Jump to content

The next Tory recession?


Recommended Posts

It's so unkind that Labour get blamed for it just because it was their fault.

There was no recession in India, China or Australia. They're in the world.

The UK has 6 straight quarters of negative growth. Almost nobody else was hit that hard.

 

The FTSE has only lost 7%. It's at 6080. I'd be surprised if it took more than a matter of weeks to recover. It's a blip, nothing more.

Labour's great recession pushed it down to 3530 and it never got anywhere near 6000 before they were most deservedly booted out even though that was a year later.

 

There's no comparison.

 

How did Labour cause a world recession?

 

Did Labour have regulatory control over Lehman, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIB and all the institutions that triggered the crash in 2008? Did Labour force millions of poor Americans to take on sub-prome mortgages? Did Labour have control over the Fed when it let Lehman go bust triggering a confidence/liquidity crisis?

 

Nope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow just, er...

 

The Chinese economy has imploded and they now have more than 21 Trillion debt thanks to buying up Western Debt (taking it on as it's own.) and Debt is 280% of GDP. Now can people not see the similarity with Britain buying up American bonds from places like Fanny Mai & Freddie Mac. That also went t**s up in the 2008 crash.

 

Now can we please put to bed once and for all that Britain's debt is the fault of Labour because 'they spent too much.' And we 'spent more than we could afford.' etc. etc.

 

You mean like buying bonds from Freddie and Fannie?

 

Sounds like we "spent too much" and that "is the fault of Labour" since they were at the helm.

 

Contradicting yourself in almost the same sentence never does your argument any favours.

 

 

The average person knows far too little about how the economy works and will therefore swallow any simplistic message that seems to make sense to them.

 

Please take this message to heart Anna!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow just, er...

 

Contradicting yourself in almost the same sentence never does your argument any favours.

 

Please take this message to heart Anna!

 

If slightly shorter, it would have been a great new signature, especially with this bit in...

 

Conservatives are pursuing there own agenda [...]

 

:hihi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now can we please put to bed once and for all that Britain's debt is the fault of Labour because 'they spent too much.'

 

Liz Kendall thinks they spent too much:

 

Labour DID spend too much before the crash, admits leadership contender Liz Kendall

 

As do Andy Burnham and Tristram Hunt [LINK]

 

And the IMF certainly disagrees with you.

 

 

2000

 

IMF Warns Brown over Pre-Election Spending

 

2001

 

IMF warns Brown to cut spending

 

2002

 

IMF warns Brown over spending

 

2003

 

IMF gives Brown borrowing warning

 

2004

 

Spend less or tax more, Brown told

 

2005

 

Irate Brown rejects IMF's warning over deficit

 

2007

 

IMF warns Brown to curb spending

 

2009

 

Bad news for Brown as IMF says Britain's debt crisis is the worst among major economies

 

 

Labour ministers 'leant on IMF' to disguise devastating truth of pre-credit crunch economy

 

Labour ministers put pressure on international inspectors to ‘tone down’ warnings about the precarious state of the economy before the financial crisis, according to a devastating report.

 

The International Monetary Fund, the global financial watchdog, told the last government as early as 2004 that it was borrowing and spending too much money.

 

But the advice was rejected by Treasury officials who told the watchdog to water down its public criticisms of tax and spending policies.

 

The findings came in a report from the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office which exposed a series of astonishing failures in the run-up to the crisis.

 

The report found that information was withheld from the IMF and the public by the British authorities, Fund officials were intimidated, and regulators at home and abroad failed to spot serious risks in the banking system and the economy.

 

LINK

 

 

Gordon Brown was already running record deficits in 2006:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5097706.stm

 

Those warnings about Labour's spending are all real.

 

Gordon Brown running record deficits before the financial crisis, that's a reality too.

 

However, what is not real is so-called "austerity".

 

Now can we please put to bed once and for all the idea that there has been any kind of "austerity".

 

Georgbe Osborne has spent more than Gordon Brown did (and in a shorter time) [LINK].

 

The national debt has almost doubled since 2010 [LINK]

 

 

THERE HAS BEEN NO AUSTERITY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now can we please put to bed once and for all that Britain's debt is the fault of Labour because 'they spent too much.' And we 'spent more than we could afford.' etc. etc.

 

No we damn well can't. That's exactly what they did and I for one will continue to be angry at them for the foreseeable future.

This revisionist nonsense is doing me head in.

 

Your guys crashed the economy, sold the family silver and borrowed like crazy from everybody in sight. A lot of people have suffered and continue to suffer for it. Live with it.

 

---------- Post added 26-08-2015 at 06:57 ----------

 

How did Labour cause a world recession?

 

Did Labour have regulatory control over Lehman, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIB and all the institutions that triggered the crash in 2008? Did Labour force millions of poor Americans to take on sub-prome mortgages? Did Labour have control over the Fed when it let Lehman go bust triggering a confidence/liquidity crisis?

 

Nope

 

We've been over this so many times.

The UK state was over-borrowed.

The UK banks were extremely poorly regulated and therefore couldn't cope with what should have been a quite manageable problem.

The decision to suddenly switch from requiring very low capital requirements of the banks which got them into trouble, suddenly to very high capital requirements almost overnight, turned a major problem into an economic disaster.

Our recession was one of the worst in the world and we lost way more GDP than most of our competitors.

Taking a hit from a global economic problem is one thing. The catastrophe that befell the UK was on a completely different scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow just, er...

 

 

 

You mean like buying bonds from Freddie and Fannie?

 

Sounds like we "spent too much" and that "is the fault of Labour" since they were at the helm.

 

Contradicting yourself in almost the same sentence never does your argument any favours.

 

 

 

Please take this message to heart Anna!

 

You're mixing things up. Labour spending too much did not cause the global financial crisis.

 

Banks and pension funds all over the world were bought all kinds of weid and wacky financial products from the US.

 

---------- Post added 26-08-2015 at 08:04 ----------

 

No we damn well can't. That's exactly what they did and I for one will continue to be angry at them for the foreseeable future.

This revisionist nonsense is doing me head in.

 

Your guys crashed the economy, sold the family silver and borrowed like crazy from everybody in sight. A lot of people have suffered and continue to suffer for it. Live with it.

 

---------- Post added 26-08-2015 at 06:57 ----------

 

 

We've been over this so many times.

The UK state was over-borrowed.

The UK banks were extremely poorly regulated and therefore couldn't cope with what should have been a quite manageable problem.

The decision to suddenly switch from requiring very low capital requirements of the banks which got them into trouble, suddenly to very high capital requirements almost overnight, turned a major problem into an economic disaster.

Our recession was one of the worst in the world and we lost way more GDP than most of our competitors.

Taking a hit from a global economic problem is one thing. The catastrophe that befell the UK was on a completely different scale.

 

If the UK state was over-borrowed then what about now? Osborne has doubled our national debt. The UK wasn't badly over spending until it had to start bailing out banks.

 

Our recession was worse because of our over-reliance on the financial sector but banks all over Europe had to be rescued.

 

Regulation was inadequate agreed but once again the same everywhere.

 

The Economist has a good explanation of the whole thing in an article called 'Crash Course'. Take a look.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.