Do you think we could have avoided recession if the Tories were in power?

unite79

Thought it was only me that thinks Vince Cable appears to be the only person that had a grasp on the situation.

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

Generali & JayScott Greenspan say what I think (perhaps because I'm influenced by them?).

With 'decreased expansion' of public expenditure (...is that like negative growth?!)that I'm not going to guess too much about, it is possible that personally my own bank balance might have looked a bit more recession proof and that on a very personal basis, things like married couples allowances might have been (re)introduced.

I think decreased expansion is like falling inflation - it's still rising but at a slower rate.

I doubt Labour will re-introduce the married couples allowance as it doesn't really chime with their apparent policy of pushing relatively high-earning married mothers to work (although not poorer single ones who could probably do with the money and a focus outside the home).

chewmylegoff

Reaper wrote: »

Do you think we could have avoided recession if the Tories were in power?

Look, this all started in America...

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

I think decreased expansion is like falling inflation - it's still rising but at a slower rate.

I doubt Labour will re-introduce the married couples allowance as it doesn't really chime with their apparent policy of pushing relatively high-earning married mothers to work (although not poorer single ones who could probably do with the money and a focus outside the home).

sorry, I meant under a Tory government things might have gone that way, so I might personally have been better off I agree I was unclear.:o I have now edited for a semblance of clarity

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

It's modern politics. No point in putting a hostage to fortune out there. Only announce policies when you have to when in opposition.

That definitely seems to be the current trend. One thing though, how do you know who you're voting for if they never say what they will do?

It seems like the sole aim of this is to "cover your !!!"

Generali

Wookster wrote: »

That definitely seems to be the current trend. One thing though, how do you know who you're voting for if they never say what they will do?

It seems like the sole aim of this is to "cover your !!!"

Well I think the idea is to come out with policies at election time but not before.

CYA is a time honoured philosophy within Governments and the Civil Service IMO. Oh, and also in banks.

kabayiri

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Seconded. He would certainly have regulated the banks more, and nipped a lot of it in the bud.

Seems like an intelligent bloke, and more interested in what's best for the country than what's best for him. A very rare thing, that.

I have a podcast of Vince being interviewed by Mark Thomas recently.

What was fascinating was how direct Mark T's questioning was "Are we in the S**t? etc", and just how open and direct Vince's response was.

The guy is a rarity in Politics.

bendix

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Look, this all started in America...

More accurately, it started in the living rooms of middle America and little Britain.

Living rooms full of ill-disciplined oafs whose greed for shiny new toys and holidays was matched only by the rashness of 23 year old bank clerks in shiny suits on the high street, saying 'yes, sir, the customer is always right sir, of course it's your privilege to have those things, sir, even if you can't pay for them.'

It started with the Chinese revolution of 1949 and subsequent policies, and Tiananmen Square, and liberal economism in China sending tens of millions of country folk into the cities, filling factories producing more and more of this never-ending tat that people don't really want, feel they need, and can't pay for.

It started with millions of people knowing - but being scared to admit - that the emperor is wearing no clothes regarding house prices, a state of mind that created the farcical situation where a small pokey pile of brickes and pipes in a crappy street in a crappy London suburb could pretend to be worth £1m, and where people demanded the right to borrow 10 times their salary in order to buy houses that are no more than sheds.

It started with the rise of labour, and the unions, and companies fear of them pushing them into making rash promises on pensions both parties knew deep down could never be paid (pension obligations are now THE biggest obstacle to M&A transactions in the corporate world).

It started with these mega-trends and more.

If you think a Tony Blair or a David Cameron has ANY influence on any of this other than scratching at the surface, you're wildly mistaken.

chewmylegoff

you could have at least mentioned plasma TVs

ruggedtoast

As the Tories in opposition (at Cameron's own admission) failed to raise so much as a squeak of protest during the worst part of the bubble, and still cant find a way to capitalise on Brown's failure to cope with the recession; I think we can conclude they wouldnt have done much different.