the economy.

[mcfc1632]

Don't you mean 'the bankers' instead of 'labour'?
PS No onanistic puns please!

I am not sure the benefits of posting on here factual stuff that would inform healthy discussion. I have done so occasionally previously - but it seems that whilst some people are capable of discussion, others just vent against anything that they do not want to hear if it challenges their desire to just shout easy sound bytes (not particularly meaning you LR), but anyway........

Yes, IMO, certainly the banks should shoulder the blame for the issues that we are recovering from.

Also Labour were economically/financially delinquent leading up to 2008 so they simply cannot claim (IMO) to be credible custodians of the economy until they put forward detailed policies and announce a team to run the economy and the actions they would take.

Having Ed Balls as the front man (again IMO) negates any chance of a positive opinion of Labour in this area by objective thinking people - he was right at the heart of the previous incompetence.................

But in any major country what keeps banks in check? Simple - effective regulation/governance/penalties etc. - and for that there was the FSA.

Whilst not front-line facing off against the banks, during 2004 - 2006 I worked to a main board member of the FSA planning the transformation of key business systems and processes and was therefore privy - or at least directly aware - of a number of top-level debates/issues.

I can state as absolutely fact that Gordon Brown acted directly and on several/many occasions to overrule the FSA when they were considering action against banks or individual traders - to summarise it seemed that every time the FSA was considering calling the execs from a major bank to get a bollocking a quick call to Gordon led to the FSA having to back off.

During this period the FSA became increasingly toothless - certainly not perceived as the authoritative regulator that such an system requires - more of an admin body bringing in standards, regulations and processes for lower level banking staff to adhere to/pass.

The country may have fallen ill in 2008 but the poison was taken years earlier - yes it was a global financial crisis and we would have been in the shit with everyone else. But without Labour's financial and economic incompetence and Brown running scared from the banks then it would not have been so deep.

Unlike some on here, even though coming from a dyed in the wool Labour background, I can still recognise what a job has been done in recent years to rescue the economy. The Tories may be absolutely distasteful in some areas - but on the economy - well, thank fuck there was a change.

There is a reality to be faced - and this in a sense explains Brown's acquiescence. The UK is majorly dependent on the strength of its financial services 'industry' - the tax receipts we secure are a major contributor and without which we would be 'well fucked'. At the time (2006) the government and FSA were and I am sure still are, obsessed about the risk of any loss of status and power from London to Frankfurt and any impairment to the status of the LSE.

You need to write to Dave mate and tell him to stop saying 'Labour got us into this mess' , instead how about -'the banks got us into this mess but it wouldn't have been quite as bad if Labour had managed the economy better and regulated the banks properly even though we were critical of Labour for regulating the banks too much' , that's much catchier don't you think.?
As for the economy we're back to where we started pre crash after being taken down to a very low level by the Tories( hence the now 'impressive' growth ),the economy would have recovered to a large extent by automatic recovery forces as wealth holders benefit from fall in prices and start buying depreciated assets and consumption goods. However 'Geoffrey' has primed the economy further by a temporary property boom and allowing the deficit to rip each year, the cumulative national debt now standing at 1.3 trillion , double where he wanted it to be. The balance of payments is also in decline. Most of the 'recovery' is confined to the South East , in the rest of the country there is still a cost of living crisis.
I'm afraid you've been taken in by 'Osbornism' mate.

Not taken in by anything mate - what I posted was in the main absolute facts - not many on here can say that on this subject - with only some opinion.

I was fortunate enough to be working in areas from 1999 to 2007, including Treasury and FSA, where I had first hand access to the reality of things so do not need to be swayed by someone like Osborne - I can certainly I feel give a credible view on Balls and I stress I have been labour for most of my life and have never voted for another party.

In the area of 'opinions' though, I would suggest that our dependence on the financial 'industry' is very precarious for us, and that actually I likely do not differ from a number of your views . At the risk of sounding like I am having a go - which I am not really), though I feel that I can put aside the 'us and them' obsession that impairs debate/discussion.

Just why are we seen to be in a robust position in the views of so many reputable organisations and individuals, including the IMF? I would suggest that so much in the financial industry is about 'confidence' and money and investment flows where that confidence resides - TBF to Brown that was probably why he bowed his knee to the banks.

