the snap general election thread

Chrysalis

antrobus wrote: »

No, they did not. Labour created their very own mindset in terms of banking regulation. They created the FSA, aka the Fundamentally Supine Authority according to Private Eye.

At least we now have a PRA that is actually trying to regulate. We have stress tests, and the BoE goes around telling banks that they need more capital.

All of which were the same as thatcher's mindset. Many people considered blair a tory.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

antrobus wrote: »

Or take a look at RBS. Or HBOS. The two big bad Scottish banks that were really the problem. Bad lending is what got 'em.

RBS was mostly down to the disastrous ABN Amro deal.

You could make more of a case for HBOS in corporate lending, but not so much with the residential mortgage book.

The reality is that of the losses incurred by UK banks over the financial crisis....

- £15 out of every £16 lost on mortgages was on overseas mortgage lending not UK mortgage lending

- 75% of corporate losses were on overseas deals

Had it not been for their hubristic desire to go global the UK banking sector would not have collapsed, and would not have needed the bailouts they got, as UK lending defaults were on the whole mostly containable.

It wasn't the defaults on their UK lending books that brought down the banks - not even Northern Rock.

hallmark

Chrysalis wrote: »

The tories are basically just throwing money down a drain with all their tax giveaways for the rich.

Haha you really should try not to be sucked into using Labour's slogans.

Income Tax:
Top rate of income tax throughout Labour's 13 years in charge was 40%.

Top rate of income tax in the 7 years since is 45%.

Corp Tax:
Corp tax revenue levels at record highs since the Tories lowered the rate, much higher than under Labour.

So which tax giveaways for the rich were you talking about?:beer::beer:

hallmark

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Debating hallmark is like playing chess with a pigeon.

He just struts round like he's won but in reality hes just knocked over all the pieces and pooped all over the board before flying off.

Funny that the Cons never opposed any of the deregulation at the time. But apparently its all labours fault. Setting aside that this is a completely different party under Corbyn anyway.

That's at least the 3rd time you've used the same joke :rotfl::rotfl:

You must be really choked that Labour got such a hiding last Thursday if it makes you that bitter.

Anyway, cheer up, we don't need to debate anything. The Tories are still in power, Corbyn is still at his allotment & no amount of debating is going to change that an iota :j:j:j

TrickyTree83

Chrysalis wrote: »

Whats required to fund something is nothing to do with affordability.

Please explain how raising corporation tax to 2% below what it was in 2010 is obscene levels of tax?

The tories are basically just throwing money down a drain with all their tax giveaways for the rich. Tax cuts = spending, its amazing many dont recognise that.

In affect you are trying to claim the UK cannot afford to properly fund its health service, cannot afford to build infrastructure, cannot afford to house its people, cannot afford to feed its people (food banks) and cannot afford to care for its vulnerable, what a sad state of affairs.

But it can afford to become a tax haven. ok

Normally you adjust spending based on circumstances, nothing unusual in that, with the tories tho its just cuts regardless of whats happening.

No respect at all for your post because again you not explaining anything just basic phrases like "blame somebody else like labour did" even into a reply to a post which explained "exactly" why the crash would have happened under tories. Its just covering your ears saying "I cant hear you".

Right now income tax and corporation tax are at record low levels for reference.

It comes down to whether you believe government intervention is more efficient than the free market.

There doesn't appear to be any good example of a centralised economy except those backed by oil, but even then they're now struggling if you're up to date on your world affairs.



Centralised economies, fixed wages, fixed prices, regulation up to the eyeballs doesn't work, has never worked and will never work.

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=VEF&to=USD&view=10Y

It seems if you support a free market, if you're on the right or on the centre you're evil. Far from it, if we went full on socialist as many appear to want we will inevitably end up in the same situation as the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc... the closest shining example of socialist policies working is Norway, which is a capitalist, free market economy with some socialist ideas knocking around, backed up by the black stuff.

