This thread is degenrating a bit here. Whilst you can hold any view you wish if you want to make outlandish claims [ not generally accepted views] about the causes of the crsis could you evidence them as they seems to me to be a number of posters just posting utter nonesense as if it is factually correct an dnot answering any challenges on these claims.

The fear here – of jo blogs defaulting – closed the interbank lending market.

So as you note it was fear of not being paid back not actually not being paid back. How was this the fault of people rather than the banks?
Seems a bit different view from this rantette you have yet to evidence

Teachers and nurses borrowed more than they could afford to buy a part-share home. They got caught up in a bubble ……Only the housing bubble burst. And the teachers, nurses, social workers and doctors suddenly found themselves in negative equity. And without all the overtime they’d lied to the bank about, saying it was guaranteed, they can’t keep the repayments going.
So many people threw their keys back to the bank that the bank had to hand its keys to the Government.

So which view do you actually believe now ? Banks feared it or it actually happened? How the **** can anyone thing middle aged social workers buying second homes caused the current crisis it is utter BS Can you post up a credible link to support any of your outlandish claims. This has passed a polemic and is into fantasy land tbh

Quite rightly, the bank expects many public sector workers will not keep to the terms and repay their loans.

Well i thought they had already done this and caused the crisis 🙄
I missed the evidence for this claim as well. Could you factually back it up otherwise I am left with the conclusion you are saying things you cannot prove and reaching conclusions that have no validity.
PS as you will ask again about your right to hold a view you can hold any view you want [ the earth is an apple resting on turtles] but your view should have a basis in reality and not contradict itself.

Union movements have had their day and now amount to little more than a protection racket.

Are you suggestion managers/ownwers have suddenly become nice over time? Are you suggesting that non unionised workforces enjoy the same terms and conditions as unionised ones – they must do if unions have seen their day and are not effective. Are you suggesting countries with no strong trade union movement enjoy the same benefits as unionised countries? Can i see your evidence as it sems prima facie to be wrong.
All employment legislation came via employees struggling and ultimately legislation changing. H & S legislation, sick pay, holiday pay even the minimum wage more recently and the 48 hour week.

our government had been borrowing heavily to cover the shortfall in tax receipts and enable them to carry on throwing money around

And the last governement not to borrow money and the number of years in the last century we did not borrow any money? The average debt per GDP for that period ? Govts always borrow money whatever spin you wish to put on it.

It’s really surprising to me that so many apparently well educated people have been so easily hoodwinked into believing that the bankers caused the mess

That would be everyone from Nobel prize winning economists,dave, to the person on the clapham Omnibus why not give us a list of all the bright folk who think it was caused by something other than the banking sector and please explain what caused it then if not banking?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/reader_guides/article4530072.ece

@djmb4. You clearly didn’t read my post. As a former banker and now teacher i understand it very well thank you. 5 years working in the debt fiduciary market dealing with new abs mbs cdo deals every day as well as regular plain corporate and government bond issues and debt repackaging programmes I know my stuff. Do you?

1)When?
2)As an undergrad or postgrad?

I did the BA – 1996 to 1999.

I just want to take my kids to school after all it’s a service I pay for.

😆

Go on the dole – it’ll be free then and you can quit moaning.

😉

(unless of course your kids are in private education, in which case have a moan at the governors)

The underlying issue is that even before the bank bailout, our government had been borrowing heavily to cover the shortfall in tax receipts and enable them to carry on throwing money around.

Labour ran a surplus for the first few budgets and then when they did move into deficit is was lower than that of the preceeding government…

Boy George should be spending now to encourage growth, austerity measures have rarely worked.

I did the BA – 1996 to 1999.

Oh aaaages ago!!! Any fond memories of an particular teachers?

The point is that in a period of strong economic growth, there was no need to move into deficit in the first place! Had the government listened to its own whitehall staff, they would have taken steps to constrain the growth in spending to a level that was affordable and which didn’t result in the additional funding being wasted.

There are plenty of examples of other European governments who did this and are doing OK as a result now – Germany being a particularly good case in point – we went into the recession carrying the largest deficit of any country as a proportion of GDP.

Oh aaaages ago!!! Any fond memories of an particular teachers?

Yeah, I’m well old. Can’t remember too many of the lecturers, to be honest. I was mainly in maths and physics departments in 1st and 2nd years.

Yeah, I’m well old. Can’t remember too many of the lecturers, to be honest. I was mainly in maths and physics departments in 1st and 2nd years

Oh you did the joint Ed. Studies thing?

