This man thinks he can be a Prime Minister

TruckerT

antrobus wrote: »

Left to their own devices they (the banks) will always lend too much money

Why?

TruckerT

grizzly1911

antrobus wrote: »

Politicians are, however, always tempted by the lure of cheap and easy money, and are inclined to remove such limits. The trouble is that voters are just as tempted as well and are inclined to vote in favour of today's jam.

I am sure it suited the the politicans to let it run as it kept the illusion of growth going.

grizzly1911

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Who took away the powers from the BOE and gave it to a self regulating body of ex bankers?

Almost the first decision that was made in 1997.

If this decision hadn't of been made then the situation may well not have been as bad as it ended up in October 2008.

If this decision hadn't been made we wouldn't have had the growth to keep the system working.

We will never know whether that particular decision was the sole turning point. I doubt whether an incoming conservative administration would have reversed that decision either they would have simply rode the wave until it beached too.

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If this decision hadn't been made we wouldn't have had the growth to keep the system working.

Credit would have continued to grown. Bradford & Bingley didn't create mortgage securitisation until 1998. An idea that eventually went global.

My issue is the people that worked for the FSA also worked for the worst offenders in the market, i.e. HBOS.

HSBC and Lloyds maintained their more conservative lending policies. So it's erroneous to blame the "banks" collectively. The baddies can be counted on one hand.

TruckerT

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My issue is the people that worked for the FSA also worked for the worst offenders in the market, i.e. HBOS

Did you raise this issue at the time, or are you depending on hindsight?

TruckerT

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

I think in fairness, the press gave Tony Blair a fairly easy time of it as Leader of the Opposition (which he only had to be for less than 3 years).

Miliband at the moment is going down the route of "elections are lost not won" and has a strategy to get 37% + and crawl over the line.

It won't work - he has the "Kinnock factor" about him - people just won't be able to see him as PM.

What possible reason would there be most people to vote Labour if in say the 6 quarters before the election, economic growth is an unspectacular 0.4-0.5% per quarter ?

Does Labour have a great leader in their midst? I've not seen anyone remotely like that, they all look like identikit career politicians.

I wonder if that's what people like about Farrage and Boris, at least they don't appear to be 'autocuties'.

Thrugelmir

TruckerT wrote: »

Did you raise this issue at the time, or are you depending on hindsight?

TruckerT

Obviously hindsight. Though these same bankers were friends of No 11. Very incestuous.

TruckerT

Generali wrote: »

Does Labour have a great leader in their midst? I've not seen anyone remotely like that, they all look like identikit career politicians.

I wonder if that's what people like about Farrage and Boris, at least they don't appear to be 'autocuties'.

It is probably fairly essential to have quite long gaps between game-changing leaders!

But I'm really looking forward to the next one, whoever he or she might be...

TruckerT

TruckerT

Thrugelmir wrote: »

these same bankers were friends of No 11. Very incestuous.

Yes.

TruckerT

Lizling

Generali wrote: »

I wonder if that's what people like about Farrage and Boris, at least they don't appear to be 'autocuties'.

I reckon that's about right. They're less politician-y and I can't think of any group of people I'd less like to run the country than politicians.

I'd still never vote for Boris or Farrage though.