If the Tories are in power, it must be private!

by Redflag Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:44 am

First topic message reminder :

Before May 2010 Cameron said that the N.H.S "is safe in my hands." No it's not because he is a tory! These plans had been drawn long before he came into power he knew that he would hive off a chunk of our N.H.S to the private sector. After the voting public turf him and his cohorts out in 2015 or earlier... IS THERE A DIRECTORS JOB IN THE OFFING?

His next target was the Great British Bobby, our police force bringing in the private security companies to do back room work, and light policing. After sacking the original back room staff, did he not realize that someone has to do the paperwork so that the police can do their job out on the streets, preventing crime and catching criminals? Or is this an attempt to create: JOBS FOR THE BOYS

This week it's the motorways, now cars, vans and lorries are not just having to pay their road tax in the coming months and years. There will be motor way tolls. When Ken Livingstone introduced the congestion charges for London the conservatives went for blood, however now we are just expected to smile sweetly and say nothing of these charges that are to be introduced by the tories! !nn! !nn! If you use these private motor ways with the price of petrol and diesel rising the only people that will be able to afford to travel by these roads will be the top 1% of the UK. In other words the filthy rich financial sector, is this what he intended to make sure that he put road travel out of the reach of the other 99% of the UK public? Is this another way of putting motorway tailbacks so that him and his cohorts can sail up and down the motorways without having to deal with us (plebs) getting in their way?

WHAT IS THE KICKBACK FOR THIS?

When the Education Minister (Mr Gove) decided to bring in Academy and Free Schools as his pet project there was a promise of "No Council Interference" until some of the Academies failed and then the Councils where told clear up his mess. Now another round of casualties have been racked up with the tory party practice of elitist snobbery, students that are not seen to perform to the expected targets are been shipped out to f.e. Colleges to complete their studies.

PREPARING FUTURE GENERATION AS UP AND COMING TORY VOTERS

by oftenwrong Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:00 pm

What bobby says is no less than the truth. The Tories did not intend privatisation to be reversible, and any attempt to re-nationalise the railways would be regarded by certain foreign governments as confiscation. Paradoxically, the East Coast line from Kings Cross to Edinburgh is NOT in private ownership, as the previous Operators couldn't make any money from it.
Presumably an incoming Socialist administration could re-designate it British Rail and slowly rebuild a publicly owned network from that base, but it's always going to need taxpayer subsidies.

by Redflag Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:22 am

oftenwrong wrote:What bobby says is no less than the truth. The Tories did not intend privatisation to be reversible, and any attempt to re-nationalise the railways would be regarded by certain foreign governments as confiscation. Paradoxically, the East Coast line from Kings Cross to Edinburgh is NOT in private ownership, as the previous Operators couldn't make any money from it.
Presumably an incoming Socialist administration could re-designate it British Rail and slowly rebuild a publicly owned network from that base, but it's always going to need taxpayer subsidies.

Because of the private sector greed and what you have said about the East Coast line, when Labour get back into power in 2015 MAKE sure the greedy backstuds keep the the letter of there Franchise contract and do not let them away with one IOTA, and when they do jump on them from a height that would be the same plan for everything else that the Maggot sold of the public sector, what do you think OW ?

by oftenwrong Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:34 pm

The Companies Act 1986 allows Directors to escape personal liability for the debts of a failed Company. You can't get blood out of a stone, so they CAN get away with it.

by bobby Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:52 pm

You can't get blood out of a stone.

Hello ow, is that anywhere near the same as "shit out of a rocking horse"

by Tosh Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:20 pm

The Companies Act 1986 allows Directors to escape personal liability for the debts of a failed Company. You can't get blood out of a stone, so they CAN get away with it..

I am not sure if you have the wrong Act or the wrong date but there is no such animal as the Companies Act 1986, there was an Insolvency Act 1986 as a result of the Cork Report commissioned by the Labour Party.

I formed my first Limited Company in 1983 and to my knowledge limited liability had been in place since the 19th century. As a Director of a Limited Company my personal liability was limited to my personal investment, this included putting up my home as a bank guarantee. Creditors are not queuing up to give a new Limited Company any credit, personal investment is not some whim but a prerequisite, and you risk it all if you fail.

Directors are held personally liable for any improper governance( fraud, trading while insolvent etc), ranging from prison to disqualification from holding a directorship.

It aint a walk in the park or everyone would be a business owner.

by Redflag Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:50 pm

Tosh wrote:
The Companies Act 1986 allows Directors to escape personal liability for the debts of a failed Company. You can't get blood out of a stone, so they CAN get away with it..

I am not sure if you have the wrong Act or the wrong date but there is no such animal as the Companies Act 1986, there was an Insolvency Act 1986 as a result of the Cork Report commissioned by the Labour Party.

I formed my first Limited Company in 1983 and to my knowledge limited liability had been in place since the 19th century. As a Director of a Limited Company my personal liability was limited to my personal investment, this included putting up my home as a bank guarantee. Creditors are not queuing up to give a new Limited Company any credit, personal investment is not some whim but a prerequisite, and you risk it all if you fail.

Directors are held personally liable for any improper governance( fraud, trading while insolvent etc), ranging from prison to disqualification from holding a directorship.

It aint a walk in the park or everyone would be a business owner.

You need to have a talk with bobby he has lost two business and I'm certain a whole lot more, every time some on decides to go into business they know there is a chance of it going bust but thats the chance they take because if is does work they will make there money back plus employ people and end up with a thriving business.

by Tosh Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:03 pm

You need to have a talk with bobby he has lost two business and I'm certain a whole lot more, every time some on decides to go into business they know there is a chance of it going bust but thats the chance they take because if is does work they will make there money back plus employ people and end up with a thriving business.

If limited liability was removed then the risk would not be worth taking, starting up a company is not like being self employed, it is expensive and you don't earn points for employing people if they lose you money.

by oftenwrong Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:35 pm

Edit. For Companies Act 1986 please read Companies Act 1985 to satisfy the pedantic.

by Tosh Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:16 pm

Edit. For Companies Act 1986 please read Companies Act 1985 to satisfy the pedantic..

The Companies Act 1985 allows Directors to escape personal liability for the debts of a failed Company.

I am sorry but this is simply untrue, limited personal liability for directors had been established under previous Companies Acts, the 1985 Act was merely a consolidation. As I said I formed my first company in 1983 and limited liability was the status quo.

For what its worth the limited liabiliy is now under The Companies Act 2006, and I believe the Labour Party was on watch.

What point were you endeavouring to make ?

by Mel Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:18 pm

Tosh you are correct regarding creditors have never been keen to lend to NEW limited liability companies. Banks in particular will require charges on assets/property and where they can/could always attempt to obtain directors guarantees.
Of course a blue chip company will get away without signing directors personal guarantees. As many used to say to me " directors guarantees? you must be joking, why do you think we are a limited liability company?
It was difficult to argue that point of course with well established limited companies with strong balance sheets.

I believe you and OW are both correct with your Acts.

by Tosh Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:38 am

The liability of a director of a PLC is obvious, he is responsible to the shareholders and he is liable to lose his position for any business losses.

Banks insist the directors must be confident of its success and have something to lose, they want to see the colour of your money first before they consider showing theirs.

by oftenwrong Sun Sep 23, 2012 4:59 pm

I can't help speculating whether someone who is so ready to criticise fellow subscribers to this forum was equally candid in correspondence with his Bankers.

by Tosh Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:41 pm

I can't help speculating whether someone who is so ready to criticise fellow subscribers to this forum was equally candid in correspondence with his Bankers..

You are starting to think about me WAY too much, its very flattering if not a tad obsessive. Basketball

by oftenwrong Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:11 pm

I'll take that as a denial then.

by Tosh Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:24 pm

I'll take that as a denial then..

I will take this as more unfounded speculation.

by oftenwrong Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:20 pm

Tosh wrote:
I'll take that as a denial then..

