Tony cunt Blair

[M H]

I've no love for Brown but really was caught holding the short straw when the world economy went tits up. He'd even wanted more regulation of the banks but Cameron rejected it which has been conveniently forgotten.

Brown led the way out of what could have been the biggest crisis since the great depression and the developed world followed, including the States where it started.

His middle name certainly wasn't lucky

Hmm I'm not sure that's quite true. First of all, it WAS the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. Secondly, I don't know that Brown "led the world".

There is no evidence that simply nationalising the banks helped us. It helped the bankers a lot more. There was a damn good reason that people were opposed to the state takeover of banks. It put the whole economy at an even greater risk, billions of pounds at stake. And also meant borrowing money, which is fine for investment purposes but borrowing heavily to nationalise banks? That is bad economic policy.

The US was not the first country to fall into a recession btw. I'm still not sure how these banks (and we don't generally have the same banks as the US) could cause all these problems in so many countries, yet interestingly not any problems in India, South Korea and Australia. I'm sure the US does a lot more business with India than it does with Portugal and Greece.

Brown did set up the Financial Services Authority, stripping the Bank of England of its regulatory powers at the same time. That went well.. So well that the FSA has now been wound up (due to being pretty much useless on everything - PPI, bank charges and of course regulating the banks themselves). So he undid his good work (by letting the Bank of England set interest rates) with a baffling and very costly decision.

There was two choices, back the banks or let them sink, America let them sink and the rest is history. What's quickly forgotten is the billions spent saving the banks isn't gone and will come back at some point. Some already has.

The UK banks were buying sub prime debt from the States in obscene amounts as while this debt was good the paper profit which bonuses are based on was huge. Once the debt when bad, bang.

What do you think would have happened if the banking system was allowed to collapse? I personally don't know but can't think of anything positive coming out of it.

Bank deregulation started with the Big Bang under Thatcher and progressed after that. It is true that Cameron moaned like fuck that the banks were being over regulated by the FSA so heaven only knows how much worse it could have been.

The Bank of England didn't see this coming either so I doubt them not regulating the banks made any difference

[Monkety Tonkety]

I've no love for Brown but really was caught holding the short straw when the world economy went tits up. He'd even wanted more regulation of the banks but Cameron rejected it which has been conveniently forgotten.

Brown led the way out of what could have been the biggest crisis since the great depression and the developed world followed, including the States where it started.

His middle name certainly wasn't lucky

Hmm I'm not sure that's quite true. First of all, it WAS the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. Secondly, I don't know that Brown "led the world".

There is no evidence that simply nationalising the banks helped us. It helped the bankers a lot more. There was a damn good reason that people were opposed to the state takeover of banks. It put the whole economy at an even greater risk, billions of pounds at stake. And also meant borrowing money, which is fine for investment purposes but borrowing heavily to nationalise banks? That is bad economic policy.

The US was not the first country to fall into a recession btw. I'm still not sure how these banks (and we don't generally have the same banks as the US) could cause all these problems in so many countries, yet interestingly not any problems in India, South Korea and Australia. I'm sure the US does a lot more business with India than it does with Portugal and Greece.

Brown did set up the Financial Services Authority, stripping the Bank of England of its regulatory powers at the same time. That went well.. So well that the FSA has now been wound up (due to being pretty much useless on everything - PPI, bank charges and of course regulating the banks themselves). So he undid his good work (by letting the Bank of England set interest rates) with a baffling and very costly decision.

There was two choices, back the banks or let them sink, America let them sink and the rest is history. What's quickly forgotten is the billions spent saving the banks isn't gone and will come back at some point. Some already has.

The UK banks were buying sub prime debt from the States in obscene amounts as while this debt was good the paper profit which bonuses are based on was huge. Once the debt when bad, bang.

What do you think would have happened if the banking system was allowed to collapse? I personally don't know but can't think of anything positive coming out of it.

Bank deregulation started with the Big Bang under Thatcher and progressed after that. It is true that Cameron moaned like fuck that the banks were being over regulated by the FSA so heaven only knows how much worse it could have been.

The Bank of England didn't see this coming either so I doubt them not regulating the banks made any difference

The US economy recovered more quickly and has grown faster than ours. It also didn't suffer the same decline (UK GDP contracted by 0.8% and 5.2% in 2008 and 2009 respectively whereas in the US the GDP shrunk by 0.3% and 2.8%). There is no guarantee of that money coming back, mainly because I doubt the bankers in charge now are much more responsible than those that went before them.

Cameron has nothing to do with the FSA. It was set-up by Brown and failed in almost every possible way.

Nobody really saw it coming. The banking sector wouldn't have collapsed, that's too dramatic. Northern Rock would have been the least of my concerns.

[M H]

I've no love for Brown but really was caught holding the short straw when the world economy went tits up. He'd even wanted more regulation of the banks but Cameron rejected it which has been conveniently forgotten.

Brown led the way out of what could have been the biggest crisis since the great depression and the developed world followed, including the States where it started.

His middle name certainly wasn't lucky

Hmm I'm not sure that's quite true. First of all, it WAS the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. Secondly, I don't know that Brown "led the world".

There is no evidence that simply nationalising the banks helped us. It helped the bankers a lot more. There was a damn good reason that people were opposed to the state takeover of banks. It put the whole economy at an even greater risk, billions of pounds at stake. And also meant borrowing money, which is fine for investment purposes but borrowing heavily to nationalise banks? That is bad economic policy.

