10b more welfare cuts on the way.

coastline

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I'm talking about the 21st century, the 70s reference was just an aside to show how serially incompetent Labour is. Once again by 2010 they had effectively run out of money because they cannot manage public finances -- never have, never will.

How do you work all that out...I've posted enough links to hightlight ones as bad as the other...theres no magic formula to keep economies moving upwards....if there was they'd fix it.
So you choose to ignore Osborne was matching Labours spending plans around 2007....he never once mentioned reducing the budget deficit....or a looming banking crisis..infact he forecast more growth.
You also choose to ignore the huge budget deficit of the 1990's.What if the world economy hadn't improved then...whats the answer...blame Labour..
Then I post the effects of the Barber Boom...but that doesn't matter either...yet its still only Labour who have trouble with the finances...;)

GeorgeHowell

coastline wrote: »

How do you work all that out...I've posted enough links to hightlight ones as bad as the other...theres no magic formula to keep ecomonies moving upwards....if there was they'd fix it.
So you choose to ignore Osborne was matching Labours spending plans around 2007....he never once mentioned reducing the budget deficit....or a looming banking crisis..infact he forecast more growth.
You also choose to ignore the huge budget deficit of the 1990's.What if the world economy hadn't improved then...whats the answer...blame Labour..
Then I post the effects of the Barber Boom...but that doesn't matter either...yet its still only Labour who have trouble with the finances...;)

The 2010 situation was of course exacerbated by the banking crash and the recession which followed. A large part of the blame can be attached to the Labour government for the ludicrously inadequate light-touch tripartite regulatory regime. They charcteristically failed to understand business and finance but nevertheless wanted to suck up to it as well in order to raise maximum tax from it for funding of their profligate social engineering schemes.

BertieUK

George I think that you have lots the plot, well I have with the words that you have chosen in your descriptions.

I will be spending the rest of the evening trying to desipher the meanings of all of these words that you choose to use with my head in a Dictionary.

It will keep you quiet I hear you say.

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The 2010 situation was of course exacerbated by the banking crash and the recession which followed. A large part of the blame can be attached to the Labour government for the ludicrously inadequate light-touch tripartite regulatory regime.

THE BANK OF ENGLAND ACT 1998
This granted determination of monetary policy to the Bank of England. The Act had two objectives:
1- to give the Bank operational responsibility for setting interest rates to meet the Government’s inflation targets, and
2- to transfer responsibility for the supervision of deposit taking institutions from the Bank to the FSA.
As Crerar has written, “The proposals of the Chancellor allowed the Government to retain responsibility for the goals of monetary policy to Parliament, while the Bank would be responsible for the operation of monetary policy, and be required to report to Parliament.”(6)
According to Crerar, reasons for the transfer of supervisory functions from the Bank to the FSA included firstly, the fact that the reputation of the City continued to be undermined by scandals such as Robert Maxwell’s fraud and the collapse of BCCI and Barings Banks. The Bank’s supervisory function had been found to be severely wanting by Lord Bingham’s Report in the aftermath of BCCI, and Lord Wolff’s Report after Barings.
Secondly, EU legislation required to be implemented



http://prosperityuk.com/2009/07/a-history-of-banking-regulation-in-the-uk/


Seems the Bank isn't too good at regulating on it's own either.

Certainly madness existed in the late 80s/early 90s.