We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
So now we all have to pay the banks Libor fine.
Comments
-
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Given Labour's track record on (lack of) control of public spending, what they saddled us with on PFI's in particular, the fact that they are managerially incompetent especially on financial and business matters (as are the civil service who they let loose on it), it is very easy to believe that Labour overpaid. There is no basis for the assertion that the Conservatives would necessarily have made the same mistake, I'm afraid that's just playground, "No, you are too.." type stuff.
I merely made the point that I doubt very much whether they would have made any better decisions based on the evidence building rapidly in front of their face. I do not believe they would have let them collapse. Whether we overpaid by £10bn here or there or whatever the figure may be is pie in the sky.
PFIs were introduced by the Conservatives opening the door to further privatisation, efficiency and accountability.
Likewise the snipe about "get-rick-quick" Shapps, as if being a success in life disqualifies him from the right to a position in public life -- depressingly typical Labour thinking I'm afraid.
It has nothing to do with labour thinking the guy is a lightweight IMO. Was he a success who knows?
Not too much noise from the lefties about Blair making an estimated £60m fortune and introducing a trading department in his Mayfair business empire headquarters. He's on the 'right' side of the political fence and therefore apparently immune from such criticism.
Lots of politicians of all colours milk their notoriety nothing new in that, I don't see what that has to do with bailing out the banks . I thought conservative thinking would admire his get up and go, making a success of himself.
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »The Telegraph article says that the government spent £66 billion buying bank shares. Who did that get paid to ?
Ultimately it went to replace the money that is now in the hands of global capitalists and Sovereign States in the mid and far east. Not forgetting a wodge at Apple and BMW."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Even the US learned after Lehman Brothers that letting banks fail doesn't work out well.
We're not talking about 1 bad bank being allowed to go under, in 2008 it was the entire banking system that was about to collapse, I don't think people really understand how serious this would have been if we'd allowed banks to just fail.Faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.0 -
It's not all about whether the banks should have been allowed to fail, but whether what was poured in to prevent that was more than necessary.
The point about PFI being introduced by the Conservatives is made frequently. PFI is not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing is when contracts are drawn up such that the contractors can't lose and the taxpayer can't win.
Labour has proved itself more than once to be unable to keep reasonable control of public funds, unable to protect the taxpayers' interests, unable to resist spending on its pet projects and schemes whether they are affordable or not. They are inherently unfit to govern this country. Nevertheless there are none so blind as those who will not see,No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »It's not all about whether the banks should have been allowed to fail, but whether what was poured in to prevent that was more than necessary.
The point about PFI being introduced by the Conservatives is made frequently. PFI is not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing is when contracts are drawn up such that the contractors can't lose and the taxpayer can't win.
Labour has proved itself more than once to be unable to keep reasonable control of public funds, unable to protect the taxpayers' interests, unable to resist spending on its pet projects and schemes whether they are affordable or not. They are inherently unfit to govern this country. Nevertheless there are none so blind as those who will not see,
On the basis the banks are up and running, after a fashion, then we put at least enough in and perhaps too much. Who knows what too little would have been until it was too late. Either way it was/would have been ashed load of money.
Contracts are usually drawn up so someone wins.
Who would have negotiated the contracts finer points? Somehow I can't see a PM or Chancellor or any other Minister rolling up their sleeves so the naive civil servants have learned some costly lessons. First lesson, drain the swamp of alligators before you sign."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »On the basis the banks are up and running, after a fashion, then we put at least enough in and perhaps too much. Who knows what too little would have been until it was too late. Either way it was/would have been ashed load of money.
Contracts are usually drawn up so someone wins.
Who would have negotiated the contracts finer points? Somehow I can't see a PM or Chancellor or any other Minister rolling up their sleeves so the naive civil servants have learned some costly lessons. First lesson, drain the swamp of alligators before you sign.
Contracts are only drawn up so that someone has a much greater chance of winning if one side is much smarter, or cares more, than the other. If it were all down to the civil service and ministers had no chance to know what was happening, then how come this group of ministers are able to diagnose the problem and point out what an irresponsible pigs' breakfast their predecessors made of it ?No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Even the US learned after Lehman Brothers that letting banks fail doesn't work out well.
We're not talking about 1 bad bank being allowed to go under, in 2008 it was the entire banking system that was about to collapse, I don't think people really understand how serious this would have been if we'd allowed banks to just fail.
Yes, so we are told endlessly by apologists for the corrupt and self serving banking system that benefited immensely from the the boom, and then made out even more from the bust.0 -
The discussion gets very polarised (not unusual).
Bail out banks good camp vs let them sink bail out bad.
In a genuine market economy, other banks would have pored over the books of the failed banks, and bought up the bits which were viable and ditched the remnants.
The problem was that a lack of regulation and very short term funding by these banks removed the option of an orderly resolution, which takes time.
I think they overpaid though. The banks had nowhere to go for funds, and were over a barrel. They would have had to accept pretty much any deal.
In the defence of Darling. Who was the arthitect of the survival plan. The time scale has to be put in perspective. Both RBS and HBOS were only 48 hours away from going bust. So over the course of a weekend. A plan was hatched.
If the banks had failed. Then the UK would have been in complete and utter turmoil.
The real issues that still require answering. Is to why regulation of the banks was allowed to become so light. Over 4 years later. We're still paying the price for a decade of mismangement. Much was ignored despite warnings being given. For example Moore the whistleblower of HBOS in 2004.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »
...
The real issues that still require answering. Is to why regulation of the banks was allowed to become so light. Over 4 years later. We're still paying the price for a decade of mismangement. Much was ignored despite warnings being given. For example Moore the whistleblower of HBOS in 2004.
It said at the time of the NR collapse there were 3 people from the FSA allocated to monitoring the bank...
...and 2 were off sick.
Plus, staff from the regulators were regularly enticed away to work for the banks using the carrot of much better money. That isn't the best method of achieving clear separation between gamekeeper and poacher in my view.
(source was Private Eye so have salt at hand!)0 -
It said at the time of the NR collapse there were 3 people from the FSA allocated to monitoring the bank...
...and 2 were off sick.
Plus, staff from the regulators were regularly enticed away to work for the banks using the carrot of much better money. That isn't the best method of achieving clear separation between gamekeeper and poacher in my view.
(source was Private Eye so have salt at hand!)
I can't recall the guys name. However he was the Finance Director at time of demutalisation of NR when it became a bank. Around 2003 he resigned his post and spoke to the FSA. As he believed NR's business model to be unsustainable. Yes, NR continued to trade for a further 4 years. However ultimately he was proved right.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards