Has to be said
Cable, unbound and let loose on UK Banking industry.
George Osborne arrived at 11 Downing St today with little more than Vince Cable and stack of good wishes from business lobbyists to help him grapple with the UK’s enormous economic problems. Osborne was quickly confirmed as Chancellor once David Cameron visited Buckingham Palace yesterday to kiss hands with the Queen in the …
There is no way you can blame a WORLDWIDE financial meltdown on the UK government.
True they failed to keep a tight enough reign on the greedy bankers, but then so did pretty much every other western government. If there had been a unilateral tightening of banking in the UK the sector would have just relocated to a country where it is easier for them to carry on doing what they want. Then the UK would have been a big loser in the boom times without the massive income that banking produces.
Nothing was ever going to change until a worldwide recession made it completely clear to everyone how unsustainable the growth was in banking. Only that could be a driving force for all governments to tighten up at the same time. But even now it looks like it may still get back to business as usual for the banks as the western governments shy away from tougher bank regulation, which will undoubtedly include our new all singing and dancing Tory +1 government.
We can certainly blame FuLab and especially Gordon for depth of shit the 'worldwide' problems left the UK in. Gordon "put and end to the Tory years of boom and bust", yes, he replaced it with a long boom sustained by government spending of taxes on money which didn't really exist which precipitated our worst bust in living memory.
You can't just blame bankers, yes they were incompetent and facilitated the assets bubble but with Gordon's blessing.
Worldwide banking crisis causes uk to borrow astonishing amounts of cash to bail out the banks. Gordon Brown told us time and time again he had abolished boom and bust. Maybe he did. But he didnt leave any money in the bank just in case did he. If he had, we wouldnt have such massive borrowings.
He ran up an enormous public spending deficit even before the banking crisis. Spending money the country didnt have so that he could keep banging on about year on year real terms increases in funding to the NHS, education, the armed forces, etc etc etc.
Face it. Gordon Brown made a massive mess and now someone else has to come in and look like the bad guy while they put everything right again.
Its just like if i ran up massive debts, and then got shirty with my bank for taking away my house, its contents, and my car, when i couldnt afford to pay them back. Wasnt my fault i lost my house... its the banks fault for taking all my stuff.
The crisis was caused by not regulating the mortgage sector properly. If you trace through the roots of the problems, it is fundamentally caused by a few decisions in a few countries. The most noticeable is the political interference in Fannie/Freddie by Clinton and then Bush that forced them to underwrite loans to the super-poor who couldn't pay them back. The next most noticeable is a failure to regulate mortgages in the UK where we had crazy 125% mortgages (and 10% house inflation with 4% interest rates). The reason Gordon Clown didn't regulate them was that the equity being released by the rampant uncontrolled house price inflation and easy access to credit was used to buy our way through a 2002 recession in a very Keynesian way. Unfortunately, that meant the bubble was so much bigger when it finally started to burst. The slightly scary thing is that in trying to buy our way through the second recession in a Keynesian way, we have set ourselves up for a 3rd and much more disastrous recession.
The blame for this crisis lies first with Government. The bankers exploited the poor regulation, but governments didn't intervene for very personal reasons.
"Can I just say Thank you all once again for underwriting my mortgage."
Actually, there are lots of people in that situation.
We have had 10 - 15 years of people getting "rich" because they can mortgage the hell out of their property. Rightly or wrongly this money has been so beneficial to UK Plc there was only limited complaining. Almost every one I know took advantage of being able to get 100+% mortages to buy very nice houses, which in turn, allowed the previous owner / builders to get more money. For at least a decade everyone was happy with this merry go round.
Its only when the pyramid scheme collapsed that people started to get upset. We (rightly IMHO) demand more regulation for the bankers because we also admit that the "average" person cant be trusted not to over reach.
Are we all happy that the idea of everyone being able to own their own home is nonsense *or* the average house price will have to be about 3 times the average wage. I think there are lots of people who are going to be upset at the thought of their £300k house actually only being worth £100k from now on. No amount of government cuts will change this and, if anything, it means more needs to be spent on social housing.
