We made the banks seperate their retail operations from their investment operations which should in theory help minimise the risk of these things happening again, we also made it clear there would be no future bailouts

I think you'll find that move was championed by Vince Cable. Thanks to the Tories, it hasn't happened yet and won't for some time to come. Besides, what bumbling idiot allowed the High Street banks to indulge in high-risk investment operations in the first place?

I think you'll find that move was championed by Vince Cable. Thanks to the Tories, it hasn't happened yet and won't for some time to come. Besides, what bumbling idiot allowed the High Street banks to indulge in high-risk investment operations in the first place?

 

Responsible bankers are a great asset to this country, the demonisation of bankers in general as opposed to just Goodwin etc was awful to see.

 

I read a few weeks ago in The Spectator i think it was, that the 'Square Mile' if it was its own country, would be the 7th most powerful country in the world, amazing for such a small area of land, so responsible bankers do a lot of good for this country and generate phenomenal revenues for it

 

The banking system needs watching for abuses and those abuses rooted out sharply and ruthlessly but banking is vital to the UK

Responsible bankers are a great asset to this country, the demonisation of bankers in general as opposed to just Goodwin etc was awful to see.

 

I read a few weeks ago in The Spectator i think it was, that the 'Square Mile' if it was its own country, would be the 7th most powerful country in the world, amazing for such a small area of land, so responsible bankers do a lot of good for this country and generate phenomenal revenues for it

 

The banking system needs watching for abuses and those abuses rooted out sharply and ruthlessly but banking is vital to the UK

 

1) Where is the answer to my question? To repeat, who legislated to allow the likes of Goodwin to wreak havoc? You might also like to remind people of the name of the senior politician whose reaction to the collapse of the banking system was that the solution was LESS regulation.

 

2) Where did I suggest that we don't need banks?

 

3) The City would contribute a lot more to the UK if they paid taxes in the same way as the rest of the country.

 

1) Where is the answer to my question? To repeat, who legislated to allow the likes of Goodwin to wreak havoc? You might also like to remind people of the name of the senior politician whose reaction to the collapse of the banking system was that the solution was LESS regulation.

 

2) Where did I suggest that we don't need banks?

 

3) The City would contribute a lot more to the UK if they paid taxes in the same way as the rest of the country.

 

1) Labour had decades to outlaw banking practices and didn't, I don't know the answer but am guessing Maggie or Major but that is not an excuse, Blair and Brown had between 1997 and 2010 to legislate and didn't

 

2) You didn't but the word banker almost has a Godwin's Law mentality among the left, they throw banker/google/starbucks into every argument almost as a throwaway punchline

 

3) We are in a global market with Dubai, Frankfurt, New York and Singapore when it comes to banks, we have to encourage banks to trade here and not frighten them away, the City pays what it is legally expected to in tax

The city is more of a tax haven than the Cayman Islands could ever be. If we really get technical it's more of a crown dependency than actually part of the UK.

1) Labour had decades to outlaw banking practices and didn't, I don't know the answer but am guessing Maggie or Major but that is not an excuse, Blair and Brown had between 1997 and 2010 to legislate and didn't

 

2) You didn't but the word banker almost has a Godwin's Law mentality among the left, they throw banker/google/starbucks into every argument almost as a throwaway punchline

 

3) We are in a global market with Dubai, Frankfurt, New York and Singapore when it comes to banks, we have to encourage banks to trade here and not frighten them away, the City pays what it is legally expected to in tax

Or, in other words, nothing. Effectively the rest of us are subsidising the City in a very big way.

Or, in other words, nothing. Effectively the rest of us are subsidising the City in a very big way.

 

Bankers bonuses and salaries are taxed at the maximum rate

The city is more of a tax haven than the Cayman Islands could ever be. If we really get technical it's more of a crown dependency than actually part of the UK.

 

It is still legal though, until other countries crack down on loopholes there is no point us doing or companies will move to countries with less taxation

It is still legal though, until other countries crack down on loopholes there is no point us doing or companies will move to countries with less taxation

Which is exactly the same logic that caused the collapse of the banking system. Thatcher deregulated the banks so the Americans felt obliged to follow suit.

 

The UK are responsible for more tax havens than any other country. Unless we do something, why would any other country bother?

Craig, you do realise Brown selling the gold at a bad time cost the UK a total of just £3bn? Or in short, about as much as we potentially lost by the undervaluation of Royal Mail - or enough to fund two small councils in London. By comparison, the deficit under the Tories is currently £121bn. I've never understood why the selling of the gold has taken off as this supposed disastrous decision which reveals boundless economic incompetence when in practice it was just a bad decision which was a drop in the water in the grand scheme of things.

 

Oh, and also, stop cherrypicking polls. An outlier earlier this week showed the Tories a point behind. Pretty much all the others for the past couple of weeks have shown Labour 4-6 points ahead.

Craig, you do realise Brown selling the gold at a bad time cost the UK a total of just £3bn? Or in short, about as much as we potentially lost by the undervaluation of Royal Mail - or enough to fund two small councils in London. By comparison, the deficit under the Tories is currently £121bn. I've never understood why the selling of the gold has taken off as this supposed disastrous decision which reveals boundless economic incompetence when in practice it was just a bad decision which was a drop in the water in the grand scheme of things.

Selling gold at a bad time is easy to explain whereas most economic issues are a lot more complicated.

We still hear it on the doorstep over a decade later...it's just like, let it go!

The important thing for the nation right now, is the re election of a majority tory government in 2015, the alternative is too terrifying to imagine

 

Labour will just spend spend spend borrow borrow borrow and within 3 years we will be another Greece

 

I would rather the current government takes the risk on creating a mini boom if it ensures a majority in 2015, the future of the nation is at stake, so while there are risks involved in 95% loans it is a risk worth taking, home owners voted overwhelmingly tory in 2010 so more and more homeowners equals more and more votes for us.

 

If it all goes pear shaped the damage will be a lot less than the damage caused by labour turning a blind eye to the banks for years and selling off our gold for a fraction of its worth

 

House price boom, more and more new buyers who most likely will vote tory, plus hopefully pre election tax cuts should see us win comfortably in 2015, we are only 1% behind now according to You Gov

 

Errr the current gov is pretty much spend spend spending selling off much-needed Council-houses for next to nothing to buy votes. This policy is insane, regardless of political persuasion. It's a hit on council income (rent helps pay for the houses upkeep and recycles benefits paid out), it makes the housing waiting lists longer, and then councils are forced to pay extortionate rents to the private sector to house desperate people. Houses worth 145,000 are going for 40,000 thats a direct gift to an individual of 105000 and a direct loss of taxpayer assets to the same amount plus the additional annual costs. In what universe is that a sane responsible financial policy.....?

 

PS anyone who can afford to buy the council houses should be buying in the private sector to give that a much-needed boost. Not that I'm supporting Labour, their behaviour with the banking crisis lead-up was equally insane and predictable (supported wholeheartedly of course by the Tories). The voice of sanity was the much derided Vince Cable and political commentators in the press/media.

 

Just also add the reason we're in this godawful mess is greedy banks making lunatic loans and then packaging it up in crap and selling on to other nutcase banks. What seems a good idea when interest rates are zero, quickly turns into crisis when they inevitably go up. How quick? 2008? errr overnight?

 

 

I would rather the current government takes the risk on creating a mini boom if it ensures a majority in 2015, the future of the nation is at stake, so while there are risks involved in 95% loans it is a risk worth taking, home owners voted overwhelmingly tory in 2010 so more and more homeowners equals more and more votes for us.

 

That echoes what Osbourne said in cabinet: "Hopefully we will get a little housing boom and everyone will be happy as property values go up". That from the same man that apparently told us that Help To Buy "wouldn't cause a boom", and that if things got out of control the Bank of England would intervene. Total lies! Irresponsible, and desperate politics from a government that is getting more and more worried about a disappointingly weak and fragile recovery.

Which is exactly the same logic that caused the collapse of the banking system. Thatcher deregulated the banks so the Americans felt obliged to follow suit.

 

The UK are responsible for more tax havens than any other country. Unless we do something, why would any other country bother?

 

Say for a second we take the moral high ground and close tax loopholes do you think the CEO of Goldman Sachs for example is going to just sit there and say 'oh well, shit happens'? not a hope in hell, he would do what any businessman in his position would do and move the European operations to another country, with thousands of job losses, then the other bank CEO's would do the same

 

I am all in favour of loopholes being closed but only on a global basis collectively so that we don't get screwed over

Craig, you do realise Brown selling the gold at a bad time cost the UK a total of just £3bn? Or in short, about as much as we potentially lost by the undervaluation of Royal Mail - or enough to fund two small councils in London. By comparison, the deficit under the Tories is currently £121bn. I've never understood why the selling of the gold has taken off as this supposed disastrous decision which reveals boundless economic incompetence when in practice it was just a bad decision which was a drop in the water in the grand scheme of things.

 

Oh, and also, stop cherrypicking polls. An outlier earlier this week showed the Tories a point behind. Pretty much all the others for the past couple of weeks have shown Labour 4-6 points ahead.

 

I don't believe that the Royal Mail was undervalued, sure there was a surge on the first day but that is typical of a heavily hyped share floatation, things will level off

That echoes what Osbourne said in cabinet: "Hopefully we will get a little housing boom and everyone will be happy as property values go up". That from the same man that apparently told us that Help To Buy "wouldn't cause a boom", and that if things got out of control the Bank of England would intervene. Total lies! Irresponsible, and desperate politics from a government that is getting more and more worried about a disappointingly weak and fragile recovery.

 

How is it a weak and fragile recovery when we are growing faster GDP wise than our European and international rivals?

 

We are recovering from a low base yes but we are recovering fast and in a sustained way, every economic indicator from job creation to manufacturing to car sales to retail sales to web sales to exports to house price rises are in positive territory

Errr the current gov is pretty much spend spend spending selling off much-needed Council-houses for next to nothing to buy votes. This policy is insane, regardless of political persuasion. It's a hit on council income (rent helps pay for the houses upkeep and recycles benefits paid out), it makes the housing waiting lists longer, and then councils are forced to pay extortionate rents to the private sector to house desperate people. Houses worth 145,000 are going for 40,000 thats a direct gift to an individual of 105000 and a direct loss of taxpayer assets to the same amount plus the additional annual costs. In what universe is that a sane responsible financial policy.....?

 

PS anyone who can afford to buy the council houses should be buying in the private sector to give that a much-needed boost. Not that I'm supporting Labour, their behaviour with the banking crisis lead-up was equally insane and predictable (supported wholeheartedly of course by the Tories). The voice of sanity was the much derided Vince Cable and political commentators in the press/media.

 

Just also add the reason we're in this godawful mess is greedy banks making lunatic loans and then packaging it up in crap and selling on to other nutcase banks. What seems a good idea when interest rates are zero, quickly turns into crisis when they inevitably go up. How quick? 2008? errr overnight?

 

People being able to buy their own council house was massively popular with voters under Maggie and was a huge reason why she won 3 elections, the mistake she made was not allowing councils to use the money for new builds but giving people from poor backgrounds the chance to get their foot on the housing ladder was one of her best policies

People being able to buy their own council house was massively popular with voters under Maggie and was a huge reason why she won 3 elections, the mistake she made was not allowing councils to use the money for new builds but giving people from poor backgrounds the chance to get their foot on the housing ladder was one of her best policies

 

I cant afford a house but I dont live in a council house. where's my free one hundred grand then? Its not one of her best policies at all, the end product has been massive social costs, as I explained in detail it's increased the benefits bills and continues to do so. It's buying votes, no more nor less to the detriment of society at large, and massive financial gain of individuals (usually the kids who inherit a tax-payer financed windfall after their parents pass on).

 

I thought Tories were against paying benefits...? yet support policies which increase it. Bizarre.

I cant afford a house but I dont live in a council house. where's my free one hundred grand then? Its not one of her best policies at all, the end product has been massive social costs, as I explained in detail it's increased the benefits bills and continues to do so. It's buying votes, no more nor less to the detriment of society at large, and massive financial gain of individuals (usually the kids who inherit a tax-payer financed windfall after their parents pass on).

 

I thought Tories were against paying benefits...? yet support policies which increase it. Bizarre.

 

Aspiration and social mobility are important things

 

Take the typical council house owner over the years, probably a lorry driver or a car plant worker or a bricklayer, previously they would have had no hope of owning their own home so life was devoid of aspiration, they work hard, retire, die, nothing to show for it, but being able to buy their own council house helped aspiration, their kids then take it over, kids that again would have been trapped in council accommodation with no hope of ever owning their own home, instead they can climb the housing ladder

 

Most people in life want to own their own home, have a good job, have a couple of kids and a dog and budgie, why should an entire sector of the population be deprived of that opportunity?

 

Maggie set a whole section of the working class free

Edited October 18, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri