Benefit sanctions evidence

[Alan Ladd]

what gets me is that they concentrate on the welfare system on the unemployed which costs 3 billion. but they totally ignore the bail outs for the money markets which cost the government 936 billion.

So who the real beneficiary of the free handouts?

 

Your comment is inaccurate and unfair. The banks were bailed out by the Labour party. This after they allowed them under a 13 year administration to go mad.

 

The Tories have inherited the job of trying to sort the Labour mess out.

 

Before I am asked what would a Tory administration have done,

 

1. They would never have allowed the banks to get into the mess in the first place.

2. If they had, there would have been a strong incentive to let them go bust. Very very messy for a while but a cleansing of a stinking stable created by Labour.

[Anna B]

Your comment is inaccurate and unfair. The banks were bailed out by the Labour party. This after they allowed them under a 13 year administration to go mad.

 

The Tories have inherited the job of trying to sort the Labour mess out.

 

Before I am asked what would a Tory administration have done,

 

1. They would never have allowed the banks to get into the mess in the first place.

2. If they had, there would have been a strong incentive to let them go bust. Very very messy for a while but a cleansing of a stinking stable created by Labour.

 

It was Margaret Thatcher who deregulated the banks in the first place, allowing this unholy mess. Remember the yuppies? That was the start of it, it didn't happen overnight.

 

Your knowledge of political history is sadly lacking. Do some research.

[Cyclone]

Labour chose not to reregulate the banks in the 3 terms they had in office.

[woodmally]

Labour chose not to reregulate the banks in the 3 terms they had in office.

 

With all this talk about regulating the banks. What about regulating silly people who chose to borrow too much money. If people didnt borrow money they couldnt afford then we wouldnt be in this pickle.

[truman]

It was Margaret Thatcher who deregulated the banks in the first place, allowing this unholy mess. Remember the yuppies? That was the start of it, it didn't happen overnight.

 

Your knowledge of political history is sadly lacking. Do some research.

 

And Labour thought it was such a bad idea? Makes you wonder why they spent all that time on the fox-hunting bill...obviously that was more important than any threat to the economy..

[SteveJ68]

It was Margaret Thatcher who deregulated the banks in the first place, allowing this unholy mess. Remember the yuppies? That was the start of it, it didn't happen overnight.

 

Your knowledge of political history is sadly lacking. Do some research.

 

I agree, there is very little evidence to suggest that the Conservatives would have done anything to stop the crash.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/5912697/Queen-told-how-economists-missed-financial-crisis.html

[El Cid]

Before I am asked what would a Tory administration have done,

 

1. They would never have allowed the banks to get into the mess in the first place.

2. If they had, there would have been a strong incentive to let them go bust. Very very messy for a while but a cleansing of a stinking stable created by Labour.

 

The Conservative party did not propose an alternative to Labour’s economic strategy.

The Conservative Party did not propose substantially lower levels of state spending to New Labour between 2001 and 2007. In 2005, Michael Howard promised in the Conservative general election manifesto that ‘over the period to 2011-12, we will increase government spending by 4 per cent a year, compared to Labour’s plans (on current trends) to increase spending by 5 per cent a year.’

[RonJeremy]

The Conservative party did not propose an alternative to Labour’s economic strategy.

The Conservative Party did not propose substantially lower levels of state spending to New Labour between 2001 and 2007. In 2005, Michael Howard promised in the Conservative general election manifesto that ‘over the period to 2011-12, we will increase government spending by 4 per cent a year, compared to Labour’s plans (on current trends) to increase spending by 5 per cent a year.’

 

It would probably have made the difference between bust or not. Now just remind me which fiscal illiterate sold our gold reserves at an all time rock bottom low?

[El Cid]

It would probably have made the difference between bust or not. Now just remind me which fiscal illiterate sold our gold reserves at an all time rock bottom low?

 

I am sure you could compare selling off our Gold, with selling off Government owned companies before the right time, some might say Royal Mail.

[truman]

I am sure you could compare selling off our Gold, with selling off Government owned companies before the right time, some might say Royal Mail.

 

Not sure it's the same..they knew exactly what the gold was worth.. the price for Royal Mail shares was a valuation which would have been given by advisers..it's only after the event that they knew they may have been worth more..