No matter how fragile matters might be - and I would probably find a lot of common ground with you - the markets have been made to be confident by Osborne - simple fact which I would hope you would not deny. Equally and I think that this is fact not opinion - should Labour win the next election and Balls put in charge of the economy - that simple event - without any other circumstance will lead to an immediate and likely prolonged loss of confidence and major implications to a country so dependent on receipts from the financial sector.

It is actually unfair - but reality is beyond 'us and them, red or blue' etc.

I will make you a challenge for fun - you predict how many months it would be before our credit rating was downgraded following a Labour victory.

Unfair as it will be - that will occur because of the consequences of a loss of confidence - it does not need some action or mistake from Balls.

It is unfair I know - but reality

 

[Len Rum]

I am not sure the benefits of posting on here factual stuff that would inform healthy discussion. I have done so occasionally previously - but it seems that whilst some people are capable of discussion, others just vent against anything that they do not want to hear if it challenges their desire to just shout easy sound bytes (not particularly meaning you LR), but anyway........

Yes, IMO, certainly the banks should shoulder the blame for the issues that we are recovering from.

Also Labour were economically/financially delinquent leading up to 2008 so they simply cannot claim (IMO) to be credible custodians of the economy until they put forward detailed policies and announce a team to run the economy and the actions they would take.

Having Ed Balls as the front man (again IMO) negates any chance of a positive opinion of Labour in this area by objective thinking people - he was right at the heart of the previous incompetence.................

But in any major country what keeps banks in check? Simple - effective regulation/governance/penalties etc. - and for that there was the FSA.

Whilst not front-line facing off against the banks, during 2004 - 2006 I worked to a main board member of the FSA planning the transformation of key business systems and processes and was therefore privy - or at least directly aware - of a number of top-level debates/issues.

I can state as absolutely fact that Gordon Brown acted directly and on several/many occasions to overrule the FSA when they were considering action against banks or individual traders - to summarise it seemed that every time the FSA was considering calling the execs from a major bank to get a bollocking a quick call to Gordon led to the FSA having to back off.

During this period the FSA became increasingly toothless - certainly not perceived as the authoritative regulator that such an system requires - more of an admin body bringing in standards, regulations and processes for lower level banking staff to adhere to/pass.

The country may have fallen ill in 2008 but the poison was taken years earlier - yes it was a global financial crisis and we would have been in the shit with everyone else. But without Labour's financial and economic incompetence and Brown running scared from the banks then it would not have been so deep.

Unlike some on here, even though coming from a dyed in the wool Labour background, I can still recognise what a job has been done in recent years to rescue the economy. The Tories may be absolutely distasteful in some areas - but on the economy - well, thank fuck there was a change.

There is a reality to be faced - and this in a sense explains Brown's acquiescence. The UK is majorly dependent on the strength of its financial services 'industry' - the tax receipts we secure are a major contributor and without which we would be 'well fucked'. At the time (2006) the government and FSA were and I am sure still are, obsessed about the risk of any loss of status and power from London to Frankfurt and any impairment to the status of the LSE.

You need to write to Dave mate and tell him to stop saying 'Labour got us into this mess' , instead how about -'the banks got us into this mess but it wouldn't have been quite as bad if Labour had managed the economy better and regulated the banks properly even though we were critical of Labour for regulating the banks too much' , that's much catchier don't you think.?
As for the economy we're back to where we started pre crash after being taken down to a very low level by the Tories( hence the now 'impressive' growth ),the economy would have recovered to a large extent by automatic recovery forces as wealth holders benefit from fall in prices and start buying depreciated assets and consumption goods. However 'Geoffrey' has primed the economy further by a temporary property boom and allowing the deficit to rip each year, the cumulative national debt now standing at 1.3 trillion , double where he wanted it to be. The balance of payments is also in decline. Most of the 'recovery' is confined to the South East , in the rest of the country there is still a cost of living crisis.
I'm afraid you've been taken in by 'Osbornism' mate.

Not taken in by anything mate - what I posted was in the main absolute facts - not many on here can say that on this subject - with only some opinion.

I was fortunate enough to be working in areas from 1999 to 2007, including Treasury and FSA, where I had first hand access to the reality of things so do not need to be swayed by someone like Osborne - I can certainly I feel give a credible view on Balls and I stress I have been labour for most of my life and have never voted for another party.

In the area of 'opinions' though, I would suggest that our dependence on the financial 'industry' is very precarious for us, and that actually I likely do not differ from a number of your views . At the risk of sounding like I am having a go - which I am not really), though I feel that I can put aside the 'us and them' obsession that impairs debate/discussion.

Just why are we seen to be in a robust position in the views of so many reputable organisations and individuals, including the IMF? I would suggest that so much in the financial industry is about 'confidence' and money and investment flows where that confidence resides - TBF to Brown that was probably why he bowed his knee to the banks.

No matter how fragile matters might be - and I would probably find a lot of common ground with you - the markets have been made to be confident by Osborne - simple fact which I would hope you would not deny. Equally and I think that this is fact not opinion - should Labour win the next election and Balls put in charge of the economy - that simple event - without any other circumstance will lead to an immediate and likely prolonged loss of confidence and major implications to a country so dependent on receipts from the financial sector.

It is actually unfair - but reality is beyond 'us and them, red or blue' etc.

I will make you a challenge for fun - you predict how many months it would be before our credit rating was downgraded following a Labour victory.

Unfair as it will be - that will occur because of the consequences of a loss of confidence - it does not need some action or mistake from Balls.

It is unfair I know - but reality

I agree with a lot of that -'Geoffrey' has the confidence of the markets, although that could change.
Balls could struggle if Labour got back in.
One interesting future issue could be if we came out of Europe, what would the markets make of that? Very negatively I would think. Paradoxically the markets should welcome a Labour and a guarantee of continuity in Europe!

 

[TGR]

I am not sure the benefits of posting on here factual stuff that would inform healthy discussion. I have done so occasionally previously - but it seems that whilst some people are capable of discussion, others just vent against anything that they do not want to hear if it challenges their desire to just shout easy sound bytes (not particularly meaning you LR), but anyway........

Yes, IMO, certainly the banks should shoulder the blame for the issues that we are recovering from.

Also Labour were economically/financially delinquent leading up to 2008 so they simply cannot claim (IMO) to be credible custodians of the economy until they put forward detailed policies and announce a team to run the economy and the actions they would take.

Having Ed Balls as the front man (again IMO) negates any chance of a positive opinion of Labour in this area by objective thinking people - he was right at the heart of the previous incompetence.................

But in any major country what keeps banks in check? Simple - effective regulation/governance/penalties etc. - and for that there was the FSA.

Whilst not front-line facing off against the banks, during 2004 - 2006 I worked to a main board member of the FSA planning the transformation of key business systems and processes and was therefore privy - or at least directly aware - of a number of top-level debates/issues.

I can state as absolutely fact that Gordon Brown acted directly and on several/many occasions to overrule the FSA when they were considering action against banks or individual traders - to summarise it seemed that every time the FSA was considering calling the execs from a major bank to get a bollocking a quick call to Gordon led to the FSA having to back off.

During this period the FSA became increasingly toothless - certainly not perceived as the authoritative regulator that such an system requires - more of an admin body bringing in standards, regulations and processes for lower level banking staff to adhere to/pass.

The country may have fallen ill in 2008 but the poison was taken years earlier - yes it was a global financial crisis and we would have been in the shit with everyone else. But without Labour's financial and economic incompetence and Brown running scared from the banks then it would not have been so deep.

Unlike some on here, even though coming from a dyed in the wool Labour background, I can still recognise what a job has been done in recent years to rescue the economy. The Tories may be absolutely distasteful in some areas - but on the economy - well, thank fuck there was a change.

There is a reality to be faced - and this in a sense explains Brown's acquiescence. The UK is majorly dependent on the strength of its financial services 'industry' - the tax receipts we secure are a major contributor and without which we would be 'well fucked'. At the time (2006) the government and FSA were and I am sure still are, obsessed about the risk of any loss of status and power from London to Frankfurt and any impairment to the status of the LSE.

You need to write to Dave mate and tell him to stop saying 'Labour got us into this mess' , instead how about -'the banks got us into this mess but it wouldn't have been quite as bad if Labour had managed the economy better and regulated the banks properly even though we were critical of Labour for regulating the banks too much' , that's much catchier don't you think.?
As for the economy we're back to where we started pre crash after being taken down to a very low level by the Tories( hence the now 'impressive' growth ),the economy would have recovered to a large extent by automatic recovery forces as wealth holders benefit from fall in prices and start buying depreciated assets and consumption goods. However 'Geoffrey' has primed the economy further by a temporary property boom and allowing the deficit to rip each year, the cumulative national debt now standing at 1.3 trillion , double where he wanted it to be. The balance of payments is also in decline. Most of the 'recovery' is confined to the South East , in the rest of the country there is still a cost of living crisis.
I'm afraid you've been taken in by 'Osbornism' mate.

