maxmaximus Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Money became less available for mortgages while the last government was in power because of the problems caused by the greedy tory bankers. This government will merely use the lack of housing as a means of control like they did under Thatcher. That doesn't alter the fact that Labour presided over a massive population increase and demolished thousands of houses which along with cheap credit caused a massive housing bubble and ultimately lead to the collapse of our economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denmonte Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 That doesn't alter the fact that Labour presided over a massive population increase and demolished thousands of houses which along with cheap credit caused a massive housing bubble and ultimately lead to the collapse of our economy. But many economies collapsed. Our economy did better than some. The common denominator was the greedy bankers, not the government. The government only had power over Britain. Is that concept a little bit too difficult for you to grasp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 why would hard working people with money to invest require social housing? Beacuse building it boosts the economy. Would you ask the same question about other vital infrastructure like transport, telecomms etc...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 But many economies collapsed. Our economy did better than some. The common denominator was the greedy bankers, not the government. The government only had power over Britain. Is that concept a little bit too difficult for you to grasp? The previous government changed our finance rules to actively allow and encouraged foreign banks to put their toxic debt into London because their domestic governance didn't allow it. Still not Labour's fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denmonte Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The previous government changed our finance rules to actively allow and encouraged foreign banks to put their toxic debt into London because their domestic governance didn't allow it. Still not Labour's fault? No bankers were forced to take on toxic debt, thus the fault is with the bankers.Many economies collapsed proving that Labour were not at fault as they did not preside over any other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 But many economies collapsed. Our economy did better than some. The common denominator was the greedy bankers, not the government. The government only had power over Britain. Is that concept a little bit too difficult for you to grasp? The point is our government. Didn’t have to keep interest rates low. They didn’t have to deregulate the banks. They didn’t have to let millions of extra people it not the country. They didn’t have to demolish thousands of houses. They didn’t have to encourage personal debts. They didn’t have to spend more than they could afford. They could have saved for a rainy day. But they didn’t and the inevitable happed, the economy crashed. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp, but you go on placing all the blame at the door of the bankers if it makes you sleep better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The previous government changed our finance rules to actively allow and encouraged foreign banks to put their toxic debt into London because their domestic governance didn't allow it. Still not Labour's fault? There is a lot of truth in this. And Labour has admitted to mistakes although IMO they have nowhere near apologised enough. The other side of the story is that sections of a number of large institutions, some of which were hundreds of years old, basically went feral. You can argue that if you leave a kid in charge of a sweet shop he will eat all the sweets, that the banks only did what they were allowed to do. The counter to that is that they crossed ethical lines that their corporate governance should have prevented, and that as the whole thin unravels we can now see clear evidence of criminality - money laundering for drug cartels, Libor fixing etc... Finally, we have to remember that Labour and the Tories were singing from a similar hymn sheet. For the Tories we hadn't gone far enough - we should have been using Ireland as an instruction manual! The only real voice of dissent was the LibDems but given the chance what have they actually done about the banks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Yep. At the time, in the situation of the day, I doubt that anyone would put a hairs breadth between monetary decisions of either principle party. But, the facts remain that Labour was in charge, they are the ones who need to grovel, and we must remember that the same people are still at the top of the party pretending that it wasn't anything to do with them. People should be going to jail this year, not the Lords in a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 In the news on Saturday Milliband was saying that there would be extra legislation and licensing for landlords in order to drive up the quality of rented properties. However, what he failed to mention is that Private Rented Sector is already subject to around 70 pieces of legislation, and the local council has powers in abundance to intervene in cases where properties are in poor condition or are not adequately managed. It was reported that in the whole of Liverpool last year there were only 8 instances where the council had to take action. So is Milliband taking credit for something that already exists, just isn't well known? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 What's his proposal to protect landlords from dodgy tenants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.