[Closed] So the Tory government has turned everyone into useless whiners

Those of us with longer memories will recall the Doom of Cressers, and that was before Dave'n'George turned up.

Incidentally: he changed his name when he was 13 - 25 years ago - perhaps you should update your contact list?

Would you like some more wine with that?

Those of us with longer memories will recall the Doom of Cressers, and that was before Dave'n'George turned up

How about the banks for imprudent behaviour?

how about blaming Gordo for changing the rules - encouraging the banks to go mental?

It all went wrong when they gave women the vote

ahwiles - Member

how about blaming Gordo for changing the rules - encouraging the banks to go mental?

'cos he didn't. Bank deregulation was years before he was in government

To be fair, lots of people were useless before this government got in, but only because of Thatcher.

'cos he didn't. Bank deregulation was years before he was in government

Now now, let's be fair to Gordon - he messed up bank regulation just like everything else, and in a rare case of reality [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/13/gordon-brown-banking-sector-regulation ]he even admitted it[/url], albeit somewhat after the event.

I object to that statement. I've been a useless whiner for many years; I'm a self-made whiner who didn't rely on the government to turn me into one. I didn't get where I am today by being useful and not whining. My old dad used to say we shouldn't just sit around, we should get on our bikes and whine.

We had better weather under labour. And you didnt get mugged in your bed and killed every day either. Thatchers Britain!

Rio - Member
Now now, let's be fair to Gordon - he messed up bank regulation just like everything else, and in a rare case of reality he even admitted it, albeit somewhat after the event.

And if you read your own post you will find that it does indeed confirm that he didn't deregulate the banks, what he says is that with hindsight he should have regulated them more. The irony in the article is the little shite Osborne having a go about Brown failing to re-regulate what his predecessors de-regulated.

So thats cleared up then Labour/Blair/Brown didn't de-regulate the banks then.

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.

So thats cleared up then Labour/Blair/Brown didn't de-regulate the banks then

Nulab spin machine won't die will it. Try this - [url= http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/how-gordon-brown-failed-the-banking-test.aspx ]how-gordon-brown-failed-the-banking-test[/url]

"Under Gordon Brown’s early stewardship of the Treasury, back in 1997, responsibility for banking regulation was taken from the Bank of England – its brief was reduced to setting interest rates and “maintaining financial stability” – and handed to the financial regulator, the Financial Services Authority. The result was a three-way power split, making it hard to know who has overall responsibility for UK banking. When Tory MP Michael Fallon asked who was in charge during the crisis, Bank of England governor Mervyn King replied lamely: “What do you mean by ‘in charge’?” Callum McCarthy, the head of the FSA, which did nothing to prevent Northern Rock rapidly building its high-risk mortgage business, did eventually pop up on the BBC after the Treasury had intervened, only to dismiss anxious consumers as “irrational”. Overall, as The Observer concluded, the crisis made “the City’s top policemen look like the Keystone Cops”"

DO I need to respond to that?

Just once more then Rio.

1) So thats the Financial Services industry blaming everyone else for what they did right? Obviously no responsibility on their part at all.
2) Couldn't be arsed to read it thoroughly, but it doesn't seem to say he de-regulated the Banks, more that he didn't re-regulate, which is what I said in my previous reply.

Next.

It says basically that he removed any effective regulatory framework. Not sure that it can be put any more simply or clearly than that.

rio - simply wrong. Go read up on "the big bang" in financial services.

I think I know enough about the "big bang", which may or may not have been a good thing depending on your political views. But that doesn't get away from the fact that the so-called tripartite "no-one's responsible" regulation system introduced by Brown didn't work.

I do find it simply asonishing that anyone can blame posts on a forum on a the government, Tory or otherwise. Some people REALLY WILL try to twist ANYTHING into politics to try and make some lame point or another. Get over yourself FFS.

Judging by the numbers of posts by people whining about, well everything,

This has been the norm for awhile now, but it's definately got worse over the last 12 months, proper miserable bunch of bastards the lot of you.

Judging by the numbers of posts by people whining about, well everything, and constantly asking for reassurance about whether they've made the right decision to buy cheese rather than egg mayo sandwiches have Dave'n'Gideon turned the country into imbeciles

Are you not winging then ?

No, I believe that I'm just smugly self satisfied.

Incidentally: he changed his name when he was 13 - 25 years ago - perhaps you should update your contact list?

Fair point there, as if we're gonna use Gideon, then we've also got to remember our ex-pm's real name
[img] [/img]

. But that doesn't get away from the fact that the so-called tripartite "no-one's responsible" regulation system introduced by Brown didn't work.

