Deffo gonna pick it up.

At school I learned to pass exams, now I'm out I want genuine knowledge.

I blame the Germans

You mean Lizzy?
 

Sorry, but what exactly does the Royal Family have to do with this?

:D

lol

As has already been explained, any party in power at the time would have joined the ERM and Soros caused the UK's ejection from the ERM, unfortunately it's only with the benefit of hindsight that people can comment on the pro's and cons of membership. Obviously, that won't suit your agenda but some of us have the benefit of neutrality enabling us to make a clearer distinction.

Please don't ascribe my views to suit your own position. I was making the point about the amount of damage George Soros created as a result of his meddling in a country's prosperity which could be described as financial terrorism - I was making no comment regarding Tory policy.

And no labour MP has done anything remotely similar? All that's happened is that we've replaced one party of sleaze (as you put it) with another, despite the sound bites promising us it can only get better.

Soros did what anybody else with the balls and financial ability would have done in the circumstances. Whether he should have been *allowed* to is another matter, but the answer has to be "yes" if you believe in capitalist societies and what they stand for.

Top bloke.

Of course you're right Telboy, but you have to question the moral and ethical aspects of what he did when you consider that he ended up with profits in excess of $1 billion, whilst millions of people were subjected to financial penury largely as a result of his actions.

I'm sitting amongst hundreds of people just *waiting* for an opportunity to do something similar, given the chance. Soros didn't deliberately target the Government - he just had a view, stuck his neck on the line and won. $hit happens. As they say, markets can go down as well as up... ;)

That depends on your point of view and semantics. In my opinion George Soros in nothing better than a looter who likes to portray himself as a modern day Robin Hood. He alludes to stealing from the rich western nations by targetting their banks and giving to the poor by creating wealth (supposedly) in the former Soviet blok countries. In fact, he creates as much damage in his former country as he does abroad.

I'm not sure what area of the money markets you're involved with but you're at least creating wealth for yourselves and your clients but I doubt you set out to destroy on such a massive scale whilst spreading the profits with such a dubious set of crooks as he fraternises with.

Do you ever see the UK joining the Euro BTW ?

That's a harsh view, F'D. What he had in his favour was massive financial clout. Yes, the origins of this are shady, but he didn't do anything overtly illegal, as far as i'm aware.

In fact, he lost a lot of money susequently, on NASDAQ as well as other markets, so you could argue he's had his come-uppance to some extent. Many investors actually use his advice as a contra-indicator these days, so he might have had his day in the sun, tough though it was on many people at the time. I'd rather live in a society where this *was* possible though, whether by Soros or somebody else, rather than a rigid regime where market forces were not allowed to operate. Horses for courses.

If you're asking my opinion then, yes, it's inevitable. It only takes one "YES" vote to ditch Sterling and adopt the Euro and whilst you can have as many negative referendums as you like, once that positive vote is secured then it's game, set and match for the Euro.

TelBoy would be able to give you a far better analysis of how important the money markets are to the UK economy compared to other European countries but that in conjunction with the housing market's sophistication in the UK rules out joining the Euro for me. I have no problem swapping one currency for another and personally I'd stand to benefit far more than most, but one overriding concern I have is losing the right to decide interest rates that are suitable for the British economy. Labour's decision to hand over the whole interest rate decision making process to the BoE has been a masterstroke, not just politically but also practically because it takes the politics out of the decision.

When and if Murdoch can be "bought" with the Yes vote, we'll be in the Euro.

Cynical, but not a million miles from the truth.

It may be harsh but I can't stand people trying to represent themselves as something they're not. If you listen to Soros, he *is* the marketmaker making all the decisions himself -which is patently not true when you look at all of his advisers. I also don't like his misrepresentation of himself as a Robin Hood character and as you mentioned he has lost startling amounts of money. In particular, in Russia where he was speculating against the Russian economy - supposedly one of the countries that benefitted from his philanthropy.

I don't think anyone's under any illusions (not these days, anyway) that Soros is backed by a whole team. But he has to remain the figure-head of Brunswick or they just melt away to become A.N.Other hedge fund. Plenty of people hang onto his every word still, but as i say, for varying reasons now!

Hey, you never know, Soros might have inadvertently bought Chelsea!!

Would that be a good or bad thing?

John Major supports Chelsea :D

I haven't got that far in his autobiography.