Not taken in by anything mate - what I posted was in the main absolute facts - not many on here can say that on this subject - with only some opinion.

I was fortunate enough to be working in areas from 1999 to 2007, including Treasury and FSA, where I had first hand access to the reality of things so do not need to be swayed by someone like Osborne - I can certainly I feel give a credible view on Balls and I stress I have been labour for most of my life and have never voted for another party.

In the area of 'opinions' though, I would suggest that our dependence on the financial 'industry' is very precarious for us, and that actually I likely do not differ from a number of your views . At the risk of sounding like I am having a go - which I am not really), though I feel that I can put aside the 'us and them' obsession that impairs debate/discussion.

Just why are we seen to be in a robust position in the views of so many reputable organisations and individuals, including the IMF? I would suggest that so much in the financial industry is about 'confidence' and money and investment flows where that confidence resides - TBF to Brown that was probably why he bowed his knee to the banks.

No matter how fragile matters might be - and I would probably find a lot of common ground with you - the markets have been made to be confident by Osborne - simple fact which I would hope you would not deny. Equally and I think that this is fact not opinion - should Labour win the next election and Balls put in charge of the economy - that simple event - without any other circumstance will lead to an immediate and likely prolonged loss of confidence and major implications to a country so dependent on receipts from the financial sector.

It is actually unfair - but reality is beyond 'us and them, red or blue' etc.

I will make you a challenge for fun - you predict how many months it would be before our credit rating was downgraded following a Labour victory.

Unfair as it will be - that will occur because of the consequences of a loss of confidence - it does not need some action or mistake from Balls.

It is unfair I know - but reality

And with that and your subsequent post any debate regarding the economy and the 2008 crash is now ended.
The LWNJ's will continue to blather & bluster but the facts are the facts.
A Labour government at the next election would be a complete and unmitigated disaster.
The ideal outcome would be a Tory minority government supported by UKIP and this is quickly becoming
a very possible and plausible scenario.

 

[hilts]

Tory and Lib Dem's would be better not that the Liberals have a chance of coming third though which is a shame

 

[TGR]

Tory and Lib Dem's would be better not that the Liberals have a chance of coming third though which is a shame

Dave & Nigel together would sort out;
The economy
Human Rights
Immigration
Benefits

In very short order.
It's a dream ticket.

 

[hilts]

Tory and Lib Dem's would be better not that the Liberals have a chance of coming third though which is a shame

Dave & Nigel together would sort out;
The economy
Human Rights
Immigration
Benefits

In very short order.
It's a dream ticket.

I always think you need an opposing view, that little tap on the shoulder, as we see on here with the lefties too much of one ideal leads to denial

 

[Len Rum]

Tory and Lib Dem's would be better not that the Liberals have a chance of coming third though which is a shame

Dave & Nigel together would sort out;
The economy
Human Rights
Immigration
Benefits

In very short order.
It's a dream ticket.

Laugh.
I nearly cried!

 

[hilts]

Tory and Lib Dem's would be better not that the Liberals have a chance of coming third though which is a shame

Dave & Nigel together would sort out;
The economy
Human Rights
Immigration
Benefits

In very short order.
It's a dream ticket.

Laugh.
I nearly cried!

Unfortunately you are laughing in an empty room, for the time being left wing politics is dead

 

[Len Rum]

Dave & Nigel together would sort out;
The economy
Human Rights
Immigration
Benefits

In very short order.
It's a dream ticket.

Laugh.
I nearly cried!

Unfortunately you are laughing in an empty room, for the time being left wing politics is dead

Nothing about left wing politics mate, just the thought of Dave and Nigel in coalition.
Capiche?

 

[hilts]

Laugh.
I nearly cried!

Unfortunately you are laughing in an empty room, for the time being left wing politics is dead

Nothing about left wing politics mate, just the thought of Dave and Nigel in coalition.
Capiche?

I agree