So in fact what you are saying is what I am saying, which is not that he deregulated the banks, merely that his re-regualtion was ineffective, which if I'm not much mistaken see us agreeing and takes us right back to here :-

And if you read your own post you will find that it does indeed confirm that he didn't deregulate the banks, what he says is that with hindsight he should have regulated them more. The irony in the article is the little shite Osborne having a go about Brown failing to re-regulate what his predecessors de-regulated.

So thats cleared up then Labour/Blair/Brown didn't de-regulate the banks then.

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.

So may we now move onwards and upwards past that one semantic point??

the Tories left us with no real industry and an export base which was basically financial services.

Shame thats complete and utter bollocks isnt it!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/

I rather thought the main financial industry was in money laundering, after all isn't the UK on a watch list for it?

Shame thats complete and utter bollocks isnt it!

Looking forward to you selling that one to the people, much like myself who trained as engineers etc etc etc only to have the whole lot blown away in the 80's Zulu.

May I just list the world leading manufacturing companies in my area that have gone during and as a result of that period ?

Ransome and Rapier
Bull Motors
Rola Celestion
Cranes
Compair Reavel
Colchester Lathes

and thats just to name the biggest, there are literally dozens more.

markets change, industry changes, manufacturing becomes more efficient and in the process employs less people, however the total value of the manufacturing industry has increased (revenues per member of headcount go up)

Innovate or die - look at the British Aero engine industry, the future has for a long time been high value complex item manufacturing - Look at the other manufacturing companies that have appeared making niche products, Hope for example

Oh right, it was their own fault... Sorry didn't understand that. Useless bastards....

No, its just that you take the fact that a company has gone to the wall as evidence of a terminal decline, even though the actual figures say that manufacturing continues to be strong (on both a total production and GDP basis)

I don't think that there are many companies still making spinning jennies and traction engines, does that prove that manufacturing is in decline too, or indicate that the market changed?

No no, you got me. So now I understand why pretty much all of the manufacturing companies in what was previously a mainly engineering based economy have gone to the wall while the docks down the road have grown beyond all recognition due to the volume of imports is all down to those enginners having a lack of foresight and innovation. Gotcha.

Fair enough

So may we now move onwards and upwards past that one semantic point??

BB I expect we have to agree to disagree on that. To me, removing the regulator is deregulation, to you it is apparently not.

Berm bandit

Two words here

i) Value
ii) Volume

To use your own words:-

so-called tripartite "no-one's responsible" regulation system introduced by Brown didn't work.

As stated the fact that the regualtion that he imposed was not good enough in hindsight is not at issue. He did not however de-regulate the banks.

people have been useless whiners for a long time now. mad thatch got into power because people were too lazy to think for themselves so she did it for them hateandfear fearandhate and that generated a culture of it not being my fault it's all the fault of society/my genes/health and safety gone mad still we can always have a war but if we wer're going to shoot some innocent passers by, let's not do it on our doorstep this time, eh? bl00dy public sector bleeding us dry and doing nothing more than policing the streets, educating our children and nursing our sick.

Zulu: You won't be wanting to hear my two words on the subject, so park it there will you?

from that Register, Index of Production, link of zulu-11:

"the Index isn't measuring how much we make: it's measuring the value of what we make"

they're not all that clear on whether the figures are corrected for inflation - anyone know ?

He did not however de-regulate the banks

Semantics. Surprisingly good marxist description of events; I guess they're less worried than some about following some party line:

[url= http://www.socialist.net/brown-light-touch-regulation.htm ]He therefore called for ‘light touch regulation,’ in other words less regulation on the City and finance capital. Before his Mansion House audience in 2007, he called for, "a risk-based regulatory approach". It was an old theme. In the same hall three years before, he pledged that "in budget after budget I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers" (2004). This is the approach that got us in the present pickle.
[/url]

Nothing to do with the major deregulation of the "big bang" then? Gordon saying he would continue with the same sort of regime as was in place when he took office is the blame not the major change in regulation and attitude 10 years before?

TeeeJ, Osborne is a "wee shite" but Brown was chancellor for an awful long time. If he'd wanted a proper change he could have had a go at it, rather than fanny around. (I doubt you need to wonder why he didn't ?)

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:

[img] [/img]

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.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

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 [b]twenty three[/b] percent of the total income tax receipts?

the top five percent pay [b]forty[/b] 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!)

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 [i]proportion[/i] 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 [b]"I"[/b] 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!

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.

[img] [/img]

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? [b]or[/b] 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 [b]real terms[/b] 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.

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