The reality is someone on a good wage of £25k a year is going to struggle to get more than £85k in mortgage (this is a good thing to some people) and is unlikely to have more than £15k for a deposit.
Welcome to the new world order.
>>> There is no way you can blame a WORLDWIDE financial meltdown on the UK government.
Bollocks! The meltdown was caused by absurd trading in toxic mortgages that were worthless. The worst offenders were the US and UK financial institutions who got away with dodgy dealing because of non-existent or toothless regulation. That WAS the government's fault. No banks or insurance companies in Germany, Australia, Japan, Spain, etc - even Greece FFS! - went bust or had to be nationalised. That was because they were properly regulated.
"There is no way you can blame a WORLDWIDE financial meltdown on the UK government."
I agree, despite the hype of some segments of the media we were pretty much shafted to the same extend as other countries. The main problems the UK had was down to a total lack of any real industry (and I am fairly sure we got rid of all that a good few years before Herr Braun took over).
"True they failed to keep a tight enough reign on the greedy bankers, but then so did pretty much every other western government. If there had been a unilateral tightening of banking in the UK the sector would have just relocated to a country where it is easier for them to carry on doing what they want."
Again, I totally agree. Every time any attempt to reign in the bankers has been made, they threaten to re-locate and the Government backs down. The hint of stronger regulation is always met with "it will drive business away" so it never happens.
The end result is that greed is human and the inevitable happens.
Will this change under the BlairLite ConDem Government? Probably not.
The financial situation in the UK will rise or fall depending on the global issue, nothing the Government will do will have any real impact.
Yup, I'm forcibly reminded of that picture taken in the House at the first budget with Brown as PM. Alistair Darling looking like someone had just shoved a pineapple up his arse sitting next to Brown who was obviously enjoying a joke.
I mentally captioned it: "What's so funny?". "Ah, I was just thinking it could have been worse. Last year this would have been my fault.".
Slithering off to leave someone else in the firing line just as the true scale of his cockup becomes apparent? Typical indeed.
No ID from the Tories? I don't beleive it!
No way these control freaks will resist the chance of trying to pin everyone down.
Wait until they get busy with immigration and benefits and the 'need to prove entitlement'.
It may not be called an ID card but I wouldn't trust Osborne as far as I could throw his entrails.
They've put Hague in as Foreign Secretary and he hates foriegners.
There is also only one way to do the huge reductions in spending on people in government offices, civil servants and paper shifters and that's to centalise in the guise of greater local autonomy where locals appear to have more power but it's all controlled centrally with a tighter grip than of now. There are already calls for less police spending and those coppers that are left won't have time to ask people to assist with enquiries, they will just demand the person's Proof of Entitlement card.
So, once you hear of the usual bunch of fucking vultures (reg staff excepted) known as ' IT consultants' being appointed then some form of ID card is imminent - once they've spent billions on two or three systems that don't even get as far as public trials.
"Would you rather your rich bosses sacked you to save money?
A 1% personal NI hike is trivial."
So for a person finding 1% extra to pay in NI is trivial but its financially crippling for a business? Interesting. Doubly interesting in a business that pays its executives ~45% in bonuses each year......
Imagine a friend would lend you money at 0.5% and then borrow it back from you at 4% on an ongoing basis.
This is how the current Gilt market works, the banks borrow from the Bank of England at 0.5% and then lend it to the Government at 4%. The banks then take this Gilt and use it as collateral to borrow more money at 0.5% from the Bank of England.
Gilts are sold to public investors at, say, 4% over whatever number of years, as far as i understand it. You buy £100k in gilts and earn a 4% return on your investment and its deemed to be a pretty safe investment since (unless you're greek) your government doesnt go bust very often.
Gilts are just a way to generate income in the short term.
Thats how my understanding goes anyway. Not that we've covered it in much detail in my studies so far.
"...the effective repeal of Labour’s planned NI rise...but the NI rise for employees will stay. Employers will escape the rise."
So he kept his word - no tax on jobs...just a tax on being employed.
