The politicians of today are an insult to you and me

[TJC1]

I am neutral and agree with 70% of what Anna B says. I am ready to change my mind when convinced.

 

Im neutral. Anna is more or less right.

Labour didnt cause the crash and we are in the middle of very real cuts and austerity.

[unbeliever]

Im neutral. Anna is more or less right.

Labour didnt cause the crash and we are in the middle of very real cuts and austerity.

 

Welcome. I thought you'd like to weigh in on this one.

 

Read posts 42 and 58, then say that again.

[TJC1]

Welcome. I thought you'd like to weigh in on this one.

 

Read posts 42 and 58, then say that again.

 

Ok give me chance.

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2015 at 18:46 ----------

 

Welcome. I thought you'd like to weigh in on this one.

 

Read posts 42 and 58, then say that again.

 

And the rest of world. How do we account for that?

Suppose that was browns fault too.

[unbeliever]

Ok give me chance.

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2015 at 18:46 ----------

 

 

And the rest of world. How do we account for that?

Suppose that was browns fault too.

 

No. We would still have taken a hit. But nowhere near as big. And if we hadn't been over-borrowed beforehand it wouldn't have hurt nearly as much.

 

If memory serves we had 6 consecutive quarters of negative growth. It might have been 7. Not many countries were hit anything like that hard.

[TJC1]

No. We would still have taken a hit. But nowhere near as big. And if we hadn't been over-borrowed beforehand it wouldn't have hurt nearly as much.

 

If memory serves we had 6 consecutive quarters of negative growth. It might have been 7. Not many countries were hit anything like that hard.

 

Did he cause it? I think it would have been similar under a tory gov.

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2015 at 18:59 ----------

 

Why are the cuts imaginary?

[unbeliever]

Did he cause it? I think it would have been similar under a tory gov.

 

Would regulation of the banks have been transferred from the BoE to the FSA? The Conservatives always left it to the BoE.

Would the banks have been encouraged to run so highly leveraged? The departing Major government didn't do it.

Would there have been anything like that amount of government borrowing during a boom? There wasn't during the Thatcher era boom.

 

I think it unlikely.

 

The financial crisis may still have occurred. There's a case made that the US changed their banking regulation on leverage etc to allow wall street to compete with the city in response to the FSA's lax leverage etc. But we can't be sure. It might have happened anyway, but it's hard to believe it would have been this severe.

I don't think anybody can blame Labour for the decision by the US rating agencies to package up sub-prime mortgages into derivatives and then rate them AAA. That would surely have hit the fan at some point.

 

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2015 at 19:01 ----------

 

Why are the cuts imaginary?

 

Because even correcting for inflation total government spending rose continuously in the last parliament and is set to rise again in this one. There may have been budget cuts in some areas, but they have been more than matched by increases elsewhere.

Edited August 12, 2015 by unbeliever

[TJC1]

 

Because even correcting for inflation total government spending rose continuously in the last parliament and is set to rise again in this one. There may have been budget cuts in some areas, but they have been more than matched by increases elsewhere.

 

Thats interesting. Do you think the next 5 years is the government correcting itself to a good spending level? Genuine question.

[janie48]

Did he cause it? I think it would have been similar under a tory gov.

Of course it would have been the same under the Tories, do you remember what the governor of the bank of England said "Labour weren't to blame for the crash, the banks were". That's why so many other countries were affected.

[unbeliever]

Thats interesting. Do you think the next 5 years is the government correcting itself to a good spending level? Genuine question.

 

I'm not sure I understand.

We still have a deficit and as I understand it the plan is to increase public spending by a rate higher than inflation, but lower than GDP growth over this parliament. That way revenue should increase slightly faster than spending and the deficit should gradually disappear. It's a pretty soft landing as far as getting the deficit in hand goes.

Once the deficit is gone, toward the end of this parliament or early in the next, we should hopefully get a small surplus. I expect that surplus to be split between paying down the total debt and increasing public spending more quickly to improve the quality of public services.

Does that answer your question?

 

---------- Post added 12-08-2015 at 19:19 ----------

 

Of course it would have been the same under the Tories, do you remember what the governor of the bank of England said "Labour weren't to blame for the crash, the banks were". That's why so many other countries were affected.

 

Please read the rest of the thread. Or at least posts 42 and 58.

 

Who do you hold responsible for changes to financial regulation and regulators which allowed and encouraged the banks to become so highly leveraged if not the government at the time it occurred?

Edited August 12, 2015 by unbeliever

[WiseOwl182]

Of course it would have been the same under the Tories, do you remember what the governor of the bank of England said "Labour weren't to blame for the crash, the banks were". That's why so many other countries were affected.

 

 

They were ill prepared for the inevitable crash by arrogantly thinking they'd ended boom and boost and by continuing to run up huge budget deficits in the boom years, leaving nothing aside for the downturn.