Pro-cuts activists to stage 'polite' London demonstration

To cut or uncut that is thy question.
Oh how they must be laughing all the way to the Bank of England.

National Debt, what is it? Why do we need it? Who benefits? Every Government plays its part. We are never debt free, will we ever be?

Sheet 22 of the BoE financial statements 2010 pdf states


The Bank has a number of other non-trading subsidiaries, which are wholly-owned. They are stated in the Bank’s balance sheet at an 'aggregate cost' under £1 million and have not been consolidated with those of the Banking Department because, in the 'opinion of the Members of Court', the effect of including their assets, liabilities and results with those of the Banking Department would not be material. These are:

The Securities Management Trust Ltd - 1,000 ordinary shares of £1
# Houblon Nominees Ltd - 2 ordinary shares of £1
BE Museum Ltd - 10,000 ordinary shares of £1
# Bank of England Nominees Ltd - 2 ordinary shares of £1
BE Pension Fund Trustees Ltd - 2 ordinary shares of £1

The 'aggregate net assets' of these subsidiary companies are £1 million (2009: £1 million), which consist of balances held with the Bank.


So what is going on here? I believe this is right at the core of everything that is bad. I assure you of one thing, all of the 3 main political parties in this country will not rock this boat.

If anybody has any information regarding these secretive companies and the amount of money that passes through them, I and everybody else, I am sure, would love to know.

Facebook event :  http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Rally-Against-Debt/215405205140114

"National Debt, what is it? Why do we need it? Who benefits? Every Government plays its part. We are never debt free, will we ever be?"

The question is to do with confidence stretching across the international field of play. Arguing about which pound coin is valuable and which pound coin isn't is to adopt and enjoy the fraudulent narrative offered by the then British government at the time its stock markets crashed. When these markets crashed, the Labour government and allied Socialist groups collectively adopted an anti-capitalist narrative which was used to cast the banking industry as villain in the matter and the cause of the collapse.

"It was all the fault of the banks" is the monika we are all being encouraged to participate in.

But that isn't what happened.

What happened was the US and UK were heavily indebted to the other economies around the world who lost confidence in the foreign policy decisions being made by the policy masters operating in those governments. In Iraq (oil) and Afghanistan (gas), those policy decisions were supposed to originate substantial profits for the west for the near and medium future. These are the profits that would form the basis of the servicing of those debts. As we know, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan took kindly to being used in this way and were successfully able to move those policy decisions beyond profitablity and into losses. The lenders lost confidence, pulled their interest and markets reacted by stampeding away from any bad debt that were exposed to, which of course was considerable. What happened after is a collection of incoherent policy decisions aimed at fashioning a defence against the consequences.

The resultant narrative offered by both the US and British governments was to see only the stampede and not its own policy mistakes leading to an "anti-banking" narrative which anti-capitalists, the British and US governments and associated media couldn't resist exploiting.

What we now have in the UK is one domestic policy being offered by all main political parties which over and over again is purported to be a continuance of "it was all the fault of the private banking industry" when, in fact, the crisis is entirely the making of government.

And there you have it. Not pleasant I know but the truth rarely is.

Any defence of this policy of "austerity" is as flawed as the attacks against it. Both the policy and those who oppose it constitute one endemic political camp, a camp that is collectively steering the nation into an economic cul-de-sac.

As always, it isn't the debt you need to be looking at, it is who you are indebted to that demands your attention. It is their confidence that was lost and as underwriters of our economic fortunes, it is their actions which determine our economic destiny.

The previous Labour administration have fundamentally failed to come clean about its failings and have utterly failed to properly inform the people of this country about its exposure to international credit facilitators.

so you don't actually know what you are talking about then.
National Debt is a policy, de facto.
see here.  http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html
it goes back as far as 1692.
you have failed to answer any of the questions asked and are no doubt a tory troll judging by the politiical broadcast on the tv today.
As stated by UC, non of the three main parties will deal with this hot potato. What are you all hiding from?

Who are the secret shareholders?

"Who are the secret shareholders?"

Off on a tangent I see.

Nothing like avoiding the issue is there?