I was opposed to it too, it was pointless, waste of time, did nothing

 

2.5% cut in VAT meant someone saving £25 off a £1000 plasma tv, if someone has £1000 to spend on a tv then £25 off the asking price isn't going to be a deal breaker.

 

What we should have done is what the Australians did and give cash to everyone (think it was about £250 each) to spend in the High St's to keep the retail market strong, thanks to that Australia wethered the storm recession wise, we should have done that here instead of a pointless gimmick like a VAT cut.

 

I was opposed to the stimulus because it was the wrong type.

 

All the evidence points to the VAT cut working extremely well - High St sales during the time it was in place (particularly at Xmas in both 2008 and 2009) were much higher than one would expect when the economy is in serious trouble - which consequently gave the private sector a much-needed boost.

 

That wasn't the only help the government gave anyway... they also provided hands-on help to businesses, saving many jobs, including at my town's Vauxhall plant which employs 20% of the town, which looked set to go under before the govt stepped in - and I have no doubt the Tories would've simply let it sunk.

All the evidence points to the VAT cut working extremely well - High St sales during the time it was in place (particularly at Xmas in both 2008 and 2009) were much higher than one would expect when the economy is in serious trouble - which consequently gave the private sector a much-needed boost.

 

That wasn't the only help the government gave anyway... they also provided hands-on help to businesses, saving many jobs, including at my town's Vauxhall plant which employs 20% of the town, which looked set to go under before the govt stepped in - and I have no doubt the Tories would've simply let it sunk.

 

Xmas 2008 and 2009 were due to severe discounting by retailers having a price war before xmas, many of the big chains started their sales in December as opposed to after xmas/jan, I think the VAT cut had little effect really, more retail price wars did.

 

Yeah VAT was working out at 2.5% saving but retailers were slashing prices by 10 times that to try get business.

Sadly you live in cloud cuckoo land. Labour would never have given you a job, there austerity plans would of been just as severe just with different timing. Politicians gave there power away to the economic markets, that is not something that can be reversed by short term politicial means from any politican party.

 

Firstly, the "different timing" would've been essential, because the economy would've been better able to withstand swingeing cuts when a recovery was in full flight rather than now when its recovery is stuttering. But anyway, you're wrong that their cuts would've been just as severe - aat the election, Labour pledged to halve the deficit to £80bn (which would've been a perfectly manageable, reasonable level), and planned a 66:34 split between cuts and tax increases, as opposed to the 80:20 split the Tories are doing. And in the Labour leadership campaign, most candidates are regretting even saying 66% of the reduction will come from cuts - if Ed M wins, it seems they'll pledge to halve the deficit with a 50:50 cuts-taxes ratio, which will mean Labour will pledge £40bn cuts versus the Coalition's planned £120bn cuts. The former would have a very real impact on employment, to be sure, but nowhere near as severe as the Coalition's plans will.

And those who have more than £50K in there...? And it's not an instant process, they have to check the accounts and everything - in the meanwhile the whole country's started rioting.

Those with more then 50K - those people would lose anything over 50K. You complain about the rich, it would of hit some of them. Instead the process is a bind to all, hitting of course the poor the worse.

Transfer of accounts would be been almost instant. 2 weeks max and really at the speed new accounts can be opened. Open a new account and have it verified from the previous banks computer system. You do realise we live in an online world now? Account information is shared for fraud/security reasons.

Those with more then 50K - those people would lose anything over 50K. You complain about the rich, it would of hit some of them. Instead the process is a bind to all, hitting of course the poor the worse.

Transfer of accounts would be been almost instant. 2 weeks max and really at the speed new accounts can be opened. Open a new account and have it verified from the previous banks computer system. You do realise we live in an online world now? Account information is shared for fraud/security reasons.

 

Again, you don't seem to remember how severe the crisis was. At its height, in Sept/Oct 2008, the government needed to respond to fast-moving events within HOURS - two weeks would've been way, way too long.

