Despite the publicity for the anti cuts march, it's what people support.

[vinyl]

I agree it's not all the bankers fault, and consumers/borrowers who default are partly to blame.

 

However I do think that banks spend £millions on marketing etc in order to get people to use their product. I remember getting letters from banks headlined with "Pre-approved for a loan of up to £10,000", not to mention almost weekly letters offering various credit cards with pre-approved limits many times my monthly salary.

 

The point I'm making is, no, nobody was frog-marched into signing credit agreements, nobody had a gun put to their head.

But banks had their products to sell, and sell is what they did. And they sold it aggressively. And they had they final say on credit afforded to people. IMO banks bare a larger proportion of the blame, but I agree with what you say, not all of it.

 

 

But neither do most people go to a hotel or a restaurant with no idea how they are going to pay the bill when they leave. It is similar in business where lines of credit are established or even people working for a weekly wage. We all rely on someone being able to pay us at the end of the day.

[L00b]

However I do think that banks spend £millions on marketing etc in order to get people to use their product.<etc.>

That's the supply side, catering to demand: the £millions spent by banks on marketing pale into insignificance, compared to the £billions spent in lifestyle advertisement since the late 90s by -collectively- mass media (soaps, series, lifestyle programs and even dedicated channels), FMCG manufacturers/distributors/retailers and the previous Gvt (leading all by example, lest we forget).

 

I believe it's more a cultural issue, mj.

 

The UK (and the US and Ireland) have so much to cut, because they allowed so much of their respective economies to eventually rely upon credit-fuelled consumption. Not so in e.g. Germany or France, where credit is less 'socially acceptable'. That's not a criticism, just a fact of life. Which I'm quite certain the relevant Gvts were very well aware of, at the material time. The "Cassandras" were plentiful and plenty authoritative enough, for those who paid a little attention, years before the crash.

 

They could have "done something" (officially cap the APR, impose strict liability on banks for consequences of irresponsible lending, etc.) They didn't, so the "deal" -and it's eventual consequences- befall entirely the lenders and receivers, in equal measure.

[alchresearch]

Even asking individual questions doesn't explain any of the issues though.

Simply asking the question "do you support stopping the building of schools in your local area?" is an emotive one and will get an emotive answer.

 

If you first explain about the Building Schools for the Future programme and how it was beset with massive overspend, beurocracy, delays, poor construction and doesn't offer value for money, and then ask people if they'd still support building schools in teh local area under BSF, you'd probably get a different answer.

 

Yep, that's precisely my expertise.

 

When I was first asked "Do you want to see new schools built?" I instantly thought "yes".

 

But then when we looked at the details, it was absolutely terrible.

 

First of all, the operating costs would rocket. Air conditioning needed to be on all the time. Repairs much more expensive.

 

They could be up to five times the current costs. A school doesn't work like a business so can't generate extra income to pay for that. So where does that money come from?

 

Then there was the cost of the equipment. Absolutely no choice on suppliers, so you can't play one off against the other. And that's when you find that £300 networking switch costing £800.

[L00b]

Then there was the cost of the equipment. Absolutely no choice on suppliers, so you can't play one off against the other. And that's when you find that £300 networking switch costing £800.

Are you therefore saying, that the current Gvt drive to get all current and potential private suppliers/contractors to tender (supply2gov and similar), the registration fees for some of the public tender platforms and the veritable industry of paying seminars on "how to write and improve your public tenders" is a massive con

 

(PS: it's a rethorical question, don't answer )

[Mister M]

That's the supply side, catering to demand: the £millions spent by banks on marketing pale into insignificance, compared to the £billions spent in lifestyle advertisement since the late 90s by -collectively- mass media (soaps, series, lifestyle programs and even dedicated channels), FMCG manufacturers/distributors/retailers and the previous Gvt (leading all by example, lest we forget).

 

I believe it's more a cultural issue, mj.

 

The UK (and the US and Ireland) have so much to cut, because they allowed so much of their respective economies to eventually rely upon credit-fuelled consumption. Not so in e.g. Germany or France, where credit is less 'socially acceptable'. That's not a criticism, just a fact of life. Which I'm quite certain the relevant Gvts were very well aware of, at the material time. The "Cassandras" were plentiful and plenty authoritative enough, for those who paid a little attention, years before the crash.