To think Cameron et al actually believe that bankers are the sole problem is naive. They are politicians at the end the day with a core audience to play to and that is the way public perception has been swayed. The only one who I really feel does believe thus is vince cabel who really dies believe his own hype.

Oh you did the joint Ed. Studies thing?

Yeah, one hour a week of Ed theory in years 1 and 2, combined with undergrad courses in physics and maths. All the quantum mechanics stood me in good stead for teaching Y5 🙄

I did 4 terms of primary after graduating and then ran for the hills. Did a MSc in IT and moved to 6th form teaching.

Sadly, julianwilson, there is no irony.
Mike, you’re not winning me over, infact quite the opposite.

Mike, you’re not winning me over, infact quite the opposite.

I’m not trying to.

don simon – Member

Sadly, julianwilson, there is no irony.

indeed.

1) Someone posted an article from America on here a few months ago about how we support who we support whatever happens. (bit blunt, but the idea was that basically if you are raised a lefty you will always find fault with the righties and default to voting lefty because at the very least you consider them the best of a bad lot.)

So by that reckoning, Cameron would have to be outed as the leader of a crypto-fascist chicken-worrying ring before you get put off voting Conservative. (Or against Labour under FTPT 😉 )

2) There is a lot going on right now that wasn’t in Lib Dem or Conservative manifestos just 13 months ago. [edit] I will not be at all suprised when someone posts up all the things noolab did ‘out of manifesto’ within a year of election/re-election, they were just as, errrr, ‘driven’. [/edit]

I wouldn’t bother reading the manifestos next time either: just vote with your heart. 😕

As a former banker and now teacher

Ah, so it is all your own fault.

Indeed we can unite behind that which ever way we argue it he done it.

Farmer john even if i accept all you have said as true it would simply demonstrate that government policy exacerbated the problem caused by the banking sector not that they caused it in the first place. It in no way whatsoever supports your assertion that banking did not cause the problem – any evidence to support that claim?
Essentially you have just repeated your claim/view with no additional information

the idea was that basically if you are raised a lefty you will always find fault with the righties and default to voting lefty because at the very least you consider them the best of a bad lot.

Meh. Partisan dealignment in the UK has been a 30 year trend. If anything the real tendency over the last 50 years is towards disengagement from the electoral process, which is why the UK has low turnouts, although it has blipped recently, so perhaps that’s on the way out.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

The bit in bold is the heart of liberal market-based political competition by the way.

Farmer_John – Member

The point is that in a period of strong economic growth, there was no need to move into deficit in the first place!

Really ? So how come during almost the entire period the Tories were in power, under both Thatcher and John Major, and they ran a deficit then ?

The Tories even ran a deficit throughout the entire time they were in power in the 1950s. A period which saw the most rapid growth Britain had ever experienced, and one in which the Tory election slogan was “You’ve never had it so good”.

The reality is that there have only been four short periods since WW2 when Britain hasn’t had a deficit. Three of them occurred under Labour governments. Only once since the end of WW2 has there been no deficit under a Tory government – despite the fact that the Tories have been power most of that time.

So explain that to me Farmer_John ?

Although I won’t be holding my breath as I wait for you to answer………you appear to very conveniently ignore the ‘inconvenient truth’.

“There was no need” not that they didn’t. A bit of continuity please, ernie.

I’ve just noticed this Farmer_John :

Germany being a particularly good case in point – we went into the recession carrying the largest deficit of any country as a proportion of GDP.

This was the situation when Britain went into recession in 2008 :

indeed ernie – its amazing how many folk swallow the propaganda.

deficit != debt

Ernie – periods of strong economic growth are usually used to bring deficits down (as was the case with Thatcher / Major).

What happened under Gordon Brown was that even in what were very “good” years with a boom, the debt actually increaced. And now that the boom has gone, we’ve got the debt, lower tax receipts and long term public spending commitments (including areas such as non funded pension schemes) that make it very difficult for the current government to do very much about it.

If you compare the UK to other major economies in the same period you’ll find that we were almost alone in increasing debt through the “boom” years.

What’s your point aracer ……..that the UK public finances weren’t healthy when compared to other simular economies ?

Ernie – periods of strong economic growth are usually used to bring deficits down (as was the case with Thatcher / Major).

So how come they couldn’t stop us from plunging into deficit in the early 1990s then ?