Those with more then 50K - those people would lose anything over 50K. You complain about the rich, it would of hit some of them. Instead the process is a bind to all, hitting of course the poor the worse.

Transfer of accounts would be been almost instant. 2 weeks max and really at the speed new accounts can be opened. Open a new account and have it verified from the previous banks computer system. You do realise we live in an online world now? Account information is shared for fraud/security reasons.

 

So you think it would be ok for people who have worked hard and saved hard all their lives to lose everything over 50k ? pensioners who saved for retirement, business owners who worked 14 hr days, people who have just sold their house and are in the process of buying another one, and what about business account holders ? most business accounts would have more than 50k in, you are talking with someone like the RBS of probably a million businesses losing everyhing over 50k, thats millions thrown out of work, utter madness.

 

You are one of the most sensible people on this forum usually but I do wonder if you gave Crazy Chris your password after a few drinks -_-

Again, you don't seem to remember how severe the crisis was. At its height, in Sept/Oct 2008, the government needed to respond to fast-moving events within HOURS - two weeks would've been way, way too long.

The irony or quoting months timeframe for something taking hours! There is some truth in your view of hours, but hours was the time to make the decision. With 2 weeks we are talking about settnig up new accounts. A lot of those accounts aren't a rush and I giving two weeks as a timeframe when all the new account setup mayhem would be over. Of course you'd prefer the route with economic mayhem to go on for years.

Those with more then 50K - those people would lose anything over 50K. You complain about the rich, it would of hit some of them. Instead the process is a bind to all, hitting of course the poor the worse.

Transfer of accounts would be been almost instant. 2 weeks max and really at the speed new accounts can be opened. Open a new account and have it verified from the previous banks computer system. You do realise we live in an online world now? Account information is shared for fraud/security reasons.

I complain about the rich who are rich because they exploit the poor. I don't complain about the rich for being rich :/ The very idea that anyone with over £50,000 in an account ought to lose out just because is ridiculous.

 

We saw what happen when Lehmans collapsed - a huge loss of money from the money supply, hence why quantitative easing had to be practiced. Allowing a bank with thousands of customers who have more than £50,000 in their accounts to go bust would be utter madness and have wrecked the economy further.

So you think it would be ok for people who have worked hard and saved hard all their lives to lose everything over 50k ? pensioners who saved for retirement, business owners who worked 14 hr days, people who have just sold their house and are in the process of buying another one, and what about business account holders ? most business accounts would have more than 50k in, you are talking with someone like the RBS of probably a million businesses losing everyhing over 50k, thats millions thrown out of work, utter madness.

 

You are one of the most sensible people on this forum usually but I do wonder if you gave Crazy Chris your password after a few drinks -_-

Sure. You know the risk. Buyer beware as you said yesterday. No one prudently investing would put more then the limit in an individual bank. And why penalise those that took risk adversion? Those who take steps to move money out. And what about those that have insurance cover?

I guess you believe if someones house burns down and it's not insured the government should pay out anyway? - Just because they have worked hard or are retired? Well the fact is often pensions collapse and no one steps in.

You know the government could of even paided out the full amount in every account to every bank and still paided out significantly less then they did by bailing out the banks! The difference being the gambled leverage money (upto 50 times in some case) that they didn't have - but lost anyway.

Sure. You know the risk. Buyer beware as you said yesterday. No one prudently investing would put more then the limit in an individual bank. And why penalise those that took risk adversion? Those who take steps to move money out. And what about those that have insurance cover?

I guess you believe if someones house burns down and it's not insured the government should pay out anyway? - Just because they have worked hard or are retired? Well the fact is often pensions collapse and no one steps in.

You know the government could of even paided out the full amount in every account to every bank and still paided out significantly less then they did by bailing out the banks! The difference being the gambled leverage money (upto 50 times in some case) that they didn't have - but lost anyway.

