UK [to be] 'fastest-growing Western economy'

[I1L2T3]

I said a few years ago they are just waiting for it to all blow over before resuming what they were doing. There have been a few soundbites from the government to persuade public opinion they are doing something but have we seen any real action? I haven't, I can't see the government upsetting their bankrollers and voters.

 

The Tory complicity could probably be proven with a bit of research. There is no doubt the Tories supported what was happening in the City under Labour.

 

The revolving door:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7707352/General-Election-2010-bankers-become-MPs-in-new-Parliament.html

 

The funding:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/30/city-conservatives-donations

 

Labour may have been in charge but there was no opposition. Only once it was too late really.

[tinfoilhat]

The Tory complicity could probably be proven with a bit of research. There is no doubt the Tories supported what was happening in the City under Labour.

 

The revolving door:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7707352/General-Election-2010-bankers-become-MPs-in-new-Parliament.html

 

The funding:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/30/city-conservatives-donations

 

Labour may have been in charge but there was no opposition. Only once it was too late really.

 

The time to do it was then. We are so reliant on the banking industry in this country you could only try and do drastic stuff when they are over a barrel or if the economy has something else to plug the gap. The latter is unlikely to happen anytime soon so we'll have to wait for the next disaster to radically change things.(which according to some is only round the corner)

[I1L2T3]

The time to do it was then. We are so reliant on the banking industry in this country you could only try and do drastic stuff when they are over a barrel or if the economy has something else to plug the gap. The latter is unlikely to happen anytime soon so we'll have to wait for the next disaster to radically change things.(which according to some is only round the corner)

 

Too right. I've read quite a bit about the 2008 crisis. What was needed at that point was a more comprehensive (temporary tactical) nationalisation of the banks so the whole thing could be taken forward on terms most favourable to the taxpayer. The reason they didn't do it - they were worried about Labour's image if it did effectively nationalise the banking system, something that had been a clarion call of the left through the 70s and much of the 80s.

 

Labour's own baggage stopped them doing the best thing for the country.

 

But what would the Tories have done?

[tinfoilhat]

Too right. I've read quite a bit about the 2008 crisis. What was needed at that point was a more comprehensive (temporary tactical) nationalisation of the banks so the whole thing could be taken forward on terms most favourable to the taxpayer. The reason they didn't do it - they were worried about Labour's image if it did effectively nationalise the banking system, something that had been a clarion call of the left through the 70s and much of the 80s.

 

Labour's own baggage stopped them doing the best thing for the country.

 

But what would the Tories have done?

 

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe let a few go down the tubes before dishing out freebies? I would have been closest to their ideology - let the market decide. Not sure it would have been a worse decision than the one that was taken.

[Hillpig]

Too right. I've read quite a bit about the 2008 crisis. What was needed at that point was a more comprehensive (temporary tactical) nationalisation of the banks so the whole thing could be taken forward on terms most favourable to the taxpayer. The reason they didn't do it - they were worried about Labour's image if it did effectively nationalise the banking system, something that had been a clarion call of the left through the 70s and much of the 80s.

 

Labour's own baggage stopped them doing the best thing for the country.

 

But what would the Tories have done?

 

My wing of the party would have let them go bust. HSBC Barclays etc would have been fine, other new banks would have re emerged within weeks.

 

Blair and brown were responsible along with the rest of the party. Your party, the one that has never ever once come out of power leaving the country solvent. Not once.

[I1L2T3]

My wing of the party would have let them go bust. HSBC Barclays etc would have been fine, other new banks would have re emerged within weeks.

 

Blair and brown were responsible along with the rest of the party. Your party, the one that has never ever once come out of power leaving the country solvent. Not once.

 

I don't support Labour. I have done in the past but never again.

 

I think you're right that the Tories would have aimed to let more banks go. I think once they started down that route then there would have been a domino effect, a destabilisation of the entire banking system. They would have ended up at least part- nationalising some banks to contain the problem.

[Peer Gynt]

Maybe they're moving there to get away from you.

Are you going? (with a bit of luck?)

[Anna B]

We never really hear much about what happened in Iceland - or the rest of Europe for that matter.

 

Ever feel they don't want you to know?

[Mecky]

My wing of the party would have let them go bust. HSBC Barclays etc would have been fine, other new banks would have re emerged within weeks.

 

Blair and brown were responsible along with the rest of the party. Your party, the one that has never ever once come out of power leaving the country solvent. Not once.

 

And what would have happened if it was your bank that went bust? Remember the ATMS were 24 hours from drying up, then the chances are that people who have had to steal to eat, civil unrest and starvation etc. In fact, a few weeks ago the papers were full of Brown considering policing the streets with troops at the time in case that very scenario arose. What would your beloved Tories have done, eh? Let people starve through no fault of their own?

[I1L2T3]

And what would have happened if it was your bank that went bust? Remember the ATMS were 24 hours from drying up, then the chances are that people who have had to steal to eat, civil unrest and starvation etc. In fact, a few weeks ago the papers were full of Brown considering policing the streets with troops at the time in case that very scenario arose. What would your beloved Tories have done, eh? Let people starve through no fault of their own?

 

The truth is that most countries on varying levels did exactly what the UK did: capital injections to prop up the banks. Some even went as far as us in part-nationalising banks. The UK response was not unique.