Could people REALLY lose all their savings?

Glen_Clark

dunstonh wrote: »

One of the biggest issues in the depression was the level of gearing that took place. Very few individuals do that nowadays.

Exactly. To make matters worse, directors didn't walk away from their debts with a bonus and gold plated pension like they do now.
Many of those who lost everything had borrowed it from family and friends. And encouraged them to put their money in as well.

talexuser

longleggedhair wrote: »

Ievery Labour government that has ever exaisted EVERY SINGLE ONE has left office with the public finances in disarra"

Actually not even factually correct. Labour lost the 1970 election because Roy Jenkins refused to have a give away budget after his tax rises following the devaluation under Callaghan. Many Historians and economists rate Jenkins as one of the best Chancellors for transforming the fiscal and current account at the end of the 60s. Andrew Marr in his History of Modern Britain described Jenkins as one of the 20th century's 'most successful chancellors'.

longleggedhair

Glen_Clark wrote: »

When ANY government leaves office, you find the finances are in disarray.
They don't get voted out if the finances are doing well!

Actually when the Conservatives left office in 1997, they left what is commonly referrred to as a golden legacy. Taxes, debt and inflation were comparatively low, and a decade of economic growth followed.

talexuser

If you had an ounce of intellect you could discuss things in an adult manner without resorting to personal abuse.

longleggedhair

talexuser wrote: »

If you had an ounce of intellect you could discuss things in an adult manner without resorting to personal abuse.

I notice you made no counterargument.

GeorgeHowell

Andrew Marr would revere Roy Jenkins, because those of a left-leaning persuasion invariably do so. Jenkins is something of a folk hero to them (a bit of a latter day Aneurin Bevan), being an architect of the so-called permissive society which set the seeds for so many of today's societal problems. Not least of these is the propensity to live beyond one's means.

I believe that Labour lost in 1970 because the Wilson government had lurched from one crisis to another in various arena, giving the impression of not having much grip on anything. The Conservatives had an ostensibly credible alternative PM in Edward Heath. Unfortunately his government then proceeded to lurch from one crisis to another, giving the impression of not having much grip on anything.

But it is certainly true that the Thatcher/Major regime did leave Labour with a very satisfactory economic and financial situation. This, coupled with raiding the private pension funds and selling off the gold reserves at rock bottom prices, enabled Labour to kick off the criminally irresponsible spending spree which led us to were we were in 2010.

Some Conservative governments have been failures. All Labour governments have been failures. There's no point in taking heed of financial advice and wisdom provided on this forum, and then going out and voting Labour.

longleggedhair

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Andrew Marr would revere Roy Jenkins, because those of a left-leaning persuasion invariably do so. Jenkins is something of a folk hero to them (a bit of a latter day Aneurin Bevan), being an architect of the so-called permissive society which set the seeds for so many of today's societal problems. Not least of these is the propensity to live beyond one's means.

I believe that Labour lost in 1970 because the Wilson government had lurched from one crisis to another in various arena, giving the impression of not having much grip on anything. The Conservatives had an ostensibly credible alternative PM in Edward Heath. Unfortunately his government then proceeded to lurch from one crisis to another, giving the impression of not having much grip on anything.

But it is certainly true that the Thatcher/Major regime did leave Labour with a very satisfactory economic and financial situation. This, coupled with raiding the private pension funds and selling off the gold reserves at rock bottom prices, enabled Labour to kick off the criminally irresponsible spending spree which led us to were we were in 2010.

Some Conservative governments have been failures. All Labour governments have been failures. There's no point in taking heed of financial advice and wisdom provided on this forum, and then going out and voting Labour.

George I could not have put it better myself. What I find so frustrating is that people will vote Labour without realising the consequences, which are usually worst for the poorest those who Labour purportedly represent.

atush

longleggedhair wrote: »

Actually when the Conservatives left office in 1997, they left what is commonly referrred to as a golden legacy. Taxes, debt and inflation were comparatively low, and a decade of economic growth followed.

Agree, and when Clinton left the white house, the finances and economy were good too- maybe not his morals ;-)

longleggedhair

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Absolutely.

The only ones who arguably gain under Labour are the f e c kless on welfare -- the underserving poor, although political correctness would have it that we are not supposed to call them that.

Then there are those who think they gain -- the so-called 'client state' :- public sector workers, trade unionists, the Scots and Welsh, immigrants and racial minorities etc. Their apparent gain is short-term and they are in a fools paradise because the preferential treatment they receive is unsustainable and the day of reckoning has to come, as it is beginning to now.

But the most unwise of all are those who really have nothing to gain under Labour even in the short term and yet still vote for it. These are those outside of the client state groups who are largely self-supporting and independent, tax-paying, self-improving, and trying to live a decent and civilised life. They include the champagne socialists, and others who support Labour because it makes them feel better about themselves and gains them kudos in the eyes of their peers. A few, like Tracy Emin, rebel and are pilloried for it.

Indeed George, my grandfather always said "let them who can afford to vote Labour". I think as you say those people who do support Labour, who seemingly get no benefit from a Labour Government do so either through stupidity or political ignorance.

My personal view is Cameron has been a very able leader through difficult times, and I really hope he gets the chance to excel if he wins another term with an outright majority, and with hopefully a better economy.

Glen_Clark

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Absolutely.

The only ones who arguably gain under Labour are the f e c kless on welfare -- the underserving poor, although political correctness would have it that we are not supposed to call them that.
.

So how do you separate the undeserving poor from the deserving poor?