Times poll sees Gordon Brown ahead of the Cameron

moggylover

huntersc wrote: »

It's funny, I remember not so long ago, July, August 2007 there were two people shouting about deregulating the financial sector even more than it was.

Do you remember the idea of a deregulation minister?

Here's a quote from a minister from that party:

"...no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision, saying it is the lender, not the client, who takes the risk."

Now I'll let you take a stab at who might have been calling for a deregulation minister, who was caqlling for an end to mortgage regulation.....


Can you guess?

......

David Cameron. :beer::rotfl::rotfl::T Go big Dave!

Now it's interesting to me that we've not heard much more about this deregulation minister or the deregulation of the mortgage market from the Tories. Why's that do you think?

BTW, if anyone thinks I'm making this up, here's just one of a number of sources.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-andpound14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html

And which party actually STARTED the process of deregulation in the first place? Yep, that's right the Tories under Thatcher;) with the boast that unleashing the people who knew how to make and manage money was the answer to economic growth which, to some extent, it is. There was also a belief that these people would be ethical and sensible enough to regulate themselves:rotfl: ! Well, someone forgot to factor in the human greed aspect didn't they:eek: . If people will kill their granny for a few thousand, think what they will do for a few million:eek:

StevieJ

huntersc wrote: »

Oh, by the way, here's more on the Tory proposal for mortgage deregulation.

http://www.mortgagesolutions-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=463242

Funny stuff

Weird, Aug07 :eek: couldn't have timed that any worse, I note Icesave inthe guise of Heritable bank also get a mention. That is a serious election loser.

lostinrates

StevieJ wrote: »

They know who they are and they are proud of it, three currencies is sensible diversification (although it depends which ones you have gone for).

Not planned sensibly I'm afraid. At one time we had income in dollars, euros and sterling. Little left in dollars, and nothing we intend to look at for the forseeable future, majority by far in sterling, but a sizable amount in Euros too. Were meant to get a last, significant, Euros payment last week, at which point probably would have brought all but some Euros petty cash into sterling, but this has now, terrifyingly, been put off until January. W can't change wher the payment is from, but might move our Euros account with what rests init into a diffrent Euro country. I'd like to say we've planned currency diversification but we haven't, its just how we have lived.

stonethrower

huntersc wrote: »

Firstly, that's not how it works, you cannot assign blame to someone on the basis that they took credit at another point in time. That's ridiculous.

Second, you say that the IMF says Brown is wrong and that Britain is not best placed, where? (defining 'best placed' might also be worth doing)

Third, yes, he has weakened the UK economy, he has also strengthened it. It's swings and roundabouts. We also have a completely different economical beast compared to other European countries. The make up of our economy is very different to that of Germany for example.

Just 1 question I can think of several ways that he has weakened the Country but cant think of any that he has helped strengthen it. How has he helped to improve it.

Cannon_Fodder

huntersc wrote: »

Firstly, that's not how it works, you cannot assign blame to someone on the basis that they took credit at another point in time. That's ridiculous.

Terribly sorry to disappoint you but I CAN AND I WILL.

You might choose to overlook blatant lies, but I consider such things to be important in someone who is running the damned country.

If he believed what he said, he should now admit his error - and being proven incompetent, he should resign.

If he never believed what he said, that makes him a liar - even more reason to resign.

Its simple. Either he had control of all the factors creating boom/bust or he didn't.

Anyone with half a brain knows he didn't have that control - but he said he did. So that means he has half a brain or was deliberately lying to the public.

End of.

huntersc

stonethrower wrote: »

Just 1 question I can think of several ways that he has weakened the Country but cant think of any that he has helped strengthen it. How has he helped to improve it.

Wow, well that's a massive task. Do you really want to get into it? For either of us to specify policies or actions that have resulted in growth or decline requires a huge amount of work and research. How much of it is natural, outside bounds, historical etc etc etc.

On top of that we'd need to look at action as well as inaction, inaction is often one of the most effective economic policies, take taxation. We've been at 17.5% VAT since, what, the 70s? Germany increased to 19% in 2007. Brown could have done so. He might even have taken the decision earlier, in 2005 but did not. Was that something that strengthened the economy? After all, growth in Q2 and Q3 in 05 was lagging somewhat, GDP in 07 would have been severely hit especially manufacturing.

So we can only look at results rather than specific policy. As G.E Moore once noted, we cannot know the right decision without knowing the consequence of every other decision.

Even then one might argue we're all richer, but at what cost? Increased national debt.

