Labour call for Bankers windfall tax to be re-introduced

[sharrowman]

"Why are they not responsible for their actions? "

 

They are irresponsible in much the same way that a lucre crazed mortgage seller bedazzled by securitization is irresponsible.

[Greybeard]

1)

 

2) I think many people are now realising they made a huge mistake in placing their trust in two partys' who are both as guilty of misleading the electorate in their manifestos as each other.

 

Arguably true, but we haven't had the opportunity to judge how far from their stated intentions the Labour party would have strayed had they won the election or managed to fix a coalition with the Libdems.

 

You know in your heart they all play the same game.

[Anna Glypta]

Why did the banks lend money to people who had poor credit ratings? I wouldn't lend money to someone who would have difficulty paying me back so why did the banks do it?

 

I don't know. The governments have been telling the banks that they need to lend more. Surely it should be a commercial decission by the banks based on risk. I don't think I would be too happy if someone told me who I should lend money to, particularly as the banks lost so much lending to folk who couldn't pay it back.

[liam1412]

Although having read the article I stand by what I said before. The cause of this crisis is that people who weren't in a position to borrow extensively did indeed borrow, and couldn't pay it back.

 

A lot of people would have blindly followed what the experts told them, to take a mortgage on a great introductory rate, that they could afford. Maybe it was naive to think they would endlessly be able to remortgage as the introductory offers ended, but that is what the lenders were advising if not pushing them into!

 

I'm not saying the people who borrowed more than they can afford are totally faultless, but it can't all be put on the lowly borrower. The lender/broker/re-seller would have been trusted enough to believe the advice been given was sound, or they wouldn't be buying through them.

[xenia]

Its actually quite simple, Blair and Brown encouraged the banks because thay wanted London to be the global centre for financial services. Bankers could do no wrong.

 

It was a relatively easy way for this country to be prosperous and meant that the Labour party could avoid doing what it feared most, investing in manufacturing, for that would mean the return of what they feared most, resurgent unions and the socialist left.

 

So the spivs of the labour party in common with the spivs of the city got together, a mating of rodents if ever there was one. The Labour government are to blame they were complicit in the cons being perpetrated by the bankers.

 

It is no use bleating on about Cameron and Clegg, they have inherited a poisoned chalice, the cupboard is bare, its a dead parrot, THERE IS NO MONEY. LABOUR SPENT IT ALL.

 

 

The Labour Party, THEY ALWAYS LEAVE YOU SKINT

[wednesday1]

Its actually quite simple, Blair and Brown encouraged the banks because thay wanted London to be the global centre for financial services. Bankers could do no wrong.

 

It was a relatively easy way for this country to be prosperous and meant that the Labour party could avoid doing what it feared most, investing in manufacturing, for that would mean the return of what they feared most, resurgent unions and the socialist left.So the spivs of the labour party in common with the spivs of the city got together, a mating of rodents if ever there was one. The Labour government are to blame they were complicit in the cons being perpetrated by the bankers.

 

It is no use bleating on about Cameron and Clegg, they have inherited a poisoned chalice, the cupboard is bare, its a dead parrot, THERE IS NO MONEY. LABOUR SPENT IT ALL.

 

 

The Labour Party, THEY ALWAYS LEAVE YOU SKINT

 

 

What total claptrap. We all know who was responsible for destroying the manufacturing base of this country.

 

As soon as the ConDems were elected one of the first things they did was to cancel the Forgemasters loan, out of spite or was it a Tory initiation test for Nick?

 

As for who is responsible for the Credit Crunch, remember what Mervyn King

the Govenor of The Bank of England said recently:

 

'The price of this financial crisis is being borne by people who absolutely did not cause it'.

"Now is the period when the cost is being paid, I'm surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than it has."

[Wildcat]

Nope, its the right link. I was trying to prove a point that these claims are made by ignorant people based on their fears and rehashed by the media and people like you to make them look like facts.

 

Here's another typical claim:

 

 

 

Who made these claims?

Why did BBC News report this?

Are there any facts other than scaremongering, just like you and Wednesday1 peddle?

(And incidentally go quiet when presented with the facts and hide for a week or two until the thread drops down the lists and you start another one?)

 

 

The key bits in that link are:

 

Children's minister Sarah Teather said there was enough money available to maintain existing children's centres

 

She added that the new Early Intervention Grant gave local authorities the freedom to make the best decisions for the families in their areas.

 

The government shouldn't have to force councils to spend only Surestart money on Surestart services.

 

If they're not responsible enough to manage their budget and feel the need to take money from Surestart for other things that's not the government's problem.

 

Or would you prefer all local councils to have any autonomy taken away from them?

 

It is the Govts problem when they are slashing funding to local authorities, in particular the local authorites in the poorest areas.

 

17% general cuts plus 11% cuts to SureStart funding, plus no ring fencing means you were wrong, and remain wrong even since shifting the goal posts.

 

I would rather local councils in the poorest areas weren't facing 4 times more cuts than those in non poor areas, in fact I would prefer it if austerity was focussed on progressive taxation not on cutting essential services for the poor.

[Wildcat]

A lot of people would have blindly followed what the experts told them, to take a mortgage on a great introductory rate, that they could afford. Maybe it was naive to think they would endlessly be able to remortgage as the introductory offers ended, but that is what the lenders were advising if not pushing them into!

 

I'm not saying the people who borrowed more than they can afford are totally faultless, but it can't all be put on the lowly borrower. The lender/broker/re-seller would have been trusted enough to believe the advice been given was sound, or they wouldn't be buying through them.

 

I like many others was advised by mortgage advisers to go for a variable rate because house prices always rise. It seems pretty poor to me to be blaming the victims of the banks mismanagement for the situation the banks and mortgage lenders got us in to. Rather like kicking someone that has already been knocked to the ground...

[Wildcat]

I don't know. The governments have been telling the banks that they need to lend more. Surely it should be a commercial decission by the banks based on risk. I don't think I would be too happy if someone told me who I should lend money to, particularly as the banks lost so much lending to folk who couldn't pay it back.

 

They have been telling banks to lend more after the crisis when the banks stopped lending and they were receiving bailout money and various forms of stimulus...

[evildrneil]

I like many others was advised by mortgage advisers to go for a variable rate because house prices always rise. It seems pretty poor to me to be blaming the victims of the banks mismanagement for the situation the banks and mortgage lenders got us in to. Rather like kicking someone that has already been knocked to the ground...

 

You may have been advised to take a variable rate - but it was not forced on you. To blame the big bad evil banks solely is wrong. Some took out loans they knew they couldn't afford based on naivety, fraud or just plain misguided hope. The bubble burst - as it always does - and the fallout needs to be cleaned up and lessons learnt. One of the lessons is that lending and borrowing is a two sided process. Banks should be more careful who they lend to and borrowers should be more careful what they borrow. For either party to carry the can entirely gives and entirely unbalanced view of the situation.