The Government has got the wrong idea!

[LibertyBell]

We didn't get into this mess together, as a country, thats the point of my rant!

 

Living beyond our means is wot done it.

[Tony]

There is a new version of Godwin's Law in action here - invoke thatcher for anything and everything that somebody else did wrong. 13 years in charge fellas, and it's 20 years since Thatcher was anywhere near power. Forget it, the excuse is pathetic.

 

Repossessions might be at a 15 year high, but that cannot be a significant cause of the crisis. It may be a 15 year high, but it is not that high to be a causal factor, like it was in the USA. The repossessions are caused by businesses laying off staff making them redundant because of the credit crisis.

 

 

 

Any examples? or are your examples simply failures to re-regulate where Thatcher had deregulated?

 

 

 

That is a very serious allegation, do you have any evidence for this?

 

It strikes me as odd especially considering that the Tories have always favoured deregulation and self regulation. Most notoriously in the form of their investments in Iceland and the way many especially on the right of the party saw the deregulation of the banks and businesses in Iceland as a role model. With that in mind talking about this policy as if Labour was implementing it to suit their own ends seems bizarre when the Tories were the primary advocates and also the earlier point that repossessions are not high enough to be a causal factor only a symptom.

There is a lot there that frankly you need to substantiate a credible contrary position before you demand that I refute something. But, please make is singular, targeted an unobscured in a miasma of other issues, because it is impossible to debate the unsubstantiated nonsense in the first paragraph of your response.

 

But on the highlighted matter - yes there is evidence all around you that includes the unaffordable levels of 'investment' in schools, doctors, nurses, teachers and all the other more obvious stuff that Labour wanted to do but didn't have the money for.

[I1L2T3]

Interesting view-point Tony.

 

But I seem to recall a different financial model under the Thatcher Tory government that perhaps laid the basis for some of the current problems.

 

Thatcher sold off state assets at ridiculously cheap prices (BT, British Gas, etc) - which led to a get-rich quick mentality. Thatcher also allowed the building societies to demutualise and become banks - not one of which has survived to this present day, e.g., Northern Rock!

 

Maybe charges of financial negligence should be made against an even earlier government than the last one?

 

Tend to agree with this but think that Labour was wrong to continue with lax regulation, especially with the financial sector.

 

That said, in their 2005 election manifesto the Tories made it clear that they wanted to further deregulate in all areas of the economy. So it's a bit rich now to accuse Labour of being too lax with the banks in the last parliament when if the conservatives had had their way we'd already be bankrupt with a collapsed financial sector.

 

As for spending the conservative manifesto in 2005 made it clear too that they would be increasing spending too. By 2011 they were looking to be increasing government spending by 4% a year, against a projected 5% by Labour.

 

Looking at the Conservative plans in 2005 I find it impossible to see how we would have done any better under them in a global recession.

[Wildcat]

There is a new version of Godwin's Law in action here - invoke thatcher for anything and everything that somebody else did wrong. 13 years in charge fellas, and it's 20 years since Thatcher was anywhere near power. Forget it, the excuse is pathetic.

 

It is not about excuses, it is a simple assessment of the evidence.

 

Sticking your head in the sand and complaining that I am basing my argument on history won't make it any different.

 

There is a lot there that frankly you need to substantiate a credible contrary position before you demand that I refute something. But, please make is singular, targeted an unobscured in a miasma of other issues, because it is impossible to debate the unsubstantiated nonsense in the first paragraph of your response.

 

But on the highlighted matter - yes there is evidence all around you that includes the unaffordable levels of 'investment' in schools, doctors, nurses, teachers and all the other more obvious stuff that Labour wanted to do but didn't have the money for.

 

Here is some evidence. Repossessions last year reached the same levels they were at in 1995.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/feb/11/home-repossessions-highest-level-1995

 

That means repossessions are high and remain too high although falling, but in 1995 they didn't trigger a recession. They were not a cause of recession then and they are not a cause this time, they are a symptom of a different problem. I really don't see why it is my fault the banks offered me a good rate on my mortgage (if indeed they did). If they offered me a mortgage they couldn't afford then it is their fault, not mine.

 

Labour kept within a 3% spending limit year on year roughly equating with the level on inflation. There was no huge rise in public spending. Yes schools and the NHS benefited something that everyone can see has been beneficial, but that spending was needed to invest in our future and in the health of the nation.

 

Public spending has only risen above growth in gdp since the credit crunch, a global phenomenon that started as a result of easy credit in the USA, not the UK. Public spending needed to rise to keep businesses afloat that were viable but suffering from the lack of available credit. It is the Keynesian lesson from history that this is the way to deal with recessions, it is also the consensus view across the parties. Cameron was careful to distance himself from the monetarist thinkers that had been exposed by the credit crisis as flogging a flawed economic model and that had dominated Tory thinking.