 

It is not just the one bank though Ricky

 

Suppose people get wind that RBS is closing down, this would lead to chaos and panic at EVERY bank across the land as 50m people descend onto the banks demanding to withdraw their money, this would lead to chaos in the banking system, riots, civil disorder, thousands dead in stampedes and the collapse of other banks too, the idea that people will think "aah its only RBS my money in Lloyds is safe" and sit calmly infront of their tv, won't happen mate

 

Letting RBS die would kill other banks too

 

Not to mention the stock market collapse that would come with the collapse of a major bank, not to mention the run on the pound, we would become a near banana republic.

It is not just the one bank though Ricky

 

Suppose people get wind that RBS is closing down, this would lead to chaos and panic at EVERY bank across the land as 50m people descend onto the banks demanding to withdraw their money, this would lead to chaos in the banking system, riots, civil disorder, thousands dead in stampedes and the collapse of other banks too, the idea that people will think "aah its only RBS my money in Lloyds is safe" and sit calmly infront of their tv, won't happen mate

 

Letting RBS die would kill other banks too

 

Not to mention the stock market collapse that would come with the collapse of a major bank, not to mention the run on the pound, we would become a near banana republic.

Not sure about thousands dead although there probably would have been some. Other than that, I agree.

I am guessing from your posting style that you are 13-14, while I welcome the fact that someone so young is taking an interest in politics I do think that posting a thread with 3 day old news that has long since been dismissed is sloppy and careless in the sense that you did not check the news sites to see if that article was still fresh, likewise you made a glib statement about the election without having done any research.

 

While your contributions are of course welcome you do need to do your research to avoid looking stupid in future

DON'T YOU DARE TALK TO ME LIKE THAT AGAIN PAL!!

It is not just the one bank though Ricky

 

Suppose people get wind that RBS is closing down, this would lead to chaos and panic at EVERY bank across the land as 50m people descend onto the banks demanding to withdraw their money, this would lead to chaos in the banking system, riots, civil disorder, thousands dead in stampedes and the collapse of other banks too, the idea that people will think "aah its only RBS my money in Lloyds is safe" and sit calmly infront of their tv, won't happen mate

 

Letting RBS die would kill other banks too

 

Not to mention the stock market collapse that would come with the collapse of a major bank, not to mention the run on the pound, we would become a near banana republic.

You seem to have forgotten the same had happened with Northern RocK just months before. So let's not exaggerate, there would of been some panicking(there was anyway) but nothing that the British are not used to already.

The idea there would be a run on the pound is completely false. The pound would of gone up greatly partly because the country would have much less debt then it now has but also becuase at the time other western countries got in a greater mess by bailing out there banks - as it was, the pound fell in value against the Euro especially for a while, and still not recovered yet.

DON'T YOU DARE TALK TO ME LIKE THAT AGAIN PAL!!

Look, that's just his way. Don't let it put you off. He - and others - have driven far too many people away by their aggressive manner.

You seem to have forgotten the same had happened with Northern RocK just months before. So let's not exaggerate, there would of been some panicking(there was anyway) but nothing that the British are not used to already.

The idea there would be a run on the pound is completely false. The pound would of gone up greatly partly because the country would have much less debt then it now has but also becuase at the time other western countries got in a greater mess by bailing out there banks - as it was, the pound fell in value against the Euro especially for a while, and still not recovered yet.

RBS was much bigger than Northern Rock and had far more business customers and far more big shareholders. A lot of NR shareholders were former Building Society members who hadn't paid for their shares so could be said not to have lost money on them.

DON'T YOU DARE TALK TO ME LIKE THAT AGAIN PAL!!

 

 

I already like Trashcan Man. Seems a great outspoken new member.

Of course they could and they should of. Banks go bust in other countries in the world. It's nothing major in fact. The accounts are guaranteed by the government to the value of around £50K, so the government just has to pay out a bit of money to those who's bank went bust. Other banks would of taken on the accounts and it would of rolled on nicely. It would of been far cheaper and any mess would of been cleaned up in a matter of months.