I will take this as more unfounded speculation.

You're the expert on that.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:08 am

I always look forward each year to the third round of the FA Cup , when a non-league outfit can have a stab at a Premier League Club despite inevitably ending up getting well-beaten... Basketball

by oftenwrong Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:19 pm

But the gate-receipts can provide consolation.

Spent wisely.

by Tosh Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:04 pm

despite inevitably ending up getting well-beaten... .

Self proclaimed victory = loser.

by Tosh Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:08 pm

You're the expert on that..

Nope, my speculations are founded on science and reason, I haven't worked out what illness supports your unfounded speculation.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:23 pm

" Self proclaimed victory = loser"

Or, possibly - making hasty assumptions = insecure...? Very Happy

by Tosh Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:54 pm

Or, possibly - making hasty assumptions = insecure...?

Nope, we are stll left with you self- proclaiming victory, get over it.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:09 pm

'Nope' , indeed. Read it again, laddie. It's no victory of mine to which I allude . Not my style. Unlike some, eh...? Very Happy

by Tosh Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:40 pm

'Nope' , indeed. Read it again, laddie. It's no victory of mine to which I allude . Not my style. Unlike some, eh...?

Oh dear, is it a magnanimous Royal " we " proclaiming victory lolol ?

by oftenwrong Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:42 pm

Suggested source-material.

Speculations, founded on the Greek and Puranic Traditions
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd2-1-23.htm

by Tosh Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:06 pm

Suggested source-material.

Gee, more copy and paste goodies from the chief speculator, just can't wait to open it.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:16 pm

'Opening it' never seems to be a problem for you , Tosh. 'Shutting it' might be a somewhat different proposition... Rolling Eyes

by Tosh Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:04 pm

'Opening it' never seems to be a problem for you , Tosh. 'Shutting it' might be a somewhat different proposition... .

Ditto.

Your comeback is worthy of my pity reply. Very Happy

by **Ivan** Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:25 pm

Can we cut out all this pointless posturing and return to the subject of the thread, please?

by jackthelad Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:40 pm

Ivan wrote:Can we cut out all this pointless posturing and return to the subject of the thread, please?

Is that what it is, i thought it was one of those my dad is bigger than your dad situations.

I think they have forgotten what the subject of the thread is all about.

by oftenwrong Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:32 pm

If the Tories are in power, it must be private!

The thread topic is inescapably about containment.

The Tories ARE in power, and discussing that ad nauseam is probably inevitable until there is a General Election. Currently the Forum acts as host to more than one interchangeable discussion wishing that things were otherwise.

If anyone really supposed that Tory ambitions were either private or concealed, their belief will have been shattered by the Lib-Dem Party Conference in Brighton today, from which it is evident that Gideon's plans enjoy the full support of coalition members.

by Redflag Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:22 pm

oftenwrong wrote:If the Tories are in power, it must be private!

The thread topic is inescapably about containment.

The Tories ARE in power, and discussing that ad nauseam is probably inevitable until there is a General Election. Currently the Forum acts as host to more than one interchangeable discussion wishing that things were otherwise.

If anyone really supposed that Tory ambitions were either private or concealed, their belief will have been shattered by the Lib-Dem Party Conference in Brighton today, from which it is evident that Gideon's plans enjoy the full support of coalition members.

Thanks OW and since it is my thread I totally agree back too the topic, everything the Tories can get there hands on in the public sector will be privatized he is worse than the Maggot. But here is his warning the police the NHS staff and the armed forces or the low paid or the public sector workers will DEFINITELY not be voting Tory or L/D at the next G.E.

Our problem will be when Labour get back in they will be shoveling SHYTE 24/7 for many years, but on the good side I can see another 1997 landslide in 2015. cheers

by blueturando Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:27 pm

Our problem will be when Labour get back in they will be shoveling SHYTE 24/7 for many years

Hilarious!!!! In some ways I hope Labour have to inherit a mess if they get back in power. Maybe it will teach them some valuable lessons on spending when you dont have the money...but I doubt it

by oftenwrong Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:27 pm

"....lessons on spending when you dont have the money...."

