Scaredy pants – Brown has admitted with hindsight he should have tightened the regulation of the banks. However he was too timid to do so ( my interpretation). too scared of a negative reaction.

Nowt to do with Osbourne ATM – he ain't been there long enough to have effect.

However it is absolutly true that the seeds of this was in the major deregulation of the "big bang" and not in the minor tinkering that Brown did

Incidentally, the reason why they didn't re-regulate being that the Tories left us with no real industry and an export base which was basically financial services. To regulate those would have been to export that last vestige of UK plc overseas also. So what he is in fact saying is that with hindsight he should have shoved the twunts overboard anyway. A sentiment that I would not struggle to agree with personally.

Like I said above.

Incidentally, I would add that I am not actually defending the fella, however by the same token I'm not about to blame him for something that he patently did not do.

Oh – and if you think folk are whinging now you ain't seen nothing yet. tory policy is going to send us into a real big deep and long recession with at least another million on the dole – probably 2 million.

Their mindless dogma is going to destroy what is left of the economy.

Bit like the last time then TJ? 🙄

TJ, pictured yesterday:

However it is absolutly true that the seeds of this was in the major deregulation of the "big bang" and not in the minor tinkering that Brown did

TJ, I think most people consider the root cause to be a macro-imbalance in world trade which still continues, and which in the UK was exacerbated by a weak regulatory environment in financial services which was set up by GB but which we've established wasn't his fault because the FSMA was just 52 pages of minor tinkering.

Logic? Over-rated in my view… 🙄

Logic – the fact that the major deregulation of the banks that allowed them to get into this situation was the "big bang" years before Brown was in government. This was a more far reaching deregulation that anything Brown did.

His actions may have been a part of it but the big bang created the conditions for it.

I suggest you go and read up what happened then. Yes that was not the root cause – but it was the reason why they went bust so spectacularly

The reason why they went bust spectacularly was down to bad business practices which were allowed by poor regulation. The FSA for example claimed they were pressured politically not to expose the poor business practices of Northern Rock which became the trigger for many of the UK problems. The big bang may have allowed some of the building societies to become banks run by numpties but with appropriate regulation even that should not have mattered; the numpties would have been prevented from taking inappropriate risks.

Rio, The Big Bang was the deregulation of the banks… the FSA was regulation ergo GB did not deregulate Thatschers lot did, all you are doing is repeatedly stating that GB tried to re-regulate, and for the record thats what the two main parties do :-

Labour: Regulate, High Public spending, High Taxation… Rob from the rich give to the poor stylee.

Tories: Deregulate, Low Public Spending, Cut Taxation… Rob from the poor to keep the rich rich stylee.

If anything you could accuse GB of being too right wing in his outlook, i.e. too similar to the idiots that did the thing in the first place. You cannot however accuse him of being the root cause. Now then pop back up the thread a bit and try reading and perhaps reseraching some of what has been said besides your own mantra.

Thought this one had died!

BB – you seem to have a limited understanding of financial regulation and have therefore got hung up on the big bang. Wikipedia is probably your friend, but you might want to read up about the role of financial regulators in ensuring that financial institutions manage risk appropriately.

for the record thats what the two main parties do :-

Labour: Regulate, High Public spending, High Taxation… Rob from the rich give to the poor stylee.

Tories: Deregulate, Low Public Spending, Cut Taxation… Rob from the poor to keep the rich rich stylee.

False.

Both public spending and taxation, has been higher under the Tories than under Labour.

However, the claim that the Tories "rob from the poor to keep the rich rich", is of course, perfectly true.

However, the claim that the Tories "rob from the poor to keep the rich rich", is of course, perfectly true.

So how come the top one percent of earners pay twenty three percent of the total income tax receipts?

the top five percent pay forty percent of all income tax – the bottom fifty percent of earners, all of them put together, pay less than twelve percent. (and trust me, I'm firmly in the bottom fifty percent!)

so go on TJ, how is that robbing the poor? Do high earners get extra votes? do the fire brigade come to their house quicker? do they get better roads? better streetlighting maybe?

Maybe the truth just doesn't make a good headline in the latest issue of socialist worker?

so go on TJ, how is that robbing the poor? Do high earners get extra votes? do the fire brigade come to their house quicker? do they get better roads? better streetlighting maybe?

