Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The gold was held as balances. Brown sold it off and spent it on day to day stuff. Had he not done that, the financial crash would not have had such an impact.

I'm not sure you've understood the linked articles. He exchanged the gold for other financial assets with higher yields and less risk. If any government had wished to reverse this decision it could simply buy more gold.

The criticism of Gordon Brown was not so much that he sold gold but he sold it at the bottom of the price cycle. But that's a Captain Hindsight criticism.

This has no relevance to the impact of the Global Financial Crisis.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm not sure you've understood the linked articles. He exchanged the gold for other financial assets with higher yields and less risk. If any government had wished to reverse this decision it could simply buy more gold.

The criticism of Gordon Brown was not so much that he sold gold but he sold it at the bottom of the price cycle. But that's a Captain Hindsight criticism.

This has no relevance to the impact of the Global Financial Crisis.

I stand corrected, Andrew. You are right, the proceeds were reinvested.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that this sell-off cost us something in the order of £7 billion. Not the brightest of moves.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I stand corrected, Andrew. You are right, the proceeds were reinvested.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that this sell-off cost us something in the order of £7 billion. Not the brightest of moves.

Appreciate your acknowledgement.

The £7bn is a highly dubious figure pedalled by the Daily Telegraph. The Sunday Times puts it at £2bn and that paper was no fan of Brown. This needs to be offset by the longer-term financial returns of the investments that replaced gold.

I think the idea was a good one but Brown was rightly criticised for announcing it in advance, thus impacting negatively on gold prices. But no one apart from a Captain Hindsight knew that gold was in a trough at a time and would recover and no one has sought to buy more gold, thus vindicating the move.

Brown's legacy is independence for the Bank of England and that has stood the test of time.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Appreciate your acknowledgement.

The £7bn is a highly dubious figure pedalled by the Daily Telegraph. The Sunday Times puts it at £2bn and that paper was no fan of Brown. This needs to be offset by the longer-term financial returns of the investments that replaced gold.

I think the idea was a good one but Brown was rightly criticised for announcing it in advance, thus impacting negatively on gold prices. But no one apart from a Captain Hindsight knew that gold was in a trough at a time and would recover and no one has sought to buy more gold, thus vindicating the move.

Brown's legacy is independence for the Bank of England and that has stood the test of time.

Well with that last bit, I agree.

---------- Post added at 16:19 ---------- Previous post was at 16:11 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The £7bn is a highly dubious figure pedalled by the Daily Telegraph. The Sunday Times puts it at £2bn and that paper was no fan of Brown.

You can’t keep denigrating articles in the Telegraph just because they were printed in that newspaper, Andrew.

This one is from The Guardian, that says the same thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...my-gordonbrown

I note, however, there was later a re-estimate that it eventually came to £4.7bn. So I guess we can split the difference!

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not all departments of the Civil Service are productive or needed, TheDaddy. It’s far too bureaucratic and badly needs pruning.

You do understand why we had to borrow that money, don’t you? If not, never mind.

It was Gordon Brown who sold off all our gold reserves.

Yes he sold off some of the gold but who sold off everything else, who sold of the nations assets to their chums at knock down prices, who never invested the money from selling of the housing in new affordable housing meaning it costs fortunes in housing benefit now, they are no more the party of fiscal responsibility than they are business or law and order.

And the kind of cuts the brains truss is demanding aren't pruning, they're decimating already overstretched services

---------- Post added at 00:44 ---------- Previous post was at 00:41 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well with that last bit, I agree.

---------- Post added at 16:19 ---------- Previous post was at 16:11 ----------



You can’t keep denigrating articles in the Telegraph just because they were printed in that newspaper, Andrew.

This one is from The Guardian, that says the same thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...my-gordonbrown

I note, however, there was later a re-estimate that it eventually came to £4.7bn. So I guess we can split the difference!

Unbelievable, 4.7 billion and not one word from you about test and trace or the vip lane for ppe, your not interested in anything that isn't political point scoring, it's pathetic and a complete waste of time

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Unbelievable, 4.7 billion and not one word from you about test and trace or the vip lane for ppe, your not interested in anything that isn't political point scoring, it's pathetic and a complete waste of time

What is unbelievable is that you take absolutely no account of the fact that this was an emergency and there simply was no time to go through standard tendering processes. The spin the Left is putting on that PPE issue is truly outrageous.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What is unbelievable is that you take absolutely no account of the fact that this was an emergency and there simply was no time to go through standard tendering processes. The spin the Left is putting on that PPE issue is truly outrageous.

The government were responsible in part for creating the emergency. Had they heeded the warnings they could have followed an accelerated tendering process with some of the required steps. they could have also got in place a fit for purpose test & trace system.

The UK government led by Boris, had like much of the western world had two months 'head start' over the APAC region. But, just because most of the western world failed to act, that doesn't excuse or absolve Boris of the route he took.

But as we now know, they didn't they dilly dallied and ignored facts. Their actions wholly epitomised by Boris wandering round a ward with Covid patients proudly (and ignorantly) shaking hands to make some sort of point.

Liz Truss has backtracked on her plan to pay civil servants outside of London less: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62390016

Liz Truss has backtracked on her plan to link public sector pay to local living costs.

The Conservative leadership candidate had said she wanted to introduce regional pay boards in a bid to save a potential £8.8bn.

However, there was a backlash to the policy from several senior Tories.

Tories outside of London clearly concerned how a paycut (or small pay rises) in the North would be perceived by voters.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Damien

Liz Truss has backtracked on her plan to pay civil servants outside of London less: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62390016



Tories outside of London clearly concerned how a paycut (or small pay rises) in the North would be perceived by voters.