The NHS is a socialist idea, as is the welfare state. They still exist and the British people continue to want them to exist, but if you go too far you're going to ruin what we already have. Not through cuts, but through ruining the bedrock on which they're built and funded. Someone always has to pay, and when the individual's priority is the individual (which it is, no denying that) those with wealth that is being stolen at the point of a gun (taxation) beyond a reasonable level will look to protect themselves and rightly so.

Your example about the minimum wage having little effect on the cost of goods is so narrow. The cost of goods will increase because of wages rises at the employer in question but also the suppliers to that employer will raise their prices also, so the impact will be two fold as they (the supplier) will also need to raise the cost of goods to pay more. The minimum wage doesn't lift people out of poverty, it just brings the middle class closer towards the bottom. This effect can be mirrored across every industry, energy, water, manufacturing, services, financial, etc... everything rises and has a knock on effect on those industries they interact with.

The left, socialists, communists, are all well meaning people. There is no doubt about that, but calling for such programmes now whilst we cannot even balance a government budget is very much the archetypal millenial: "I want it now even if I have to borrow from Peter to pay Paul". That leads to one destination, and it's not utopia.

GreatApe

Chrysalis wrote: »

cannot remember which election thread this was mentioned but an additional comment on inflation and wage rises.

Increasing people's wages obviously (when in a private company) will increase the price of their goods to a degree, but remember wages are just one part of many costs. So e.g. increasing wages of workers by 2% is not a 2% increase to production costs, so would translate to a much lower affect on price of goods.

An example I have is in my first job, I made a mistake once on the factory floor in terms of decision making and had a senior manager approach me to tell me my decision was costing them £57000 an hour in wasted materials used. I can confidently say the amount paid to staff in that factory would only be a fraction of that figure per hour. (also there was many other costs than just those specific materials I was wasting)

30 technicians at £12 hour £360 per hour.
80 operatives at £5 hour £400 per hour.
Plus 2 factory floor managers, and approx 30 people in office, which was a mixture of admin staff and managers.

Overall the economy is a whole chain of value added when you add it all up its mostly wages.

Overall its something like 70% wages 30% capital

So if we take something simple anyone can understand let's say a supermarket. For a £100 shop as a first order estimate you can say £70 is for labor and £30 for capital.

If you could pay people more, say 10% more for everyone, then the price of goods and services would go up by 7% assuming the capital side did not price things higher. However the capital side would price things higher for example with higher wages people will bid more in rents.

Overall its likely that if you increased wages 10% across the board you would just get 10% inflation. Thinking the opposite means you could legislate higher productivity. If only it were that easy

padington

A friend just reminded me about the 5 year fixed term so Corbyn couldn't call in an election without two third vote which is probably not going to happen.

So we're stuck for five years unless tories agree to an election.

Is that right ?

CKhalvashi

padington wrote: »

A friend just reminded me about the 5 year fixed term so Corbyn couldn't call in an election without two third vote which is probably not going to happen.

So we're stuck for five years unless tories agree to an election.

Is that right ?

Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, only a motion explicitly resolving "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" is treated as a motion of no confidence.

So yes and no is the answer to that. It can be done on 50%, and all that will be needed is a few rebels to ensure it happens.

With Labour on course to be 5 from a majority under the last poll, I can see it happening very soon.

padington

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, only a motion explicitly resolving "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" is treated as a motion of no confidence.

So yes and no is the answer to that. It can be done on 50%, and all that will be needed is a few rebels to ensure it happens.

With Labour on course to be 5 from a majority under the last poll, I can see it happening very soon.

Sorry don't understand, can you explain again?

Joe_Horner

Herzlos wrote: »

Yeah I can't get my head around how Labour can be responsible for sub-prime lending by US banks, or how the Tories could have done anything better when it crashed.

About all Labour could have done beforehand was to regulate the financial sector in this country to an extent that hopefully lent stability to the whole mess. But that would have been decried as Marxist meddling beforehand and - if successful - would never have been vindicated by the crash that (just maybe) didn't happen.

Afterwards, it's very widely accepted by the sort of economists who don't read the Daily Mail (ie: proper ones) that Brown's reaction was bang on the money and saved us from a hell of a lot worse at the time.