The majority of successful businesses operate with other people's money through issuing shareholdings in addition to whatever borrowing facility they may have agreed with a Bank. As long as they can show a return on the money, nobody complains.

by Tosh Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:21 pm

The majority of successful businesses operate with other people's money through issuing shareholdings in addition to whatever borrowing facility they may have agreed with a Bank. As long as they can show a return on the money, nobody complains..

Heads roll when the business ceases to be successful, Britain ceased to be successful.....and heads rolled.

by sickchip Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:33 pm

Heads roll when the business ceases to be successful, Britain ceased to be successful.....and heads rolled.

Heads have rolled. And we should count amongst them the millions of people in low paid jobs with no prospects scraping by to pay bills etc. There are also millions of disenfranchised, disillusioned young people whose potential is being offered little scope to be realised. A lot of waste and heads rolled there, tosh.

- still as long as profits keep rolling in, those who decide who gets paid what can keep over-valuing themselves, paying themselves too much, and inflicting hardship on others.

Give the fattest boy at the party the cake to share out....and this is what happens. He sits at the table stuffing his fat face while the rest fight over crumbs.

The government and management of this country have failed entirely to facillitate the realisation of our potential. Their priorities have been totally wrong for the past 30yrs. They have failed to invest in, or trust, the british people.

by Redflag Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:51 pm

blueturando wrote:
Our problem will be when Labour get back in they will be shoveling SHYTE 24/7 for many years

Hilarious!!!! In some ways I hope Labour have to inherit a mess if they get back in power. Maybe it will teach them some valuable lessons on spending when you dont have the money...but I doubt it

Typical Tory, blue I think your memory like the shower in power at the moment very forgetful or just want to forget because it was the donors too the Tory party that caused some of the MAYHEM in the spending, its times like this that I wish that Gordon Brown and Allister Darling had let the B(W)ankers go to the wall just like a lot of business that have went to the wall from the fcuking cuts of Scam..er..on & dick head Ozzy. As for the mess that Labour will have to pick up when they get back in the number of private sector contracts will be rammed down the throats of Tory voters just like you have done to the Labour party with blaming them for all the debt, when you all knew that the Labour gov't had to borrow to bail out the two building societies and FIVE GREEDY B(W)ANKERS. lol!

by blueturando Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:00 am

Red........Yes Labour did have to borrow and the Coalition has to make cuts to make the books balance. It's simple economics. I notice Ed Balls says he will keep those cuts in place if Labour get back into power, much to the annoyance of the unions. I wonder why that is then???

As for party funding and doners, well we could argue all night. Labour has recieved big donations (Ecclestone for example) and are funded by the unions. You could make a law that says union funding must be shared equally between all major parties and ban individual donations, but I know you wouldn't support that either, so what is the option? Maybe you would prefer no funding to other parties so you could have a 1 party communist state.

The othing I am confused about is that Cameron can pledge billions more in overseas aid...aid that isn't required in some cases or gets into the wrong hands, while still seeking 16 billion in further cuts here. This does p*s me off

by blueturando Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:04 am

I also notice that many of you here are in denial on the economic mess left by Labour, but Labour politicians dont argue against this when interviewed or are part of a question time panel. Maybe if you consentrated less on the Tories and more on what your own party has done or has to offer, then your view of the truth would be less cloudy

Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, has moved to challenge accusations that Labour is not credible on the economy by telling the public sector unions that he endorses George Osborne's public sector pay freeze until the end of the parliament, and that he accepts every spending cut being imposed by the Conservatives.

His remarks on pay are likely to infuriate unions, including some of the party's biggest financial backers.

In an interview with the Guardian, Balls said: "It is now inevitable that public sector pay restraint will have to continue through this parliament. Labour cannot duck that reality and won't. There is no way we should be arguing for higher pay when the choice is between higher pay and bringing unemployment down.

