Britain has gone mad - Labour 'most trusted' on economy!

WTF?_2

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Thanks !!!!!!.

Seems crazy that the government didn't have laws/regulations in place that ensured a bank could not lend out more than it had in deposits.

Take a look at the line on the graph marked Household saving ratio (household savings as a percentage of post-tax income), pretty much zero in 2008 down from 6 in 2001.

SGE1

drbeat wrote: »

No but he is certainly to blame for what is going on in the UK.

How old is New Labour now?

If Gordon Brown is to blame for what's going on in the UK, but not the rest of the world, by that logic, the causes of the downturn in the rest of the world are different, and the fact that both the UK and the rest of the world are experiencing similar effects simultaneously is pure coincidence. That makes no sense. Even if you believe that economic policies under Brown were the wrong ones, which you're entitled to believe, it does not follow that they were the cause of the downturn.

And the 'New' of New Labour doesn't just signify a new Government, it signifies a significantly alteration of the fundamental ideology of post 1994 Labour.

michaels wrote: »

My understanding was that Brown announced he was dropping the 'new' part of new labour and returning to the older tradition that the state is always the preferred provider of the publics needs (and indeed that the 'nanny' state knows best what those needs are.

And how about 'the current probelms were caused globally and are nothing to do with the UK's rcent policies'. The UK could have persued policies to make the economy less vulnerable to the problems that have occured by ensuring that UK banks were better positioned to manage any downturn by controlling lending and by actually managing the public sector deficit over the cycle rather than fudging the figures to allow the budget to be far in deficit at the peak of the cycle whilst still claiming that all was 'prudent'. Similarly the balance of payments deficit could have been seen as unsuatinable rather than ignored.

My final thought is the no admission of fault and hide adverse information culture. It was hoped that this was a legacy of Blair that Brown would have the fortitude to drop but it turns out that the Govt has become even more determiined to present any information in a positive light and to surpress anythign that could be portrayed as negative - I guess that it can be rationalised that if the truth is presented the opposition is automatically at an advantage as they are not responsible and able to use hindsight to claim that they would have been better and that thus 'the little lies and ommissions' are justified to maintain power and therefore be in a position to meet out the social justice that I think GB may truly beleive in. I don't buy it though, I think I am adult enough to make my own choices and don't need the state to chose the best alternative for me but may be I am in a minority and others are happy to think that the state knows best and should make decisions for them?

Brown hasn't dropped the New of New Labour - I think it might have been portrayed so in the press at one time, but I don't think many people believed it.

And yes, some believe the UK could have pursued different economic policies which may have put us in a better position. Though I think that had that been the case, those policies, at the time, would have been neither popular, nor would they have had very positive effects at the time. Given the fact that these comments are made with the advantage of hindsight, I really don't begrudge the Government for not taking steps it couldn't reasonably have known might be needed in the future. After all, many people still argue about how long and deep the recession will be, and that's now, while we're in it - so presumably, there are very little sure 'facts' the Government could have prepared for.

And re your comment about politicians refusing to apologise, I think this is a symptom all politicians suffer from, and one I understand. As soon as an admission of guilt or incorrectness is made, a political career is over. While you may think you might appreciate what you perceive to be truthfulness, if this truthfulness were actually displayed in practice, your reaction may be very different, and I certainly know the media's would be.

drbeat

SGE1 wrote: »

If Gordon Brown is to blame for what's going on in the UK, but not the rest of the world, by that logic, the causes of the downturn in the rest of the world are different, and the fact that both the UK and the rest of the world are experiencing similar effects simultaneously is pure coincidence. That makes no sense. Even if you believe that economic policies under Brown were the wrong ones, which you're entitled to believe, it does not follow that they were the cause of the downturn.

And the 'New' of New Labour doesn't just signify a new Government, it signifies a significantly alteration of the fundamental ideology of post 1994 Labour.

"No more boom and bust"

"I will allow house prices to get out of control"

Too much easy money, combined with diminished regulation of our banking system, created a frenzy of speculation in the housing market. Unaffordable commitments pumped up a poisonous bubble of illusory wealth.

Because of the above - Brown's doing - this country is far too exposed to the downturn - another nulab buzzword.

You see the downturn is being used as a smoke screen to hide the fact that he balls'd it up! He didn't save during the good times, he flogged off the nations gold at rock bottom price and now he's condeming future generations to economic slavery with his borrowing.

It's Labour all the same and it's the same old mess!

SGE1

drbeat wrote: »

Too much easy money, combined with diminished regulation of our banking system, created a frenzy of speculation in the housing market. Unaffordable commitments pumped up a poisonous bubble of illusory wealth.

Because of the above - Brown's doing - this country is far too exposed to the downturn - another nulab buzzword.

Hmm.
1) Too much easy money: how is this the Government's fault? Banks lend money, not the Government.
2) Diminished regulation of our banking system - what evidence of this do you have?

lostinrates

SGE1 wrote: »

Hmm.
1) Too much easy money: how is this the Government's fault? Banks lend money, not the Government.
2) Diminished regulation of our banking system - what evidence of this do you have?

1. Surely th governmnt are involved in governing pretty much verything that happens? Whether thats bringing in umpteen laws about H&S or banking? I think th govenernmnt are the point at which dodging the buck becomes impossible, for anything relating to domestic affaires.

2. I don't know whether they diminshed bfore but I can see they are tightning now...my DH is going grey dealing with the fall out from that.

SGE1

lostinrates wrote: »

1. Surely th governmnt are involved in governing pretty much verything that happens? Whether thats bringing in umpteen laws about H&S or banking? I think th govenernmnt are the point at which dodging the buck becomes impossible, for anything relating to domestic affaires.

2. I don't know whether they diminshed bfore but I can see they are tightning now...my DH is going grey dealing with the fall out from that.

1) Not really - we live in a capitalist society, and those that think our regime resembles communism in anyway (where the Government is involved in everything) should pick up a political theory book. To be honest, I don't really think assuming the Government is involved in all things, and basing one's argument on that assumption, is a great start...

2) Exactly - I'm not sure either what loosening of regulation occurred. I might have missed something, but I doubt that's what happened.

drbeat

SGE1 wrote: »

Hmm.
1) Too much easy money: how is this the Government's fault? Banks lend money, not the Government.
2) Diminished regulation of our banking system - what evidence of this do you have?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

1) Government created the environment
2) Brown created the FSA which took away from the BOE the role of regulating the banks. The FSA failed to keep an eye on the lending and investment policies of the Banks

and where does it all lead back to???

Brown

drbeat

SGE1 wrote: »

I might have missed something, but I doubt that's what happened.

Yes, you've missed the period between 1997 and 2008.

Cannon_Fodder

The Govt regulate;

- pensions
- ISAs
- expenses minefield
- tax minefield
- insurance company solvency ratios
etc etc etc

The Govt could choose to regulate levels of mortgage, via statutory LTV/deposit miniumums, salary multiples, if they wanted to. Or a number of other elements of housing/economy, like amateur-BTL, etc.

Debt was earning the Govt too much revenue, which they were so busy counting they didn't notice the time-bomb in their own backyard.

ben500

Is that better dd, I'll not have it said I won't listen to constructive criticism.