Where does it end? So I very much subscribe to the POV that much of what happens is out of our hands, the best we can do is guess and that's all it is, guesswork.

I'm not saying that Brown is perfect. I'm not saying Cameron is all bad. I think for us to debate whether one is better than the other especially in terms of economic growth is nigh on impossible on this forum.

However to suggest, as the OP does and which I was arguing against, that Brown is responsible for an economic crash when the ROW are experiencing the same thing is a bit naughty and ignores too much to be a valid argument.

huntersc

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Terribly sorry to disappoint you but I CAN AND I WILL.

And this is why I argue so strongly against full voting rights for every person in this country.

Although off topic your post absolutely highlights why staggered or powered voting is something we should consider. Not very politically correct I know but I think it's difficult to argue against.

Cannon_Fodder

moggylover wrote: »

However, it appears that very few were actually practising any kind of "financial prudence" themselves.

Exactly my point - the change to Bankruptcy rules provided the framework within which the population operated. The example from Govt led to where we are now.

By making it easier and quicker to be bankrupt, the groundwork was laid for the relaxed attitudes to debt being demonstrated on Spendaholics, Bank of Mum & Dad etc...

Instead of sending signals about sensible use of credit facilities, responsiblity for your spending, etc etc.

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2034154/bankruptcy-rules-favour-reckless

5 years ago Accountants were warning that the "reckless" would take advantage...and they were right.

"But if the 'stigma' of bankruptcy is removed for all practical purposes, and if an opportunity exists for graduates and consumers generally to painlessly divest themselves of debt, the chances are they will take it."

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/invest-save/bankruptcy-will-be-too-easy-credit-chief-warns-569916.html

huntersc

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Exactly my point - the change to Bankruptcy rules provided the framework within which the population operated. The example from Govt led to where we are now.

By making it easier and quicker to be bankrupt, the groundwork was laid for the relaxed attitudes to debt being demonstrated on Spendaholics, Bank of Mum & Dad etc...

Instead of sending signals about sensible use of credit facilities, responsiblity for your spending, etc etc.

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2034154/bankruptcy-rules-favour-reckless

5 years ago Accountants were warning that the "reckless" would take advantage...and they were right.

"But if the 'stigma' of bankruptcy is removed for all practical purposes, and if an opportunity exists for graduates and consumers generally to painlessly divest themselves of debt, the chances are they will take it."

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/invest-save/bankruptcy-will-be-too-easy-credit-chief-warns-569916.html

Bankruptcy is out of my area of expertise so I can't comment too much about it but I would say that I've been on the bankruptcy forum on MSE and it doesn't seem as if it's all that painless. If anything it strikes me that those people are really suffering and an less judgmental system is a small but necessary benefit to those suffering.

lostinrates

huntersc wrote: »

I think most of the security to which you refer is born out of a change in leadership, an election, certainly it's short term and the financial markets have not responded with this same confidence. The DJ is at around 8600 and the Nas at 1600. It's all well and good the general populace 'feeling' better for a month or two but at what cost? Long term Obama has inherited a position which will undermine everything America does for the next 20 years, the populace may feel better off right now but it won't in March.

So it's not so much about decisiveness or a leader taking a decisive position as a coincidental election which has resulted in an upswing in confidence.

Again, hardly something you can lay at Brown's door.

I don't think I am expressing myself very clearly. I am going to numbr my points, not as a form of pointed aggression but mrely to try and be clear:o

1. I am not laying anything at Brown's door -in this thread anyway .

2. I feel that its not about feeling financially btter off, but feeling secure. W have had a chang in leadership (albit with same party) and then a lot of indecision about elections and policy. Combined with a lot of turmoil over finances I feel that many British people feel somewhat 'in limbo, something that US has, by luck of timing, been able to limit with an lection. For better or worse a decision has been made.

3. I am not suggesting that an election would simply 'make us feel better for a month or two' but would herald a decision over what plans we all make, which policy we follow while we feel bad.;) It would end the limbo some feel in and stop this wrangling and let whover is elected get on with things according to their policy and not popularity, whther this rsults in a chang of leadership/rpresentation or not.

4. I agre, timing in America has been coincidental, in UK it has been engineere to be anything but! (for anyone who wants to read more in to that no I am not suggesting things ar being hammed up by anyone for political victory, merly that we could hav had an election befor this, w thought w might, we haven't and now we continue wondering if things will all change in 18 months or not.) I think that US bnfit from the long term security, whatver their personal politics, simply from the fact that th elction drama is over.

ETA: I think its also relvant that I fel we are far from ovr with th financial disruption.