Oh well I'm sure my employer will use part of the saving to give me a pay rise this year so my net income doesn't drop even further. Oh look, pigs! Up in the sky!
You'll have your tax free allowance boosted from 6500ish to 10000ish over the next couple of years. That would make a difference of about £60 per month. Your 1% national insurance hike isnt going to cost you that, so you still win.
Had the lib dems not pushed through this part of the deal you'd be worse off with the conservatives plan to hike the ni for people but not companies, but as it stands you should be better off.
Nah, they have to claw money back from somewhere and V.A.T. is going to go up.
There may even be an attempt to out do Maggie T by bunging V.A.T. on more essentials like stuff for kids.
Expect them to bung more tax on the usual drugs - Baccy, Petrol and Booze.
They will be bringing in laws to make it easier to gamble (the fourth drug) and say it's not thier fault.
I also expect those left in government office to get pat rises due to the increased workload (well, those already earning far too much).
Who was suprised? The minute we got the quote from the lib dems that the tories had the only deal in town then the resignation was on the cards and only hours away. It was simply a case of jumping before a signed agreement between the tories and whigs would have pushed him. The guy was just trying to retain a little dignity, love him or loathe him you can't blame him for doing that.
I presumed that he chose to resign when he did because it was clearly on the cards that come this morning the coalition agreement would have been signed and sealed.
The thing which amuses me most is that Labour and the Tories seem to favour electoral reform in the form of a variation on single transferable vote. Amusing because this was the system the British imposed on Ireland in order to ensure that there would be no overall majority and leave them with a weak a devisive parliament.
Personally I think that "strong and stable" government is a bad thing. A party with an overall majority can pass radical legislation (ID cards anybody?) effectively unopposed by imposing a three line whip. Where there is no clear overall majority then we will get a more open and honest debate. Radical legislation will not be passed, but do we really want radical legislation or sensible, considered management of the country?
The best thing you could do with our parliamentary system is to ban parties from forcing their members to vote in a certain way. You may have voted for an individual member of parliament, but the party leaders will tell him how to vote on particular issues. Worse still members can change allegiance from one party to another, so even if you voted for the party rather than the individual member you can end up with something you didn't vote for. Why this should be allowed without it's automatically forcing a by election I don't know. It's once change to legislation I would definitely be in favour of.
...was looking forward to scenes of the opposite actually. Irate Cameron and Clegg trying to kick the door down while Brown chucks some dishwater from the window above the door, then the door gives way, all three disappear into the house, Brown's dragged quite literally kicking and screaming from No.10 and the rest would probably resemble the ending of The Flintstones credits.
Doesnt the existing prime minister have to resign his position even if the other party wins an overall majority? I'm pretty sure they do.
There was no saving face or jumping before pushed. Everyone knew the conservatives and liberal democrates were on the verge of announcing a deal - he was probably informed before closed doors before anyone else, so he could then get round to see the queen a.s.a.p so there was still time for cameron to get round there to confirm he is in a position to form a government the same night without keeping the old dear up past her bed time.
I'm glad Mandy doesn't have any power over the country any more also.
He makes Michael "Something Of The Night" Howard look like a fucking Care Bear in terms of 'people you instinctively know, on a subconscious level, that are just plain wrong'.
My only fear is that I'm not 100% sure if he's eligible to run for Labour leader, and when LibCon get booted for cutting spending (I'd like to give the voting population more credit, but I can't...) then he might end up as PM...a thought to put a rictus on the face, and a stain in the pants, of anyone with an IQ greater than twenty six.
I managed to find an archive of www.mylifemyid.org and a copy of a personal comment to Jaqui (boots) Smith. :-
Re: A word from the Home Secretary
Submitted by myluck on Wed, 09/07/2008 - 21:27.
Please face it, labour don't have a snowball in hell's chance of winning the next election. The tories will scrap the ID card scheme (in part the reason why you don't have a snowball in hell's chance).
If you had any decency or care for this country you would scrap or at least put on hold this hugely expensive pointless and doomed scheme.
Anyone have an email address for Jaqui? I would love to send her a reminder......
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021