 

 

Yeah, you're thinking of Investment banks, like BCCI or Barings who play the markets and dont have a high street presence in that sense... And, yes, I agree, it's absolutely correct that these should go to the wall, because their investors know what they're getting into and know the risks because those people are very consciously involved in playing the markets.... The millions of ordinary people who have mortgages, savings accounts and have their wages paid into the likes of RBS and Northern Rock by and large had no fukkin' idea what the likes of Goodwin and Applegarth were getting up to, or how fast and loose they were playing with other people's money, they certainly didn't think to consult any of their savings account holders that's for sure.... What needs to be done is for High Street banking to be separated from Investment banking, breaking up the banks in this manner should have been another pre-condition of the bail-out to ensure that it wouldn't happen ever again.... Who cares if an investment or Corporate bank goes under? I dont, because it doesn't affect the ordinary person on the street, only those who KNOW what they're getting into....

 

 

DON'T YOU DARE TALK TO ME LIKE THAT AGAIN PAL!!

 

I admire your enthusiasm, but, as loathe as I am to give Craig The Tory any credit, he does kinda have a point insofar as you didn't really research the milk-snatcher article too well (otherwise you would've picked up on the fact that as soon as it was suggested, Cameron stamped on it, but of course that could be another dimension to the whole affair - WHY did he stamp on this one so hard but is allowing other, potentially more damaging cuts to go through unchallenged?)..... Thing with Perspectives is, that we do expect people to really know their stuff and be pretty up on the current affairs and news, otherwise the flaws in arguments will get picked at, this is just a friendly bit of advice, do a bit of research and be sure in your arguments and people like Craig (and myself :lol: ) will find it difficult to pick holes in things....

 

Otherwise, it's good to have a potentially good new contributor to the Forum, keep it up....

 

The government couldn't possibly allow a major High Street bank go to the wall. Can you imagine what would have happened if people had gone to the cash machine on that Monday morning only to receive the message "Sorry, we've got no money"? I agree that the conditions should have been tougher but it really came down to brinksmanship. A deal had to be done and both sides held out for the best deal they could get.

 

That said, a windfall tax on the huge profits announced last week and further taxes on bonuses would be perfectly fair. The government should be looking to get as much of their/our money back as possible.

Exactly! The two biggest banks in Scotland, hell, probably the entire country were nearly declared bankrupt overnight. First RBS [Which lets not forget owns approximately a trillion other banks :lol: many of which like Nat West are UK based] then Halifax Bank of Scotland. Up here you bank with either of those or Llyods TSB primarily. The rest have a smaller market share.

 

Letting the pair of them go to the wall would have literally destroyed the Scottish economy. After that, no amount of Stimulus would have gotten us to the position we are currently in. If they hadn't saved them the country would be ruined and it would have made Salmonds day, they would have handed him all he needed to win a referendum and gain independence for Scotland.

 

I was opposed to it too, it was pointless, waste of time, did nothing

 

2.5% cut in VAT meant someone saving £25 off a £1000 plasma tv, if someone has £1000 to spend on a tv then £25 off the asking price isn't going to be a deal breaker.

 

What we should have done is what the Australians did and give cash to everyone (think it was about £250 each) to spend in the High St's to keep the retail market strong, thanks to that Australia wethered the storm recession wise, we should have done that here instead of a pointless gimmick like a VAT cut.

 

I was opposed to the stimulus because it was the wrong type.

It was $900 per tax payer. which at the time worked out at £450.

 

I am with you on the VAT cut however, i think K Rudd's $900 cheques were more effective than a penny off a tin of Beans.

 

 

The Labor government in Canberra didn't just give out $900 cheques they spent Billions of Dollars building schools and hospitals and propping up the Australian economy during the worst part of the recession. As a result they didnt enter recession, but their press [no doubt Murdoch] have lead a public revolt against the sheer amount of money they spent doing just that. Gillard pushed Rudd out, but thankfully hasn't shown signs of doing a Cameron.

 

Gillard pushed Rudd out, but thankfully hasn't shown signs of doing a Cameron.

How could she have done? :lol: She's been too busy fighting for re-election ever since she got put in to actually do anything in government :P