Darth Vader Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 There's a bit of difference between a 2 quarter 0.6% dip and a 6 quarter 6% sky dive. But I'm sure history will remember it in 3 years time when the economy is growing and folks are voting for the party that took us out of recession or the ones who took us ito it. The economy HAD started to improve under Labour, under the ConDems we have plunged deeper in to recession and now we have the DOUBLE DIP, but it's not all bad, the super rich have seen a huge reduction in their taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 The economy HAD started to improve under Labour, under the ConDems we have plunged deeper in to recession and now we have the DOUBLE DIP, but it's not all bad, the super rich have seen a huge reduction in their taxes. True, true. All 3 parties however do not have our best interests at heart. They have their own. Come next Monday, the electioneering will be over, and they wont give us a 2nd thought for oh....a couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 If, by Merv's own words, "of all the many ways of organising banking, the worst is the one we have today", then why would he advocate bailing out the institutions at its very heart and essentially keeping such a system on tax payer life support? No I'm sorry, if you fail, you liquidise like every other business and let the market decide how much your assets are worth. "Too big to fail" is just a cop out mantra used by pseudo-capitalists and people who prefer to ignore economists in favour of political ideology. If we are to have begging bowl bailouts, then let the mantra be "bail out people, not failed institutions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 If, by Merv's own words, "of all the many ways of organising banking, the worst is the one we have today", then why would he advocate bailing out the institutions at its very heart and essentially keeping such a system on tax payer life support? No I'm sorry, if you fail, you liquidise like every other business. "Too big to fail" is just a cop out mantra used by pseudo-capitalists and people who prefer to ignore economists in favour of political ideology. If we are to have begging bowl bailouts, then let the mantra be "bail out people, not failed institutions". Beautiful & very correct. I love your mantra. We should have ring fenced the retail banking, until we found alternative buyers, and we should have allowed the investment part of the banks to fail. We bailed the rich and we fleeced the poor, and Mervyn was found to be wanting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 This whole story and the timing of its release is just desperate last-minute electioneering by the tories on election day. Yeah, ignore reality and spin a conspiracy theory. Convincing... not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 What a contradiction you last sentence is. Since the measures were brought in in May 97 they must have passed through parliament well before that time, so it's hardly Labours decision to bring in the policies since they were in opposition at the time. This whole story and the timing of its release is just desperate last-minute electioneering by the tories on election day. So you don't actually know what de-regulation of the banks means do you? You think it means they were unregulated. Well, they were regulated until Brown got hold of them in 1997. After that it looks like they were free to do as they pleased...................................so they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 The banks failed, under the supervision of the LABOUR government. The LABOUR government have left this country skint every time they have been in power. Socialism doesnt work. Never has, never will. Cameron has the answer, there was always going to be a few rocky times between now and the next election, things will soon pick up. Vote Conservative Toodle Pip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mypalseger Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 'Labour ignored Bank of England warnings, caused recession & cost 1m jobs' So says Mervyn King. He also says, " Signs of a recovery are there." He says this on the day of the local elections. I wonder whose pulling his strings ? Great combination, hindsight and foresight. VOTE LABOUR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 'Labour ignored Bank of England warnings, caused recession & cost 1m jobs' They ignored everyone. Gordon Brown and Ed Balls ignored warnings and wasted billions A confidential document presented to the Cabinet in January 2006 asks: "We've spent all this money, but what have we got for it?" It warns that the efficiency of the public sector needed to improve rapidly and insisted that "spending growth will slow". The document drafted by civil servants also says that "ineffective spending" must be "closed down". However, Gordon Brown discarded the advice and embarked on a £90 billion increase in spending when he became prime minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 PFI assets are worth circa £50 bn but Gordon and his gang paid circa £250 bn. ... and they have the temerity to complain about cuts that other people are having to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.