It was 20 years ago today......

[Colin Todd]

Not in Toddy's world evidently. They clearly take their own refuse to the local recycling facility and live in areas where there is zero crime and therefore no need for the police.......

I didnt say they dont use services, i said they use less of them, which is true.

[Barry Scott]

Also true that they don't use as much as 27% more of the police and bin men.

[Colin Todd]

you what?

[Barry Scott]

They get taxed 27% more if they're in the 50% bracket, and there's no way they use 27% more services. I'm, as usual, getting shit a bit arse about tit. I'm on your side Toddy.

[Summerof69]

'White' Wednesday is always used as a stick to beat the Tories with, but it's worth remembering that it would have occurred who ever was in power, because it was the result of our disastrous membership of the ERM which was fully and enthusiastically supported by all the main parties. In fact Labour and the Lentil Munchers often criticized the Tories at the time (before we withdrew)for not joining sooner, including the current fuckwit Prime Minster (whose economic judgment as we all know is second to none)

Est. cost to the government of 'Black' Wednesday : £3.3bn

Est. cost to the governement of Gordon Brown's decision to sell a lot of gold at the bottom of the market : £6.6bn

[Talk Talk]

Est. cost to the government of 'Black' Wednesday : £3.3bn

Est. cost to the governement of Gordon Brown's decision to sell a lot of gold at the bottom of the market : £6.6bn

Except that it is not an estimated 'cost to the government'. It is a loss to us, the taxpayers. The goverment does not own or have any money (well true to the power of ten after spunking away billions on failing banks etc).

[Summerof69]

Except that it is not an estimated 'cost to the government'. It is a loss to us, the taxpayers. The goverment does not own or have any money (well true to the power of ten after spunking away billions on failing banks etc).

Valid point TT.

[pauld]

Est. cost to the government of 'Black' Wednesday : £3.3bn

Est. cost to the governement of Gordon Brown's decision to sell a lot of gold at the bottom of the market : £6.6bn

Estimated by who? Political stats like this are useless without a source, as they're usually tainted or just downright made-up. The fact that one figure is conveniently exactly double the other makes this one especially stink like Grimsby in high June

[Doore]

Estimated by who? Political stats like this are useless without a source, as they're usually tainted or just downright made-up. The fact that one figure is conveniently exactly double the other makes this one especially stink like Grimsby in high June

Well said.

[Talk Talk]

Estimated by who? Political stats like this are useless without a source, as they're usually tainted or just downright made-up. The fact that one figure is conveniently exactly double the other makes this one especially stink like Grimsby in high June

You made that up. Give me an authoratative source that Grimsby is particularly nasally obnoxious in June.

[jonny72]

Estimated by who? Political stats like this are useless without a source, as they're usually tainted or just downright made-up. The fact that one figure is conveniently exactly double the other makes this one especially stink like Grimsby in high June

Actually the gold figure can be pretty accurately calculated. Here is a BBC story from 2008 that put the loss at $9bn:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/03/gold_and_gordon_brown.html

Of course that doesn't mean selling the gold when he did was necessarily the wrong thing to do, but you can't argue with the facts that if it hadn't been sold when it was and we sold it in 2008 instead we would have got an extra $9bn for it. Fact.

And another article from two weeks ago, putting it at £7bn and alleging a cover up of details surrounding the sale:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/gold/7511589/Explain-why-you-sold-Britains-gold-Gordon-Brown-told.html

[pauld]

You made that up. Give me an authoratative source that Grimsby is particularly nasally obnoxious in June.

You're right. It stinks all year round.

[pauld]

Actually the gold figure can be pretty accurately calculated. Here is a BBC story from 2008 that put the loss at $9bn:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/03/gold_and_gordon_brown.html

Of course that doesn't mean selling the gold when he did was necessarily the wrong thing to do, but you can't argue with the facts that if it hadn't been sold when it was and we sold it in 2008 instead we would have got an extra $9bn for it. Fact.

And another article from two weeks ago, putting it at £7bn and alleging a cover up of details surrounding the sale:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/gold/7511589/Explain-why-you-sold-Britains-gold-Gordon-Brown-told.html

Case in point - the Telegraph article links to another Telegraph article saying the same sale lost us £5bn. So, £5bn, £7bn, $9bn? Who knows?

And neither article makes any allowance for the (obviously lesser) profits made on the bonds, currency etc they bought instead which reduces the loss (although I'm damn sure it would still be a loss) a fair bit. So they wave headline figures of "£5bn/£7bn/$9bn loss" around when that doesn't allow for the money made on the stuff bought with the gold money and the current value of those assets (if we've still got them) or the profits made when they were sold. Which could reduce the loss substantially. May even be a profit (I very much doubt it). Who knows? As neither article bothered to explore this angle, it makes me extremely suspicious that they're not so much aiming to inform me of the true picture as coming at the whole issue with a massive axe to grind and spinning the stats to suit.

I'm not disputing UK plc lost money on the gold deal - I don't know nearly enough about it and frankly don't have the time, energy or interest to find out. But my original point stands - there's usually an awful lot of shite behind politicos throwing "stats" into any debate and unsourced "estimates" like those in the post I was responding to can be trusted about as far as the politicos they derive from.

[jonny72]

I'm not disputing UK plc lost money on the gold deal - I don't know nearly enough about it and frankly don't have the time, energy or interest to find out. But my original point stands - there's usually an awful lot of shite behind politicos throwing "stats" into any debate and unsourced "estimates" like those in the post I was responding to can be trusted about as far as the politicos they derive from.

I'm not disagreeing but the gold sale was a bad example as all those figures come from news articles which explain the working out in detail along with the flaws and unknowns. But I think its safe to assume that Brown did lose a fortune as otherwise he'd be coming out saying how well he did with the sale. I reckon its also safe to assume we'll be hearing a lot more about this over the coming weeks, perfect ammo for the Tories to blow holes in Brown's management of the economy.

[pauld]

I'm not disagreeing but the gold sale was a bad example

Well it wasn't my example - but as the OP quoted yet a different figure from the 3 different figures that were in the articles you cited, I'd say it makes point rather well

as all those figures come from news articles which explain the working out in detail along with the flaws and unknowns

No they didn't as I pointed out above.