Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

General Election 2017



Buzzer

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
drew said:
Is that the same Lord Turner who was head of the FSA and defended the actions of that regulatory organisation (prior to his appointment) in the run up to the crisis? The same Lord Turner who advocated joining the Euro.

Also, the report that I've seen criticizes the level of regulation but seems more to blame the decisions made by the bank itself!
Click to expand...

What has his support for the Euro got to do with anything? The report was quite candid in stating the FSA's own deficiencies and I remember they brought in independent reviewers before the final report was published to further ensure that nothing had been missed. My reading of it and commentaries on it (I'm not an expert so may be wide of the mark) was that the light-touch regulations allowed for the cavalier attitude by the RBS and that the contracts made by the bank, although very wrong commercially, were all okay from a legal stand-point.
 




Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
63,988
Withdean area
drew said:
Either it was unregulated or it was soft touch supervision, can't be both. Also, exactly how different would it have been had the Tories been in power, the Tories who wanted even less regulation?

Where is the evidence that the UK government.s 'soft touch' supervision caused the global crisis?
Click to expand...

Incorrect binary thinking on this subject. Instead there was the soft/light touch regulation under the misguided New Labour debacle, which after the horse had bolted, was replaced with stronger supervision. Even Brown and Blair later admitted their mistakes, easy to find in an internet search.

The following reading from non-right wing sources explains how they allowed it to go so wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/mar/24/farewell-fsa-bleak-legacy-light-touch-regulator

http://www.socialist.net/brown-light-touch-regulation.htm
 












Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
63,988
Withdean area
Buzzer said:
It's easily avoided. Get the elderly homeowner in question to gift it as a life transfer in their will and then as long as they pay a market rent and survive for longer than 7 years then the transfer would be tax-free and the property outside the scope of this new rule. The cost of the market rent can be offset against any old spurious service provided by the elderly person for the landlord.*

*This is not tax advice. Just speculating how in theory a family might circumvent the rules.
Click to expand...

https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/money/personal-finance/giving/what-you-need-to-know-about-signing-property-over-to-your-children

Be aware of several risks, including liabilities on the children of income and capital gains tax, a risk to the home if your children divorce, and councils can challenge.

The seven year rule is an entirely separate means of reducing an estate for inheritance tax. Most couples owning a main home will never pay IHT in the first place, and there's no CGT to pay if it remains theirs.
 


drew

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,067
Burgess Hill
Buzzer said:
What has his support for the Euro got to do with anything? The report was quite candid in stating the FSA's own deficiencies and I remember they brought in independent reviewers before the final report was published to further ensure that nothing had been missed. My reading of it and commentaries on it (I'm not an expert so may be wide of the mark) was that the light-touch regulations allowed for the cavalier attitude by the RBS and that the contracts made by the bank, although very wrong commercially, were all okay from a legal stand-point.
Click to expand...

The reference to the Euro was an example highlighting his judgement.

Going back to your 'it was on their watch' remark, hardly speculation about the Tories when it was clear they wanted far less regulation, none of which would have prevented the global crisis or, more importantly, it's effect on our economy. As late as 2007 the Tories were trying to advocate stepping back from regulation on a host of industries and trusting the decision making of those in charge of those businesses, eg the likes of Freddie Goodwin.
 




Behind Enemy Lines

Behind Enemy Lines

Well-known member
Jul 18, 2003
4,805
London
Weststander said:
New Labour (Tory) gave the country:

Unregulated soft touch supervision of the City leading to the Banking Crisis.

£100b's of 'off balance sheet' debt in PFI contracts paying for hospitals and schools we couldn't afford, saddling NHS trusts with huge debts out of their annual budgets for decades. Read the Guardian articles about this.

The unnecessary slaying of British servicemen in Iraq.

Deliberately opening the gates to endless millions of migrants, without planning for roads, new schools, GP and hospital places. Causing the housing crisis and massive increase in property prices.

Signing the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, strengthening the power of Strasbourg and the Council, over sovereign parliaments. With the immigration/housing crisis, ultimately this led to majority of Brits voting for Brexit.

The introduction of tuition fees.

A raft of stealth taxes, including the multi billion pound raid per annum on pension schemes with the abolition of ACT.

The rich poor gap rose markedly. Not disputed by economists or parties.

Wage suppression, particular for lower paid with unbridled net immigration. Something Trade Union leaders and Corbyn had spoken about in the past, hence their lack of interest in Remain.
Click to expand...