Poundshop Thatcher

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Liz Truss has backtracked on her plan to pay civil servants outside of London less: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62390016


Tories outside of London clearly concerned how a paycut (or small pay rises) in the North would be perceived by voters.

Think its actual savings were minimal as civil service wage is £9bn.
In the face of evidence, her plan is falling apart. But I doubt that will prevent her being PM.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What is unbelievable is that you take absolutely no account of the fact that this was an emergency and there simply was no time to go through standard tendering processes. The spin the Left is putting on that PPE issue is truly outrageous.

You bang on about 4.7 billion and don't utter a single word about the 36 billion for the world class test and trace system except to defend the chumocracy that made of like bandits, this country is going down the toilet with shenanigans more akin to a third world junta and all you want to do is spread near enough 20 year old misinformation in the hope of continuing the farce for five more years

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Think its actual savings were minimal as civil service wage is £9bn.
In the face of evidence, her plan is falling apart. But I doubt that will prevent her being PM.

In the face of evidence she will fall apart because there is no real substance to her, a poundshop thatcher, I'd want change from that

[joglynne]

Originally Posted by Damien

Liz Truss has backtracked on her plan to pay civil servants outside of London less: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62390016

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Think its actual savings were minimal as civil service wage is £9bn.Tories outside of London clearly concerned how a paycut (or small pay rises) in the North would be perceived by voters.
In the face of evidence, her plan is falling apart. But I doubt that will prevent her being PM.

Just as a point of interest ..... For years London Weighting has ensured that several sectors of employees within inner and outer London have recieved a higher rate of pay than those outside of London doing exactly the same jobs.

London weighting is an allowance paid to certain civil servants, teachers, airline employees, PhD students, police and security officers in and around London, the capital of England. It is designed to help these workers with the cost of living in Greater London, which is higher than that of the rest of the UK.[1] Its purpose is to encourage key workers to stay in Greater London.

London weighting was introduced for civil servants in 1920 and was set by the London Pay Board. However, since 1974, the Greater London Council, and later the Mayor of London, in partnership with central government, have been responsible for setting it. In 2002, teachers from across South East England went on strike to try to force London weighting to be raised. In many professions, such as teaching, a different level of weighting is applied to Inner London and Outer London.[2][3] In addition, many employers use different pay grades for Greater London as opposed to a fixed allowance, and some groups – the police, for example – have both a London weighting and a London allowance.

Since the abolition of the Pay Board, no organisation has been responsible for setting London weighting. The GLA carried out an investigation into the issue but did not propose a new figure. Currently,[when?] the amounts paid by employers as London weighting, or London allowance, or in some cases both, vary greatly. Further information is available from pay analysts such as the Labour Research Department.

London weighting is an allowance paid to certain civil servants, teachers, airline employees, PhD students, police and security officers in and around London, the capital of England. It is designed to help these workers with the cost of living in Greater London, which is higher than that of the rest of the UK.[1] Its purpose is to encourage key workers to stay in Greater London.

London weighting was introduced for civil servants in 1920 and was set by the London Pay Board. However, since 1974, the Greater London Council, and later the Mayor of London, in partnership with central government, have been responsible for setting it. In 2002, teachers from across South East England went on strike to try to force London weighting to be raised. In many professions, such as teaching, a different level of weighting is applied to Inner London and Outer London.[2][3] In addition, many employers use different pay grades for Greater London as opposed to a fixed allowance, and some groups – the police, for example – have both a London weighting and a London allowance.

Since the abolition of the Pay Board, no organisation has been responsible for setting London weighting. The GLA carried out an investigation into the issue but did not propose a new figure. Currently,[when?] the amounts paid by employers as London weighting, or London allowance, or in some cases both, vary greatly. Further information is available from pay analysts such as the Labour Research Department.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_weighting

She'll be fine in the Tory Leadership race. Saying you'll get massive tax cuts without any spending cuts is what they want to hear. It'll fall apart though when it comes to implementation and policy and since she'll be PM she actually has to act on it soon.

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:05 ----------

Originally Posted by joglynne

Just as a point of interest ..... For years London Weighting has ensured that several sectors of employees within inner and outer London have recieved a higher rate of pay than those outside of London doing exactly the same jobs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_weighting

I believe this would be outside of the London weighting so the same role paid less as a base salary.

[joglynne]

Originally Posted by Damien

She'll be fine in the Tory Leadership race. Saying you'll get massive tax cuts without any spending cuts is what they want to hear. It'll fall apart though when it comes to implementation and policy and since she'll be PM she actually has to act on it soon.
---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:05 ----------
I believe this would be outside of the London weighting so the same role paid less as a base salary.

I agree. However an even bigger tilt in the balance between wages being paid between the north and south of England makes those of us living in the north, which have been acknowledged as allready needing leveling up, feel as though we are indeed being viewed as second class citizens.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

Liz Truss has backtracked on her plan to pay civil servants outside of London less: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62390016



Tories outside of London clearly concerned how a paycut (or small pay rises) in the North would be perceived by voters.

The principle is sound. That’s why you don’t get London Weighting outside of London.

We all know that shopping is cheaper in some areas than others, so it makes sense that wages reflect that.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:03 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Think its actual savings were minimal as civil service wage is £9bn.
In the face of evidence, her plan is falling apart. But I doubt that will prevent her being PM.

In other words, she listened to the reaction and decided to heed what people were saying. That’s good, isn’t it?

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------

Originally Posted by joglynne

Just as a point of interest ..... For years London Weighting has ensured that several sectors of employees within inner and outer London have recieved a higher rate of pay than those outside of London doing exactly the same jobs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_weighting

Well, exactly. It is far more expensive to live and work in London.