"I know there will be some people in the trade union movement and the Labour party who will think of course Labour has got to oppose that pay restraint in 2014 and 2015. That is something we cannot do, should not do and will not do."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/13/ed-balls-labour-party-economic-redibility

Ed Miliband has continued Labour's efforts to win back credibility on the economy by echoing a statement from Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, that Labour cannot promise to reverse any coalition spending cuts.

In a move to shift the political debate forward, and away from responsibility for the 2010 deficit, Miliband, speaking on the BBC, tried to focus on the tough inheritance likely in 2015, criticising the chancellor, George Osborne, for cutting too fast.

Labour's newly calibrated position is that it opposes some spending cuts, on the basis they slow recovery, but cannot promise to reinstate any of them ahead of an election. The shift comes as polls show a gradual increase in public acceptance of the need for cuts.

Miliband, facing a personal poll slide among Labour supporters, dismissed criticism of his own leadership as "part of the gig".

by Redflag Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:34 am

blueturando wrote:I also notice that many of you here are in denial on the economic mess left by Labour, but Labour politicians dont argue against this when interviewed or are part of a question time panel. Maybe if you consentrated less on the Tories and more on what your own party has done or has to offer, then your view of the truth would be less cloudy

Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, has moved to challenge accusations that Labour is not credible on the economy by telling the public sector unions that he endorses George Osborne's public sector pay freeze until the end of the parliament, and that he accepts every spending cut being imposed by the Conservatives.

His remarks on pay are likely to infuriate unions, including some of the party's biggest financial backers.

In an interview with the Guardian, Balls said: "It is now inevitable that public sector pay restraint will have to continue through this parliament. Labour cannot duck that reality and won't. There is no way we should be arguing for higher pay when the choice is between higher pay and bringing unemployment down.

"I know there will be some people in the trade union movement and the Labour party who will think of course Labour has got to oppose that pay restraint in 2014 and 2015. That is something we cannot do, should not do and will not do."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/13/ed-balls-labour-party-economic-redibility

Ed Miliband has continued Labour's efforts to win back credibility on the economy by echoing a statement from Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, that Labour cannot promise to reverse any coalition spending cuts.

In a move to shift the political debate forward, and away from responsibility for the 2010 deficit, Miliband, speaking on the BBC, tried to focus on the tough inheritance likely in 2015, criticising the chancellor, George Osborne, for cutting too fast.

Labour's newly calibrated position is that it opposes some spending cuts, on the basis they slow recovery, but cannot promise to reinstate any of them ahead of an election. The shift comes as polls show a gradual increase in public acceptance of the need for cuts.

Miliband, facing a personal poll slide among Labour supporters, dismissed criticism of his own leadership as "part of the gig".

There you go again it was Labour that spent all the cash I suppose in your book Labour gave all that cash to the public sector, what is it with the right wingers CANNOT admit that the majority of the deficit was due too two building societies and five CASINO BANKS, plus you forget after 18 years of Tory neglect under the Maggot the vital public services Schools NHS, Police money had too be put in to those services to make them suitable for purpose but oh no we will never get a right winger to admit that but the majority of you used those same services.

If your looking for money why do you not ask the last Tory gov't where the money went that they got for selling off the gas electricity rail and telephone plus all the council houses they sold off under the right to buy scheme that is PART of the reason we are so short of council housing today that money SHOULD have went back into building more council housing so if your going to blame Labour "Take a Good Hard Look at the last Tory Gov't"

by oftenwrong Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:37 am

No man is an Island, entire unto itself.
John Donne

A week is a long time in Politics.
Harold Wilson

Discussion now of what the Country's financial situation might be in 2015 is as useful as speculating whether it might rain on Polling Day.

Any or all of the following might occur between now and then ..

A change of US President
A war between Middle East nations
Collapse of the Eurozone/or/Strengthening of the Eurozone.
Britain separates altogether from "Federated States of Europe".
Russia stops supplying Energy to the UK.
Second coming of The Messiah.
Failure of a major British Bank.
Massive new oilfield discovered in the Irish Sea.

by Sponsored content