 

They could have "done something" (officially cap the APR, impose strict liability on banks for consequences of irresponsible lending, etc.) They didn't, so the "deal" -and it's eventual consequences- befall entirely the lenders and receivers, in equal measure.

 

I think you make a very good point there L00B.

 

I've often wondered how complicit the broadcast media (with its multiplicity of property makeover and investment programmes) are in shaping people's view that housing is a fail safe investment and those excluded from this feeding frenzy are somehow missing out.

Couple this with a of a lack of investment in social housing and the situation is toxic. I'm not saying that the media are entirley to blame. The desire to own property has long been part of the Britsh psyche and Governments of all persuasions (esp. ones including and after 1980s) have fuelled it - partly for political reasons IMO.

Of course interest rates are extremely low at the moment but the omens are not good - inflation is rising and people have few savings to fall back on. Because there is no social housing, heaven knows how those evicted will manage.

[Bulgarian]

People rioting protesting and moaning should be sent to Haiti or northern Japan for a week, then see if they have anything to moan about.

[chem1st]

Maybe next time the questions could be more specific. Do you support the closure of your local library? Do you support the closure of your local surestart scheme? Do you support the reduction in local respite care? Do you support the reduction in local frontline police numbers? Do you support the cut in local school building projects? etc etc

 

It's all very well people agreeing to a cuts agenda in general terms. it's not so great when they are directly affected.

 

I don't see the point in knocking down and rebuilding schools, when some of the buildings been destroyed have nothing wrong with, or could at least be used for longer.

 

And after the lib dem conference I suppose we could reduce the amount of police quite drastically.

 

Were not even going to be locking people up, whats the point of arresting them. We've been letting people leave jail early to free up prison spaces, we have too many police arresting too many people just to let them back out again and catch them again and again, it's madness.

 

Respite care could be offered alongside euthanasia, surestart I'm not too clued up on, and the library is probably the most valuable, but even that is becoming more internet orientated.

 

Pretty soon we will be at a point where every piece of information recorded will be available online, hopefully for free too, a global library.

[chem1st]

I think you make a very good point there L00B.

 

I've often wondered how complicit the broadcast media (with its multiplicity of property makeover and investment programmes) are in shaping people's view that housing is a fail safe investment and those excluded from this feeding frenzy are somehow missing out.

Couple this with a of a lack of investment in social housing and the situation is toxic. I'm not saying that the media are entirley to blame. The desire to own property has long been part of the Britsh psyche and Governments of all persuasions (esp. ones including and after 1980s) have fuelled it - partly for political reasons IMO.

Of course interest rates are extremely low at the moment but the omens are not good - inflation is rising and people have few savings to fall back on. Because there is no social housing, heaven knows how those evicted will manage.

 

Sheffield is going to be in a right mess. About 80 different racial groups fighting over housing isn't going to be a pretty thing.

[hitch_1980]

Then there was the cost of the equipment. Absolutely no choice on suppliers, so you can't play one off against the other. And that's when you find that £300 networking switch costing £800.

 

I work within purchasing in the public sector......and anyone would get shot if that happened. In the climate at the moment, there is a massive drive towards savings. The problem occurs when you have a place which is very lean and told to save 50 million, and a place which wasnt lean and also told to save 50 million.....the place that was actually doing its job properly will suffer because there isnt much else to save etc.

[Wildcat]

AFAIK, no banker ever frog-marched a consumer into a credit card agrement/personal loan with eye-watering interest levels. Or held a gun to consumers head demanding that they trade up their accomodation/car/electronics/holidays abroad/etc. on a yearly basis or near enough.

 

Had consumers not wanted/grown to want everything-right-here-right-now without earning it first, the bankers wouldn't have been able to turn this profligate spending into a commodity of sorts.

 

These credit users and abusers share just as much of the blame as the bankers. And there's a hell of lot more of them than bankers (and still more than 'bankers-that-needed-rescuing').

 

Mortgage defaults in the UK did rise during the crisis, but not very high, they rose because of the banks tightening up on lending. And causing businesses to go bust. You are blaming the victims of the crisis for a problem that had nothing to do with them.