Ah, but it's based on Marxist Economic Theory. You just don't understand because you haven't read "Capital", is all… 😉

So how come the top one percent of earners pay twenty three percent of the total income tax receipts?

the top five percent pay forty percent of all income tax – the bottom fifty percent of earners, all of them put together, pay less than twelve percent. (and trust me, I'm firmly in the bottom fifty percent!)
Those figures are meaningless without also knowing what percentage of income the top percentile gets.

so go on TJ, how is that robbing the poor?

Well if I may speak on behalf of TJ, I think you'll find that they do it by shifting the tax burden away from the rich and onto the poor.

I'm surprised that you've appeared to have forgotten about the Poll Tax ratty, as I know how devastated you were when it was scrapped. And of course we all know that under what Thatcher called her "Flagship Policy", someone such as Richard Branson paid the same amount of council tax as a school cleaner did.

Ultimately as we all know that, fearing they would lose the next election, the Tories sacked Thatcher and scrapped the tax. She did however have complete success with halving income tax for the super rich and doubling VAT for everyone else.

BTW ratty, I found your quip about "the latest issue of socialist worker" and Woppit's one about Das Capital, very good 🙂

I toyed with the idea of coming back with a clever reference to Mein Kampf, but then decided to leave the infantile school yard taunting to you pair of crypto-fascist clowns.

I note that neither of you challenge the fact that in 1984/85 the Tax burden hit an historic 38.8% of GDP, to pay for the Tory government's massive increase in public spending. Still, I guess that puerile taunting is so much an easier option, for a couple of intellectual pygmies 8)

Ah, but the thing you need to remember there Ernie, is that you expressed as a proportion of GDP – so the total spend may stay the same, but when GDP's in the toilet due to global recession the tax take as a percentage may need to go up to compensate – you see that concept? radical eh, you don't just borrow shite loads of money that someone else has to pay back in the future, but you take a two fold approach, reduce spending as much as possible and when you have to increase taxation to take up the slack…

The rich dont pay too much tax, the poor don't pay too much tax – the problem is that the middle income -B's, C1's and many C2's – pay far too little! Try justifying child benefit for families who can afford a collection of three grand mountain bikes!

Why is that? why do the middle income "swing voters" pay so little (net) tax?

I wonder?

So, if you want to make your argument that a greater proportion of the taxation burden should fall on the middle income groups, go for it – however screaming out that the rich don't pay enough tax like a liverpool council leader in the mid eighties completely undermines your credibility!

Woppit's one about Das Capital

It's called "Capital". Have you read it?

BTW calling someone a "crypto-fascist" based on a few things posted on a half-bullshit forum betrays what a slim grip you have on reality.

You're very good on the commie theoretical stuff, though. Well done.

Haha loving this, more please. Remember those street seller cries of the 80's "SSSocialist Worker!!" …. "Socialist W###ker" more like!!
"FAtcher Fatcher OUt out out"

calling someone a "crypto-fascist" based on a few things posted on a half-bullshit forum betrays what a slim grip you have on reality.

Well seeing that I've just received a double attack of the crypto-fascists, I would say that it rather shows what a firm grip I have on what rattles the right-wing extremists on this "half-bullshit forum" 8)

.

btw ratty, I'm sorry you are unhappy that "I" express tax burden/public spending as a proportion of GDP, unfortunately, it's also how everyone else expresses it too …..apart from you.

And I found your apparent suggestion that there was a global recession going on in 1984/85 really rather amusing 😀

The rich dont pay too much tax, the poor don't pay too much tax – the problem is that the middle income -B's, C1's and many C2's – pay far too little!

What do you base that opinion on?

Well seeing that I've just received a double attack of the crypto-fascists, I would say that it rather shows what a firm grip I have on what rattles the right-wing extremists on this "half-bullshit forum"

Not really…

Nobody is "rattled". You are confusing the projection of your own imagined world onto a set of texts, with simple replies to your contentions.

Ernie – I wasn't suggesting that – it was a mixed metaphor discussing the applicability of that solution to what we see now!

Tell me, are you suggesting that its reasonable to expect there to be no effect on taxation from a reduction in GDP? or are you putting forward the concept that the NHS and welfare state should grow and shrink their per-capita spend in line with GDP?

