it and reinvested it in another currency because he thought it a better investment then OK -- but he didn't.
The historical stuff is irrelevant because this is about Brown not labour.
Politicians are all influenced by the person who will give them a job later in life or a few quid now -- none of them (from the big 3 anyhow) give a flying fuck about this country or its people.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Fri 17 Dec 2010, 17:54, closed)

Your tin foil hat appears to have a small rip in it.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Fri 17 Dec 2010, 14:07, closed)

fuck off, knobhead
(Dagwood, Mon 20 Dec 2010, 0:29, closed)