The Labour government made mistakes, of course, and they are well documented, especially Iraq. We all know that. It's been shoved down our throats for the best part of a decade. But a couple of quick points then: Labour, whilst not vigilant enough in the city, was not to blame for the banking crisis. That, as I'm sure you know, was the result of the subprime mortgage market in the United States. How many more times? It's old ground. Corbyn and some of the Trades union's lack of support for Remain meant the vote was lost. The people they claim to back will be poorer for years to come as a result of that sanctimonious sectarianism. Had they got behind the Remian Labour campaign, led by a great Labour man, Alan Johnson, the result would have been different. And ever since, the Corbyn stance on Brexit has been incoherent. " it's going to be a disaster but let's vote it through," as he three lined whipped the party. The fact remains there were some very good things about the Labour Government which the party and movement have rubbished for too long. It's time to stand up and say that and more people who support Labour should say that.
At the end of the day, politics and running the country is a complicated, difficult business. You can stand at the side lines and snipe at the Blair /Brown administrations or anyone who dares now to offer an alternative view about Labour. But let me tell you that to call them Tories is a disgrace and grossly insulting to those who fought locally and nationally for many long years against the Conservatives and endured defeat after defeat before eventually wining power.
The real job of politics in this country is to try and persuade people who don't agree with you rather than just talk to those who already support you which is Labour's current default position. You have to reach out and make the case, win the arguments. If you do that, then you just might have an opportunity to help people worse off than you. That's what it's all about. Thats the ultimate responsibility of the Labour Party. It's something that narcissistic left, too pre-occupied with its closed, puritanical view of the world, will never understand.
 


drew

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,067
Burgess Hill
Weststander said:
https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/money/personal-finance/giving/what-you-need-to-know-about-signing-property-over-to-your-children

Be aware of several risks, including liabilities on the children of income and capital gains tax, a risk to the home if your children divorce, and councils can challenge.

The seven year rule is an entirely separate means of reducing an estate for inheritance tax. Most couples owning a main home will never pay IHT in the first place, and there's no CGT to pay if it remains theirs.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately too few people have any understanding of IHT but it has been a fantastic headline grabber. As you point out, very few people will end up paying IHT.
 


BadFish

BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,117
drew said:
Either it was unregulated or it was soft touch supervision, can't be both. Also, exactly how different would it have been had the Tories been in power, the Tories who wanted even less regulation?

Where is the evidence that the UK government.s 'soft touch' supervision caused the global crisis?
Click to expand...

Thatcher and Reagan started the deregulation in the 80's didn't they?
 




Buzzer

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
drew said:
The reference to the Euro was an example highlighting his judgement.

Going back to your 'it was on their watch' remark, hardly speculation about the Tories when it was clear they wanted far less regulation, none of which would have prevented the global crisis or, more importantly, it's effect on our economy. As late as 2007 the Tories were trying to advocate stepping back from regulation on a host of industries and trusting the decision making of those in charge of those businesses, eg the likes of Freddie Goodwin.
Click to expand...

You'll find no argument here from me about how relaxed the Tories were about all this pre-crash but the discussion was on evidence of Labour's light touch regulation and whether it might have caused the global crisis. I've already said that it didn't but that the FSA report did think that it was a major factor in the RBS failure.

Re. Lord Turner's support of the Euro, this was all before it had happened whereas the report on RBS was him reporting on the full facts after the event. The two are not comparable.
 








Big G

Big G

New member
Dec 14, 2005
1,086
Brighton
drew said:
What a daft comment. You make it sound like he arbitrarily pardoned them rather than it being part of the negotiations for a peace settlement. Would you prefer there was no agreement and we could have had another 20 years of bombings etc etc. It might be unpalatable but may have been part of the process that moved things forward.
Click to expand...

'Daft comment'....don't make me laugh!
So you think it's ok for the pathetically weak government at that time to roll over to terrorist demands and see it fit to agree not to pursue or prosecute over 250 wanted terrorists?
Maybe you should go and share your views with the families of the Hyde Park bombing currently having to raise funds for a private prosecution of the murderer of their loved ones because of that agreement you're trying to justify!!
Whilst I respect people's right to their political point of view....I find it nothing short of disgusting people who want to justify/defend/sympathise for any argument, the murdering actions of IRA terrorists!
 


Wrong-Direction

Wrong-Direction

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2013
13,423
Good to see the tories getting a hammering on question time the absolute arsewipes

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
 




drew

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,067
Burgess Hill
Big G said:
'Daft comment'....don't make me laugh!
So you think it's ok for the pathetically weak government at that time to roll over to terrorist demands and see it fit to agree not to pursue or prosecute over 250 wanted terrorists?
Maybe you should go and share your views with the families of the Hyde Park bombing currently having to raise funds for a private prosecution of the murderer of their loved ones because of that agreement you're trying to justify!!
Whilst I respect people's right to their political point of view....I find it nothing short of disgusting people who want to justify/defend/sympathise for any argument, the murdering actions of IRA terrorists!
Click to expand...

I have every sympathy with victims of the troubles but without the agreement there would probably be many more victims.
 






Wrong-Direction

Wrong-Direction

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2013
13,423
Big G said:
Oh yes, I mean who could have predicted that the Conservatives would be made to look bad on the BBC???
Click to expand...
But they are bad, bbc has F all to do with it, you only have to put your brain into first gear and not just blindly believe everything the press and media tells you

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here