Here you are Ernie – public sector spending in real terms over the past thirty years:

http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/dashboard/#/long-term/functionSpending=real&longTermSpending=real

Ah ratty – your usual myopic analysis and selective quoting

What you fail to remember is that income tax is only a part of the tax take. The poor pay a much larger % of their income in tax – due to indirect taxes such as vat and also as NI is not levied on higher income.

Under thatcher due purely to her polices not only did GDP decrease but government spending increased – not just measured in gdp but also in absolute terms. Simply because of all the extra benefits that had to be paid.

she wasted the oil money on filling the budget deficit – her greatest crime.

As for this lot – just watch their policies tip us back into recession – decreasing GDP and increasing government spend due to having to pay more benefits.

I will bet you within a year a million more unemployed. My guess is two.

Cutting spending now is simply wrong – the vast majority of the worlds economists agree

As for taking from the poor to give to the rich. Have you seen teh schools proposals? They want to make schools independent of local authorities. 120 million cost. MOney to come from – the free school meals budget amongst other places. A classic trasfer of money from poor to rich.

Oh an ratty – follow your link you find government spend as a % of gdp is more or less stable with the peaks under tory governments

So TJ – Make your mind up – are you now saying that the tories spend more? bargain, whats your problem then?

The poor pay a much larger % of their income in tax – due to indirect taxes such as vat and also as NI is not levied on higher income.

But that's a short term calculation – since VAT on non food items is proportional to spending, the only way to not pay VAT on your earnings is to invest it, in which case it grows, enhances the economy and gives a return through future income tax, capital gains tax, and ultimately inheritance tax – you can't take it with you!

Always said the same – they spend more because they bollox the economy up so badly that the benefit bill goes thru the roof. cut the useful spending and waste all our money on paying people not to work

Or, TJ – you take into account the state of the economy that they end up inheriting, and realise that it takes them half their term to pay off the damage that was done by the previous government!

Plus ca change…

Whats the current interest payments on the national debt? forty something billion? think what could be done with all that money? bigger than the defence budget!

"Ssssocialist w###ker, get your socialist w###ker!!"

Zulu-Eleven: what do you think that graph you put up says?

Its says exactly what he wants it to say in the strange little world that is zulu land. Its a bit like the red queen

I blame the tories

If you don't like it, leave.

Edukator – Member
If you don't like it, leave.

Which applies equally to this thread as it happens 😉

So why can't we get past this one simple point, and just accept the fact that Gordon Brown was not responsible for deregulating the Banks then? I simply cannot understand the likes of Rio who has actually said in his own words that GB introduced the FSA to regualte the banks, but can't accept that he didn't deregulate them. Amazing really.

For what its worth, prior to the "Big Prang" you would have to go for an interview with your Bank Manager to get a loan, you could not get a mortgage for more than twice the main earners annual salary, and if you wanted a car loan you had to have a 1/3rd deposit. Pretty much no one had a credit card. Thats regulation. Deregulation was taking all of those controls off and allowing the Banks and Building Societies to operate on an unfettered and purely for profit basis, as opposed to an institution with social repsonsibility as a leading component in their remit. There are still people (mainly elderly) who treat their Bank Manager with the sort of respect normally reserved for Lawyers and Doctors. Thats is because they had a similar degree of power and influence.

There are still people (mainly elderly) who treat their Bank Manager with the sort of respect normally reserved for Lawyers and Doctors.

Now, however we've realised that they're just actually on commission salesmen with targets to achieve.

But getting back to the point, there's a lot of whining still going on – surely it must be DC's fault?

I ain't been reading newspapers or paying much attention, but as far as I am aware I've heard nothing from the Cleggeron about how they're going to get the money back from the Banks, only that public services will be slashed.

So why can't we get past this one simple point, and just accept the fact that Gordon Brown was not responsible for deregulating the Banks then?

Of course he didn't deregulate the banks.

He simply removed all the remaining necessary constraints that still remained.

…and the Tories still said there was too much intereference

Mr Woppit – such as? Please enlighten us 'cos as far as I am aware he did not remove any constraints.

>I ain't been reading newspapers or paying much attention

Not surprising that "I've heard nothing from the Cleggeron about how they're going to get the money back from the Banks" then really is it.

http://ipezone.blogspot.com/2010/04/gordon-brown-fesses-to-his-bank.html