 

My position is not only credible it is the one based on the evidence. Your wild claims of overspending and how this is a problem shared by us all for having mortgages, or because Gordon was recklessly overspending when spending was roughly in line with inflation needs to be proved.

[Tony]

Let's stick to the point. Let me remind you of what you were claiming.

Repossessions might be at a 15 year high, but that cannot be a significant cause of the crisis. It may be a 15 year high, but it is not that high to be a causal factor, like it was in the USA. The repossessions are caused by businesses laying off staff making them redundant because of the credit crisis.

 

You seem to have lost yourself in your own argument. Let me remind you of what you were responding to, in particular the "serious allegation" bit that you highlighted..

 

 

You could and that is one of the main causes of the banking crisis - loans exceeding value. The complete failure to regulate that one glaringly obvious thing is at the heart of that problem.

 

However that is not the same problem as government overspending on things that it could not afford... but the connection is that unless banks / funders continued to lend more than the value of the security which in turn drives up transaction prices which in turn reduces the value of the government debt. The government allowed endless lines of credit to be established to all sorts of people.

 

It is a simple but viciously effective cycle that the Labour government encouraged because it suited their finance model. It relied on a never ending merry-go-round of spiralling debt being fed by ever increasing transaction values.

 

This is a very simple précis but like all pyramid schemes they all collapse in the end, leaving most people out of pocket. I genuinely believe that people in the previous government should be going to jail for their negligence.

 

Over to you.

[Wildcat]

Let's stick to the point. Let me remind you of what you were claiming.

 

You seem to have lost yourself in your own argument. Let me remind you of what you were responding to, in particular the "serious allegation" bit that you highlighted..

 

Over to you.

 

Yes and how am I supposed to prove your claim? I don't accept it. It seems ludicrous to suggest Labour engineered the credit crisis for their own political benefit. Especially since the main advocates for the deregulation that caused the crisis were the Tories.

 

I have made as much of a point as I need to on that, by asking you for evidence.

[Tony]

I have explained how Labour could not have continued with their overspending plans without the environment that created the crisis. Therefore they either engineered it (your words not mine) or that they were complicit in allowing it to continue?

 

Can you show that they could have had the same levels of overspending otherwise?

 

Can you refute that ...

the Labour government encouraged because it suited their finance model

[terryh]

ill tell you what rubydazzler you forgo your holiday

[mossdog]

Yes and how am I supposed to prove your claim? I don't accept it. It seems ludicrous to suggest Labour engineered the credit crisis for their own political benefit. Especially since the main advocates for the deregulation that caused the crisis were the Tories.

 

I have made as much of a point as I need to on that, by asking you for evidence.

OK, well lets all blame the Tories for what happened over 13 years ago! New Labour have had 13 years to improve the situation,borrowed a fortune spent more than a fortune, and the only person to come up smelling of roses is Tony Blair with his multi-million fortune,having escaped through the back door leaving all the troubles behind, a shining example of what one could achieve in New Labour with just a grin!

Instead of incessant sniping and points scoring all the time,why don,t you and others suggest ideas for the way forward from this crisis.............for as Churchill once said "any fool can see what's wrong but can you see what needs to be done to put it right".

[Wildcat]

I have explained how Labour could not have continued with their overspending plans without the environment that created the crisis. Therefore they either engineered it (your words not mine) or that they were complicit in allowing it to continue?

 

Can you show that they could have had the same levels of overspending otherwise?

 

Can you refute that ...

 

I have already refuted that:

 

Firstly, that Govt spending was capped at 3% roughly the level of inflation, there were no overspending plans.

 

Secondly the easy credit that caused this crisis was in the US not the Uk and therefore not much to do with anything Gordon Brown could have influenced.

 

Thirdly the criticisms that there are of the banks exposing themselves to bad debts are the responsibilities of the banks themselves. We took the view that in the national interest they needed to be propped up, which we did on terms that will eventually result in a profit for us. The learned Keynesian response to the Wall Street crash.

 

What criticism there may be in terms of not regulating the activities of our banks further were a result of the monetarist reforms brought in by the Tories that they continued to advocate right up until the recession hit and exposed them. You need to do something to substantiate your claims that Labour bear any significant responsibility for not breaking with the Tories and also what or how they would benefit from continuing that policy, when quite clearly no one has benefited. All we can say is at least Labour didn't pursue those policies with the same ideological fervour that the Tories would have, because if they had been in power we would have suffered the crisis in the same way that Iceland has.