You do realise what a “recession” is don’t you ? You do realise that they create “deficits” don’t you ? You do realise that the world has just gone through the worst recession in about 70 years don’t you ?

What’s your point aracer

That it’s quite ridiculous to try and disprove a statement about deficit by posting data on debt. From most people on here I’d put it down as an innocent mistake, but you’re far too intelligent not to understand the difference.

here’s an alternative view of the deficit – what were the bankers up to during the “boom” period of 2002-2007 then that would explain the growth:

So how come during almost the entire period the Tories were in power, under both Thatcher and John Major, and they ran a deficit then ?

Is that a question from a GCSE economics paper? I’ve been hearing about these questions which are impossible to answer because of fundamental flaws in the question.

That it’s quite ridiculous to try and disprove a statement about deficit by posting data on debt.

Bollox is it. The deficit bears a direct relation to the public debt.

Here’s a look at how we stand in Europe on deficit rather than debt – it’s nice to know we’re not running the biggest deficit – those economic powerhouses Ireland and Greece are a bit worse than us.

Farmer john you failed to post up any evidence again to show that it was not the bankers wot done it. So is it third time lucky or should I just assume you have no evidence to support your claim and it is indeed BS

aracer it was clever of farmer john to use deficit and not debt but IME most folk dont realise the difference.
Debt is everything we owe d andefecit is what we owe this year or overspend on this year’s budget
We did have a higher defecit that Germany but lower debt hence why the farmer picked that as his stat rather than debt.
Either way it is fair to say the difference between our econmomy and germany’s is not just the defecit or debt. It is simplistic to isolate one factor and use that to explain the success of one over the other.
Your link aracer also points out that

Aside from the bald debt and deficit figures, the UK’s situation is strengthened by the fact that much British sovereign debt is long-term, which means the UK does not have to raise huge sums of money imminently

We can “afford” a larger defecit

Is that a question from a GCSE economics paper?

OK, unable to deal with the unpalatable truth that only once since the end of WW2 has there been no deficit under a Tory government – despite the fact that the Tories have been power most of that time, you’ve decided to resort to playing silly buggers.

…….I’ll think I’ll go and let my pigeons out…….I’ll love watching them fly up high in the sky 8)

EDIT : I’ve just seen your link aracer………couldn’t you find one which backs up Farmer_John claim that we went into the recession carrying the largest deficit of any country as a proportion of GDP then ? 😀

The deficit bears a direct relation to the public debt.

Yes – it’s the first derivative of it. Therefore to get any information on deficit you’d have to post two figures on debt from different years. Something which you didn’t do.

Suggesting that having a low debt on a single date proves anything about the level of our deficit is what’s bollox.

unable to deal with the unpalatable truth that only once since the end of WW2 has there been no deficit under a Tory government

Oh sorry – I missed the fact you were lying about that as well – 5 separate occasions according to the Guardian’s data.

you’ve decided to resort to playing silly buggers

Pointing out that you’re being “economical with the truth” silly buggers? How unfair of me to resort to that.

Suggesting that having a low debt on a single date proves anything about the level of our deficit is what’s bollox

it suggests the deficit is lower than the debt 😉
Both figures are important and to look at one alone is silly.
it also requires considerable air brushing of history to think the Tories are any better with defecits than labour. The tories were matching labour spending plans untill the recessions kicked in.

Suggesting that having a low debt on a single date proves anything about the level of our deficit is what’s bollox.

Hardly bollox. To suggest that low tax returns due to, amongst other things, direct politically motivated government policy, somehow suggests that the government spent excessively, is bollox. Well imo anyway. Really must get out and deal with my pigeons 🙂

EDIT : “I missed the fact you were lying about that as well” 😀

it suggests the deficit is lower than the debt

Even if that was a remotely important measure, it still wouldn’t do that.

To suggest that low tax returns due to, amongst other things, direct politically motivated government policy, somehow suggests that the government spent excessively, is bollox

Oh, so it was actually Labour’s taxation policy causing the problem?

Surely the other key issue on the the spending gap is what you’re spending it on!

If you’re investing your way out of recession – eg. using the money to build infrastructure like roads and railways and stimulating manufacturing, then its a hell of a difference from spending all that money keeping public sector workers pushing paper round in circles at £30k in regional offices to prevent them going on the jobless total (Child tax credits administration for example) – in which case you’re just pissing it up the wall.

how could the defecit by higher than the debt?
Oh there wil be some conuluted way wont there??
FFS the wink meant it was a light hearted comment 🙄