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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Ed milliband smoking crack....
Comments
-
lemonjelly wrote: »our welfare bills have increased due to a recession that was international in the making and international in it's effect.
So nothing to do with New Labours welfare policy over many years........0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »So nothing to do with New Labours welfare policy over many years........
I doubt very much whether we would be any different a position if we had had a different administration prior to the crash.
We never banked the oil, we never banked the privatisations or the RTBs, there is no reason to believe the "easy" money from the city would have been banked either. I doubt we would have had fuller net employment in the private sector. There would have been a growing welfare bill.
Governments always run on the limit. They have done it for decades.
There might have been a bit more fat and some scope for bigger tax increases post crash (on the basis that we would have been in low tax utopia). That said if individuals had had more money in their pocket they would just have leveraged further and got themselves into more personal debt, few would have banked it either.
I doubt our current position would be a lot different."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 -
lemonjelly wrote: »No matter who had been in power in 2008 the situation would have been much the same because all political parties shared roughly the same attitudes towards the financial sector up until they had the benefit of hindsight.
Who was in power does matter. As it is they that appointed ex bankers to head the FSA and award Knighthoods for donations to the party. So it wasn't a question of us and them. Under Blair & Brown there was open door policy to the banks. While the BOE was effectively muted.
Blair is an extremely intelligent man. To jump ship mid term suggests deep down he had his own views on the direction of travel. So was clever enough to jump off the train leaving Brown to face the music.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Who was in power does matter. As it is they that appointed ex bankers to head the FSA and award Knighthoods for donations to the party. So it wasn't a question of us and them. Under Blair & Brown there was open door policy to the banks. While the BOE was effectively muted.
Blair is an extremely intelligent man. To jump ship mid term suggests deep down he had his own views on the direction of travel. So was clever enough to jump off the train leaving Brown to face the music.
You are right it was strange for labour to be so entwined with the city. the tripartite regulation system was bizarre. Would have a lone regulator have been stronger against a determined government?
The introduction of the OBR is a similar but less important obfuscation.
I am not so sure Blair jumped ship because of the direction of travel more that he realised there was more he could do for himself away from the small world of UK politics."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: »I am not so sure Blair jumped ship because of the direction of travel more that he realised there was more he could do for himself away from the small world of UK politics.
Blair and Brown were in disagreement in 1995 as to level of Government spend. (Source interview on Andrew Marr show with Blair). Blair wanted to cap any future increases, Brown didn't. The Brownites in the cabinet won the day. I believe that this was a major turning point in their relationship and Blair's exit. As this resulted in a fundamental policy difference.
Brown went on to give\influence 6 more Budgets. So would be situation of been so bad. Had Blair won the day back in 1995?0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1498897/EU-and-IMF-join-criticism-of-Brown.html
I post this every time when this comes up, but in 2005 (there are earlier examples as well) Brown was criticized for the size of his deficits. They can't say they weren't warned.
This seems a very balanced article, I can see why you quote it. But is it that balanced?
"Telegraph:
In a second blow to the Chancellor, the European Commission said Mr Brown had breached EU rules on the Budget deficit for the second year running, by allowing it to remain at 3.2 per cent of GDP. The Maastricht Treaty sets a 3.0 per cent limit"
According to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13366011
the 3 per limit applied only to the Euro zone which may also explain why the EU did not take any steps to address the rule breaking the Telegraph refers to. It also shows that Germany, France, Italy all breached this "rule " before we did. Something else the Telegraph fails to mention.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Who was in power does matter. As it is they that appointed ex bankers to head the FSA and award Knighthoods for donations to the party. So it wasn't a question of us and them. Under Blair & Brown there was open door policy to the banks. While the BOE was effectively muted.
Blair is an extremely intelligent man. To jump ship mid term suggests deep down he had his own views on the direction of travel. So was clever enough to jump off the train leaving Brown to face the music.
I agree with this. He also had the flak he was getting over Iraq to encourage him to let Brown get on with it.
Do you think the Tories would have been any less in cahoots with the bankers?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Blair is an extremely intelligent man. To jump ship mid term suggests deep down he had his own views on the direction of travel. So was clever enough to jump off the train leaving Brown to face the music.
Politicians frequently claim to be humbled by the privilege of representing their constituents in Parliament.
Wot a lot a !!!!!!!!...
TruckerTAccording to Clapton, I am a totally ignorant idiot.0 -
Why am I not surprised by that.angrypirate wrote: »Yeah, Miliband is so unbelievable.
Im finding the torygraph one of the better newspapers these days. .0 -
Exactly but some always only read what suits their pre-existing agenda.This seems a very balanced article, I can see why you quote it. But is it that balanced?
"Telegraph:
In a second blow to the Chancellor, the European Commission said Mr Brown had breached EU rules on the Budget deficit for the second year running, by allowing it to remain at 3.2 per cent of GDP. The Maastricht Treaty sets a 3.0 per cent limit"
According to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13366011
the 3 per limit applied only to the Euro zone which may also explain why the EU did not take any steps to address the rule breaking the Telegraph refers to. It also shows that Germany, France, Italy all breached this "rule " before we did. Something else the Telegraph fails to mention.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards