The Conservative Party

[Rascal]

Labour might get lucky again with the economic cycle as they did in 1997, and rates may fall a bit over the next 18 months, but debt servicing costs are going to be a major constraint on what the next government can do with regard to spending. In fact I think it could cause a lot of internal strife for a Labour government and Starmer could have a very brief honeymoon period, as fiscal policy isn’t going to turn around anywhere near as much as some people may hope.

Government debt was 89.6% of GDP at the end of May 2023;

In 1945 Government debt was 256% of GDP yet the Atlee Government created the NHS, built 800,000 new homes, created the welfare state, nationalised the Coal, steel, aviation, railways, electricity, gas and telecommunications industries. The post WW2 consensus was so successful,the Tories could not oppose it, Macmillan in 1957 said "we have never had it so good" union power was at its zenith and in 1963 Harold Wilson made his famous "white heat of technology speech" that led to the likes of Concorde.

It was the OPEC crisis of the early 70s and Edward Heaths disastrous incomes policy that paved the way for what is now nearly 5 decades of Neo-Liberal stupidity. I recall being around 15 and attending an event where Thatchers favourite economist Patrick Minford spoke, he sent chills down my spine even back then. What we have seen since 1979 is a continual redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich and now people are becoming aware of what is actually happening the Tories desperate to keep the cycle of redistribution going have reverted to culture war nonsense.

The biggest con trick of all time, is that people with wealth have convinced people without wealth to vote for people with wealth. As long as that continues then income inequality will continue to grow expotentially. It is class war raged by the holders of capital to those who only have their labour, hence the concerted attacks on unions. It is a simple fact that the economies of the UK and the USA grew at their highest rate when union power was at its peak. Workers being renumerated properly for a fair days work is a bar to massive profit for the Capitalist class and they will do everything in their power to keep profits at their highest and fuck you and me.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I haven’t the balls to do it but, is it time for an English Political Thread?
After all there is an Irish one which seems to encompass all NI issues, Nationalism/Unionism? Which is which nowadays?
There is a Scottish one which amongst other things, covers Scottish Nationalism.

What about English Nationalism?
I placed a couple of articles by Fintan O’Toole and Bridget Laffan in the Brexit thread which have been widely ignored.

I didn’t know where to place this from February 2023, so I’ll do it here?

Even if you haven’t time for the full interview listen to the last 5 minutes which I think offers an objective outside view of English Nationalism.

But what do I know, being Irish?

 

[Brewster's millions]

Might have helped if the Tory Govt hadn't lied and shovelled our money to their mates shoving debt and borrowing up (also not helped by the Chancellor writing £billions of fraud off) - examples i will give you are they accepted unusable PPE off Baroness Mone who creamed £100m+ off the contracts and so far the serious farce office have been investigating for well over a year with no signs of progress or £37bn to Dido Hardon to run a trace track and test system that never worked - nobody can show worked or how it worked nor where the money actually went. (by comparison Irelands system cost 800m euro a year ) - we are in the shite thanks to govt mis-management of a crisis

I don’t agree with writing off so much money for fraud, and in fact I think every penny raised in tax should be accounted for properly.

But you could also argue that QE may not have been required in the first place had the last Labour government regulated the finance sector properly, and not been too cosy with the likes of Fred Goodwin, who was at Chequers every other weekend having smoke blown up his arse by Gordon Brown.

The die is cast now though, and like I said unless something dramatic happens with rates, the next government will be heavily constrained on spending, particularly if Labour maintains the role of the OBR. All imponderables at this stage but personally I think Starmer will do very well to hold it all together given the constants he’ll have to work within.

 

[threespires]

I haven’t the balls to do it but, is it time for an English Political Thread?
After all there is an Irish one which seems to encompass all NI issues, Nationalism/Unionism? Which is which nowadays?
There is a Scottish one which amongst other things, covers Scottish Nationalism.

What about English Nationalism?
I placed a couple of articles by Fintan O’Toole and Bridget Laffan in the Brexit thread which have been widely ignored.

I didn’t know where to place this from February 2023, so I’ll do it here?

Even if you haven’t time for the full interview listen to the last 5 minutes which I think offers an objective outside view of English Nationalism.

But what do I know, being Irish?

I've only listened to the last five minutes, I will listen to the rest as that last few minutes pretty much nails it and is at the heart of many of our issues. If you can only articulate who and what you are not rather than what/who you are or aspire to be (in a meaningful way) then your ability to move forward is crippled. As for the pluralism bit don't get me started.

 

[bluethrunthru]

But you could also argue that QE may not have been required in the first place had the last Labour government regulated the finance sector properly, and not been too cosy with the likes of Fred Goodwin, who was at Chequers every other weekend having smoke blown up his arse by Gordon Brown.

That will be the Labour Govt who were criticised by Cameron's Tories for not being soft enough on regulation? Yor slavish research free support does them but you no favours

General election 2010: Cameron vows to scrap 'failed' City regulator

Bank of England governor to gain watchdog role in fundamental financial reform, Conservatives pledge

www.theguardian.com

 

[law74]

But you could also argue that QE may not have been required in the first place had the last Labour government regulated the finance sector properly

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2004-06-30/debates/201d4757-5d25-46dc-92dc-100482191098/BusinessDeregulation

Hansard is a wonderful thing.
While you condemn New Labour for the Deregulation of the Financial Services Sector, you seem to have missed in your selective memory, that it was ridiculed by the Tories in the House for not going far enough.
I can clearly recall that odious rat Gideon Osbourne getting irate at the fact he wanted much further removal of the regulations, and it was Members with clear traditional Labour values who were the opponents to what was always going to be a disastrous policy.
Is it not hypocritical to slag off a party for a policy when, if they had been in Government they would have went much further and caused much more pain?

 

[Brewster's millions]

That will be the Labour Govt who were criticised by Cameron's Tories for not being soft enough on regulation? Yor slavish research free support does them but you no favours

General election 2010: Cameron vows to scrap 'failed' City regulator

Bank of England governor to gain watchdog role in fundamental financial reform, Conservatives pledge

www.theguardian.com

You might want to read the article again, as you seem to have arrived at a conclusion which is diametrically opposed to what it actually says. In fact you must have been living in cave between 2008 and 2010 if you think that the Conservative’s plans for bank regulation were softer than the system introduced by Labour.

Labour’s regulatory approach was proven to be an unmitigated disaster. There was little to no communication between the FSA and the Bank of England, and retail banks were allowed to run loan portfolios which dwarfed their deposit bases, while routinely funding long-term, fixed rate investments in short-term money markets. Huge maturity and interest rate mismatches were allowed to develop with no intervention from the regulator.

Indeed this reliance on short-term funding was so excessive that the government had to step in and effectively guarantee all interbank lending in October 2008, an unprecedented move. Do you think that was a symptom of success, or abject failure?

 

[bluethrunthru]

You might want to read the article again, as you seem to have arrived at a conclusion which is diametrically opposed to what it actually says. In fact you must have been living in cave between 2008 and 2010 if you think that the Conservative’s plans for bank regulation were softer than the system introduced by Labour.

Labour’s regulatory approach was proven to be an unmitigated disaster. There was little to no communication between the FSA and the Bank of England, and retail banks were allowed to run loan portfolios which dwarfed their deposit bases, while routinely funding long-term, fixed rate investments in short-term money markets. Huge maturity and interest rate mismatches were allowed to develop with no intervention from the regulator.

Indeed this reliance on short-term funding was so excessive that the government had to step in and effectively guarantee all interbank lending in October 2008, an unprecedented move. Do you think that was a symptom of success, or abject failure?

He wanted to scrap the FSA ffs - thats the weird shite we are seeing now - exceptionalism because they knew what controls were coming over money taxes and laundering - Cameron's mates were egging him on as has been proven since he left office

 

[Brewster's millions]

He wanted to scrap the FSA ffs - thats the weird shite we are seeing now - exceptionalism because they knew what controls were coming over money taxes and laundering - Cameron's mates were egging him on as has been proven since he left office

Hate to break this to you but he did scrap the FSA, in 2013, because it was institutionally inept, and replaced it with the FCA and PRA.

 

[Vic]

Lots of things have contributed - some government policies, the war in Ukraine, Brexit and - importantly - the Bank of England’s own shortcomings. But the pandemic adding another £400bn of gilts into the APF has been a major factor in the current fiscal squeeze, and this problem isn’t going away anytime soon.

Labour might get lucky again with the economic cycle as they did in 1997, and rates may fall a bit over the next 18 months, but debt servicing costs are going to be a major constraint on what the next government can do with regard to spending. In fact I think it could cause a lot of internal strife for a Labour government and Starmer could have a very brief honeymoon period, as fiscal policy isn’t going to turn around anywhere near as much as some people may hope.

Surprise, surprise. Nowt to do with Truss and Kwarteng then?