Gordon Brown risks run on the pound, says George Osborne

shaunrc

Hi Guys

With our exchange rate at around $1.48 against the dollar and 1.17 against the Euro our currency has already fallen a lot. So really there has been a run on the pound.

It is always hard to disentangle politics from economics isnt it? However foreign investors ( according to BNY Mellon) have been selling our government bonds because they feel that current policies are fiscally loose, this then translates to them selling the £ to take the money home.

One irony of this is that Gordon Brown's sale of much of our gold reserves looks poor on two counts. The first is that he did so at such a poor price, the second is that in the current environment they could have been used to help back the £ in difficult times.

SGE1

eeja wrote: »

Did you really post that opinion ? Clearly you have no understanding that our capital, savings and investments are DIRECTLY affected by curent political considerations . To consider making an investment without considering the political aspect would be like crossing the road blindfolded. This is where such postings and those of many people posting in this thread belong as they relate DIRECTLY to savings and investments and definitely NOT in a separate forum on politics. Why not assign all matters on Ice save and Iceland etc to the political forum as the decision on repaying these accounts was ENTIRELY a political decision of the UK government...which even used the anti terrorist law to grab the Icelandic bank deposits ?
PS If you do not like this thread and similar ones you are not obliged or forced in any way to open and read them. After all you have hundreds of other threads to chose from ! Seems you have a greater interest than you are prepared to admit !
Replying to this posting will be proof of the pudding.

The thing is, you've made what could have been a discussion about policy, in a relatively unbiased way, into a political discussion. Your first post clearly has a political agenda, and is not simply trying to instigate a discussion about the impact of policies on saving and investment.

If you want to talk about policy, and its impacts on savings, fine, but your tone clearly has an partisan crusade side to it. As a result, political arguments will follow (as you'll see from my previous posts!), and there is very little discussion about actual policy implications.

earlgrey_3

eeja wrote: »

Did you really post that opinion ? Clearly you have no understanding that our capital, savings and investments are DIRECTLY affected by curent political considerations . To consider making an investment without considering the political aspect would be like crossing the road blindfolded. This is where such postings and those of many people posting in this thread belong as they relate DIRECTLY to savings and investments and definitely NOT in a separate forum on politics. Why not assign all matters on Ice save and Iceland etc to the political forum as the decision on repaying these accounts was ENTIRELY a political decision of the UK government...which even used the anti terrorist law to grab the Icelandic bank deposits ?
PS If you do not like this thread and similar ones you are not obliged or forced in any way to open and read them. After all you have hundreds of other threads to chose from ! Seems you have a greater interest than you are prepared to admit !
Replying to this posting will be proof of the pudding.

Would you like to explain what opinion are you referring to? If you are referring to the suggestion that Osbourne should step down that was not mine but the opinion of Lord Kalms, the former Conservative treasurer. See the BBC link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7730803.stm.

Please, let's have less of your asinine nonsense and saloon bar party politics and get back to sensible advice on savings and investment..

eeja

SGE1 wrote: »

The thing is, you've made what could have been a discussion about policy, in a relatively unbiased way, into a political discussion. Your first post clearly has a political agenda, and is not simply trying to instigate a discussion about the impact of policies on saving and investment.

If you want to talk about policy, and its impacts on savings, fine, but your tone clearly has an partisan crusade side to it. As a result, political arguments will follow (as you'll see from my previous posts!), and there is very little discussion about actual policy implications.

Dear Friend
I hold up my hand. Yes clearly guilty as charged
Of course the postings are all partisan ! How could they not be when we Brits, holders of sterling where all our wealth is stored see the pound drop to its lowest level ever against the Euro and the lowest level in 13 years against the dollar . We are human beings after all with feelings about the safety and value of our life savings not just for ourselves but our spouses and children..
Are you really saying we should be non partisan perhaps indifferent and neutral in this crucial matter of the value of our life savings and wealth ? Revolutions have occured in history when peoples' life savings have been wiped out by their governments .

earlgrey_3

eeja wrote: »

We are human beings after all...

Thank you for confirmation of that. I'll make a note.

eeja

earlgrey wrote: »

Would you like to explain what opinion are you referring to? If you are referring to the suggestion that Osbourne should step down that was not mine but the opinion of Lord Kalms, the former Conservative treasurer. See the BBC link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7730803.stm.

Please, let's have less of your asinine nonsense and saloon bar party politics and get back to sensible advice on savings and investment..

It's great to see you are taking an interest in my 'assinine' postings and in this thread which you felt was too political be be in this forum.
Nevertheless out of all the hundreds of postings and threads on this forum you found time and decided it worthwhile to open and read this thread ! Now that is a huge compliment !

earlgrey_3

eeja wrote: »

Nevertheless out of all the hundreds of postings and threads on this forum you found time and decided it worthwhile to open and read this thread ! Now that is a huge compliment !

You are very welcome even if your assumption is erroneous. I assume you are not used to anyone bothering to read anything you write. Now I understand your problem. 146 posts and only thanked 13 times, that must be a record. Political rants are usually far more popular for some reason. You might have more luck in the Moneysavers Arms.

blackswan2

eeja wrote: »

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

tiresome ...............

eeja

earlgrey wrote: »

You are very welcome even if your assumption is erroneous. I assume you are not used to anyone bothering to read anything you write. Now I understand your problem. 146 posts and only thanked 13 times, that must be a record. Political rants are usually far more popular for some reason. You might have more luck in the Moneysavers Arms.

Again you took the time and made the effort to select open and read this thread and similar postings despite there being thousands of others you could have read. You are clearly a great fan !! It is really good to know you care Many thanks for your kindness and I am sure you are not guilty of flashing, are you, as you seem adept at personalising and attacking personally those whose views you disagee with.