The US was not the first country to fall into a recession btw. I'm still not sure how these banks (and we don't generally have the same banks as the US) could cause all these problems in so many countries, yet interestingly not any problems in India, South Korea and Australia. I'm sure the US does a lot more business with India than it does with Portugal and Greece.

Brown did set up the Financial Services Authority, stripping the Bank of England of its regulatory powers at the same time. That went well.. So well that the FSA has now been wound up (due to being pretty much useless on everything - PPI, bank charges and of course regulating the banks themselves). So he undid his good work (by letting the Bank of England set interest rates) with a baffling and very costly decision.

There was two choices, back the banks or let them sink, America let them sink and the rest is history. What's quickly forgotten is the billions spent saving the banks isn't gone and will come back at some point. Some already has.

The UK banks were buying sub prime debt from the States in obscene amounts as while this debt was good the paper profit which bonuses are based on was huge. Once the debt when bad, bang.

What do you think would have happened if the banking system was allowed to collapse? I personally don't know but can't think of anything positive coming out of it.

Bank deregulation started with the Big Bang under Thatcher and progressed after that. It is true that Cameron moaned like fuck that the banks were being over regulated by the FSA so heaven only knows how much worse it could have been.

The Bank of England didn't see this coming either so I doubt them not regulating the banks made any difference

The US economy recovered more quickly and has grown faster than ours. It also didn't suffer the same decline (UK GDP contracted by 0.8% and 5.2% in 2008 and 2009 respectively whereas in the US the GDP shrunk by 0.3% and 2.8%). There is no guarantee of that money coming back, mainly because I doubt the bankers in charge now are much more responsible than those that went before them.

Cameron has nothing to do with the FSA. It was set-up by Brown and failed in almost every possible way.

Nobody really saw it coming. The banking sector wouldn't have collapsed, that's too dramatic. Northern Rock would have been the least of my concerns.

By 2010 the UK economy was growing again but was choked off by coalition monetary policy and fell back into double dip. Were it not the current recovery may be a lot less precarious.

The government own shit loads of shares in the banks worth billions, that's where the money went as the bailout was a massive share purchase exercise. Ultimately they will be sold for profit and reduce the debt.

Yes Brown set up the FSA but as I said Cameron wanted it to have less teeth than Brown gave it.

[Monkety Tonkety]

By 2010 the UK economy was growing again but was choked off by coalition monetary policy and fell back into double dip. Were it not the current recovery may be a lot less precarious.

The government own shit loads of shares in the banks worth billions, that's where the money went as the bailout was a massive share purchase exercise. Ultimately they will be sold for profit and reduce the debt.

Yes Brown set up the FSA but as I said Cameron wanted it to have less teeth than Brown gave it.

Cameron is irrelevant to the FSA. He wasn't even in the shadow cabinet when Brown set it up.

Let's see if they are sold for profit. Gordon Brown sold more than half of our gold reserves when the price was low. Ridiculous short-termism that he is usually against. And he sold them when the economy was doing well!

The coalition's monetary policy has done OK. Double-dip is true (as is the recovery in 2010) but for me it's not a genuine problem until it lasts a year. 3-6 months is too short-term to really see where the economy is going.

The economy hasn't retracted in a single year since they came to power. Compare that with 2009 (A 5.2% retraction after the Brown government had reduced VAT to 15% for 13 months, another failure). I actually would like to see VAT return to 17.5%, but lowering it back then was bad timing at best, although welcome to me personally.

[M H]

By 2010 the UK economy was growing again but was choked off by coalition monetary policy and fell back into double dip. Were it not the current recovery may be a lot less precarious.

The government own shit loads of shares in the banks worth billions, that's where the money went as the bailout was a massive share purchase exercise. Ultimately they will be sold for profit and reduce the debt.

Yes Brown set up the FSA but as I said Cameron wanted it to have less teeth than Brown gave it.

Cameron is irrelevant to the FSA. He wasn't even in the shadow cabinet when Brown set it up.

Let's see if they are sold for profit. Gordon Brown sold more than half of our gold reserves when the price was low. Ridiculous short-termism that he is usually against. And he sold them when the economy was doing well!

The coalition's monetary policy has done OK. Double-dip is true (as is the recovery in 2010) but for me it's not a genuine problem until it lasts a year. 3-6 months is too short-term to really see where the economy is going.

The economy hasn't retracted in a single year since they came to power. Compare that with 2009 (A 5.2% retraction after the Brown government had reduced VAT to 15% for 13 months, another failure). I actually would like to see VAT return to 17.5%, but lowering it back then was bad timing at best, although welcome to me personally.

Lowering VAT had the opposite effect of upping it to 20%, it put money into the economy rather than take it out. Actually assists growth albeit in a minor way. The car scrappage plan was also another economy booster and saved a lot of jobs in the motor trade.

The point about the double dip is it stopped a recovery in it's tracks so the economy had to start over again and whether it's six months or six years it affects people.

I disagree about the monetary policy as unless you sit at the top of the table you're worse off just like me. It's the recovery that hides in the dark, Tesco results being case in point. Where is the growth? Why is the debt larger now than back in 2010?

Truth is it's a minimum wage zero hours recovery which benefits a few and those that kicked this shit off are in the main totally unaffected.

[doG]

A good world war will sort this mess out.