its yourself
Member
- Location
- Scotland, Finland and France.
That was in fact a joke.Apart from having no money left among a lot of other things.
Unfortunately it's yet another delusion that people believe.
That was in fact a joke.Apart from having no money left among a lot of other things.
Phillip Hammond, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "Gold traders confirm that it was because the government announced in advance that it was planning to sell such a large quantity of gold that the markets became depressed. The low price Gordon Brown got for selling our gold wasn't caused by bad luck. It was a staggering display of economic incompetence."The total proceeds from the sales was around $3.5bn. According to a parliamentary answer, if the gold was sold last month, on Dec 15, it would have fetched $10.5bn. The difference $7bn - would be worth £4.7bn if the proceeds were converted into sterling yesterday.
In terms of costs it's still peanuts.Gordon Brown made one of the worst financial decisions in history and it cost the country nearly £5 billion pounds. An article from the Guardian at the time explains it.
“The true cost of Gordon's gold sell-off
The decision to sell off UK reserves apparently cost almost £5bn
The assiduous Chris Hope, Whitehall editor of the Daily Telegraph, has finally got to the bottom of how much Gordon Brown's decision to sell off part of Britain's gold reserves actually cost the country - a staggering £4.7bn.
That's more than twice previous estimates.
At the prime minister's Downing Street press conference in May last year, I asked Brown whether he regretted the move, but he insisted it had been prudent to ensure the nation had a more balanced portfolio.
According to today's report, Brown sanctioned the sale of 395 tonnes of the UK's gold between 1999 and 2002. Hope wrote:
Phillip Hammond, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "Gold traders confirm that it was because the government announced in advance that it was planning to sell such a large quantity of gold that the markets became depressed. The low price Gordon Brown got for selling our gold wasn't caused by bad luck. It was a staggering display of economic incompetence."
When you consider that plus Blair’s war mongering they were anything but competent, just well marketed.
Tory chancellors have in the past made the same joke leaving a similar note. The Tories tried to score political points from a personal letter.That was in fact a joke.
Unfortunately it's yet another delusion that people believe.
All the “experts” in gold trading will of course have bought as much of that precious metal as possible and now be living off the fruits of their 20:20 foresight, getting way beyond their aspirations to be a peasant.Gordon Brown made one of the worst financial decisions in history and it cost the country nearly £5 billion pounds. An article from the Guardian at the time explains it.
Officials from the United States made comments that had little basis in reality or understanding.The united states government said the Belfast agreement was there and to be upheld
Functioning in a way...80 functioning hospitals. What happened to Boris's 40 new hospital?
Not a single one built.
They don't care.Officials from the United States made comments that had little basis in reality or understanding.
Easily done.Functioning in a way...
The trouble is the pfi debt is so bad that they looking to make cuts all the time meaning massive waiting lists.
Blair legacy is a nhs crippled in debt.
But just typical politician, looking short term to look good to get votes at next election. Leaves next party the mess to sort.
Same as torys been in to long, screwed the country up and so labour will have to try and sort out the mess (not sure it's possible now though as to far gone)
Yet you are the one obsessed with "imperial delusion".They don't care.
The UK had no option.
Brexiters still have the imperial delusion as you clearly show.
Gordon Brown made one of the worst financial decisions in history and it cost the country nearly £5 billion pounds. An article from the Guardian at the time explains it.
“The true cost of Gordon's gold sell-off
The decision to sell off UK reserves apparently cost almost £5bn
The assiduous Chris Hope, Whitehall editor of the Daily Telegraph, has finally got to the bottom of how much Gordon Brown's decision to sell off part of Britain's gold reserves actually cost the country - a staggering £4.7bn.
That's more than twice previous estimates.
At the prime minister's Downing Street press conference in May last year, I asked Brown whether he regretted the move, but he insisted it had been prudent to ensure the nation had a more balanced portfolio.
According to today's report, Brown sanctioned the sale of 395 tonnes of the UK's gold between 1999 and 2002. Hope wrote:
Phillip Hammond, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "Gold traders confirm that it was because the government announced in advance that it was planning to sell such a large quantity of gold that the markets became depressed. The low price Gordon Brown got for selling our gold wasn't caused by bad luck. It was a staggering display of economic incompetence."
When you consider that plus Blair’s war mongering they were anything but competent, just well marketed.
Figures plucked out of the air unless you can produce competent date to back them up like I didCompared to £37 billon lost/stolen in the pandemic by Tory donors and ministers.
Or £60 billon by putting Mad Lizzy in charge of the country, not to mention mortgage holders being £300 billion worse off as well.
Or the £140 billion and exponentially growing cost of Brexit since 2020.
Because you are a living example of it.Yet you are the one obsessed with "imperial delusion".
That was a newspaper article.Figures plucked out of the air unless you can produce competent date to back them up like I did
So, you reckon none of these things happened?Figures plucked out of the air unless you can produce competent date to back them up like I did
The effect Liz Truss had was short lived, interest rate rises were due to global factors. This article from the FT agrees with mehttps://www.ft.com/content/18eedb62-a5c7-496e-9e8e-c6273f217fdbSo, you reckon none of these things happened?
Could we move on to the present?The effect Liz Truss had was short lived, interest rate rises were due to global factors. This article from the FT agrees with mehttps://www.ft.com/content/18eedb62-a5c7-496e-9e8e-c6273f217fdb
The cost of Brexit can be argued about forever with some like you being pessimistic or some like me being optimistic. The point is it's subjective. It was obvious there would be a transition period after leaving same as there was when we joined. The economy collapsed and we were humiliating bailed out by the IMF in 1976. I don't blame that on the EEC, but if it happened now, the likely suspects would be jumping up and down with glee and blaming Brexit.
Corruption is unacceptable but has always been there and is nothing to do with Brexit. Cash for questions? Expenses scandal? Nothing to do with EU related matters.
The issue of Gordon Brown's competence as Chancellor is totally different from corruption, I never alleged that he was corrupt. It was an expensive display of economic incompetence, the rose coloured spectacles also miss that he presided over the years leading up to the Banking crisis, I had a financial services business at the time and I know how incompetent the regulation on mortgages was, all down to the Labour Government.