:D

What a holier-than-thou, condescending response! :nono:
My flabber is well and truly gasted at the arrogance of your response.


ERM : As as already been explained the Tories fcuked it up (which bit of this do you dispute?). No amount of but-ifs change that fact. They got it wrong and we all paid for it.

Soros: Wrong again. The Tories did the damage through financial incompetence. Soros probably made it worse, but it's all about letting the market decide, remember?

Sleaze: No New Labour PM has done anything remotely similar (yet). Stop defending what is obviously outrageous and unacceptable behaviour from the nations leader, just because it suits your narrow little Tory agenda!.


Suresh

At the risk of defending the Tories, something I am very loath to do, I have to point out that:

(a) the Tories screwed up a lot of things, but all governments do. Hindsight's a wonderful thing.

(b) Major had an affair, but other than that could be accused of nothing other than presiding over the fall of a dynasty. He's certainly no more immoral than many of the Cabinet (present and recent past) who've displayed less than perfect standards.

(c) The Tories never set themselves up to be goody-goodies, whereas Labour were going to have an ethical foreign policy, put education first, and massively improve the health service. You can argue that some of their promises have been delivered, but the ethical foreign policy? Ask the Iraqis about that one.

Yep, we sure are:)

Chip.

I think that Hague could have been a very good PM if he had been given the chance. He used to give Blair a hard time at the dispatch box too. That was why Blair shortened PM Question Time.

Is it a good thing to be led into a disastrous undertaking just because the PM of the time is capable of making a good speech to con the country over his reasons?

Les

One of the problems the Tories have had is that they pick people who are good private performers but not so good in public.

Hague - good in the Commons, and an excellent small-room speaker. On TV he came across as boring and cold, and the Tory spinmeisters then proceeded to shoot themselves in their collective feet (baseball cap, "I can drink 25 pints, me")

Major - great personal charm, a genuinely decent man (though perhaps Norma would disagree), and excellent in committees. Again, rubbish on TV, and a stilted public delivery.

IDS - A disaster on every front - not all that bright, condescending, smug, chip on shoulder ...... reasonable on TV, but that's about it

Howard - VERY bright, but too much of a toff, not great on TV (either in manner or looks), and has the unfortunate disadvantage of leaving no shadow and being unable to see his reflection in a mirror.


Blair may be shallow, but we, the public, have demanded politicians who are good TV performers. We've ended up with Blair, who (to be fair) is a man of strong morality and purpose, but unfortunatley also one with a bit of a Messiah complex, who believes that only he knows the way, only he can lead us to the path of all that is good and proper. He may be right on some of it, but it's increasingly difficult to tell the difference between Tony Blair's speeches and some bloke singing Kumbaya on Songs of Praise.

Mind you, the press are out for Blair, and will do just about anything to vilify him. Despite the fact that there's massive Tory bias, they STILL haven't found anyone to match up to him, and that's despite the half-lies told on a daily basis. I wonder what the voting statistics would be like if the truth were told?

As the Bard of Essex pointed out:

"When you wake up to the fact
That your paper is Tory
Just remember, there are two sides to every story".

Excellent post Moose and quoting Shakespeare as well - cool - although I don't remember him living in Essex ;)

Lord William of Bragg!

Ah, good old Lord Bill...

"It says here that this year's prince is born
It says here do you ever wish
That you were better informed"

I know mate, I met him back in the 80's when I booked him to play at a club I was managing - he's a great guy, very very quick witted. Would sort a few of the amateur politicians out on here I can assure you. Mind you given the calibre of many on here that wouldn't take much.

tiggers.

All the best people live in Essex. Fact. :)

As someone who is essentially politically neutral, I don't have an agenda. The other advantage is that I can comment on politics with a more objective view which is something that you have yet to learn and as for your other posturing I have two words for you:

Grow up.

If you seriously dispute that Labour came into power on a wave of popularism based on cleaning up politics and have failed miserably by abusing their positions - think Mandelson, Blunkett, Robinson, Vaz, Irvine, not to mention the Ecclestone affair - then you need to take another more objectivelook at Labour and how they've run their affairs. No doubt you'll find my reply arrogant as it clashes with your view point and undoubted allegiance to Labour but frankly, I couldn't give a stuff.

Whereas I've only lived there for three years. Ah, the halcyon days of the Eighties, when you could get beaten up by squaddies in Colchester to the strains of Boys Of Summer for less than a pound.