Five good reasons why not to vote for Labour in the future

[ROSM]

That's a very poor post Tim. The Tories were all for deregulation of the banks and it started with them during their previous regime anyway.

and to be fair he's now been told that by at least 4 different people on this thread - all of differing political persuasion.

 

[Peteinblack]

But who allowed the Banking Industry the free rein to go largely unregulated? As long of course, as they continued to bolster the spend spend spend economy that the Labour Party embraced. Then of course after the peak the inevitable trough. But Labour didn't acknowledge the emerging financial crisis in the US despite warnings from many economists.

The banks weren't going to stop reckless lending to turn a desperate shilling without government intervention.

So yes they shored up the banks with our money, but they were as culpable as the banks.

And who deregulated the banking sector back in 1988-89, spouting the usual Right-wing neo-liberal dogma that unrestrained free markets and more competition between banks and building societies would be good for the consumer and society?

Labour's culpability was to perpetuate and extend this deregulated regime and worship of 'the City' and which it inherited from the Conservatives; it did nothing to rein it in or curb the behaviour of the bankers, and it certainly did not create it.

Mind you, if Labour had tried to impose any curbs, people like you would instantly have been moaning about Labour 'meddling and 'State control' of big business, or hindering 'wealth creation' or pursuing 'the politics of envy'.

Blame Labour as much as you like (I'm no fan of them), but the fact is that what we have had since the 1980s, under Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown, is an obsession with 'the market', and the associated belief that we have to let the banks and big business do what the f*** they want, regardless of how much the rest of society eventually suffers, or literally pays the price when it goes pear-shaped.

Do you honestly, seriously, genuinely, hand-on-heart, think that a Tory Government betwen 1997 and 2010 would have acted to curb the bank(er)s.

And now your'e in government, and have the opportunity, you're backtracking from seriously reforming the banks, beyond some cosmetic tinkering to fool the public. Instead, you're solution is solely to slash public expenditure and welfare to the most vulnerable, but leave the
bank(er)s alone. So much for promoting greater 'responsibilty' for our actions

We're not 'all in this together'. As usual, the poorest and most vulnerable will have to make 'sacrifices', while those at the top will be pampered, and tell us to be nice to them or else they won't 'create wealth'. The usual bullying and blackmail of the poor by the rich which the Tories always collude with.

The Tories and New Labour (and now the Lib Dems) are all the same when they are in government' - Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum(b) - because whereas in th 1970s it was the was the trade unions dictating to governments and destroying the country by ruthlessly pursuing their own selfish interests, the problem now is the power and greed of big business telling governments : 'Do this (or don't do this) or else we're off elsewhere'.

Maggie took on the unions in the 1980s. Will Cameron and Osborne have the balls to take on 'the City'. Of course not - he'll prove to be a total eunuch.

Kick the poor and cuddle the rich!

 

[Simster]

and to be fair he's now been told that by at least 4 different people on this thread - all of differing political persuasion.

Tim's posts are brilliant. I swear he does more damage to the Tories than good as he doesn't seem to have a clue what he's talking about on any issue.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

The current economic crisis started in 2005 eight years after Labour came to power.

Perhaps then it just proves that from 1997 to 2005 the Labour Party couldn't repair the alleged mess the Tories had left behind. And proves what an utterly useless Government they were.

Thatch of course began to turn it around in late 1983. 4 years after assuming power.

 

[ROSM]

There was only one man who I actually believed was prepared to take on the banking industry with a root and branch review and workable structural changes and he's been kept away from banking in his new role (Vince Cable). He at least (alongside Lord Myners) actually understood that there are differences between the Barclays and HSBCs of this world and the RBS, HBOS and Northern Rock style institutions.

George Osborne I'm afraid doesn't know which way to turn on this. He dearly wants to be radical and free thinking but knows which way his bread is buttered.

 

[k2bluesky]

Gordon Brown is to blame, he inherited a strong economy and like a kid in a sweet shop or half-witted lottery winner pissed it all away and even had the cheek to have once said he would be 'prudent' with the country's money, last time I looked that meant being careful, not pissing it all away.
Whoever gives him a job anywhere near large sums of money money again wants their heads examined, let him buy (with his own money this time) and run a corner shop first to prove he understands the basics of economics.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

I swear he does more damage to the Tories than good QUOTE]

Hmm who's in power again? (Well almost)

 

[Don't get me started]

Gordon Brown is to blame, he inherited a strong economy and like a kid in a sweet shop or half-witted lottery winner pissed it all away and even had the cheek to have once said he would be 'prudent' with the country's money, last time I looked that meant being careful, not pissing it all away.
Whoever gives him a job anywhere near large sums of money money again wants their heads examined, let him buy (with his own money this time) and run a corner shop first to prove he understands the basics of economics.

Spot on except to say he didnt regulate the banking sector because it was bringing in tons of revenue in Tax and stamp duty actually . This allowed Brown and his vast ego to tell the world how good he was and that he had put an end to bust when in fact with the revenue he had coming in anyone on this board could have run the country. He also inherited a strong economy from the tories and did little to change it apart from giving the bank of England control over interest rates. You Labour lot have been conned by your loathing of the tories, you deserve Brown!

 

[Simster]

I swear he does more damage to the Tories than good

Hmm who's in power again? (Well almost)

So not quite then? And weren't you busy campaigning in the constituency won by the Greens?

You really are a simpleton, but I'm delighted you're so passionate about it.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

So not quite then? And weren't you busy campaigning in the constituency won by the Greens?

You really are a simpleton, but I'm delighted you're so passionate about it.

No I did a lot in Hove as well.

Simpleton? If that means living off my entirely self created wealth and spending the day watching the footie and the racing (wife has taken kids to in laws today) then I suppose I must be.

 

[beorhthelm]

getting away from the banking regulations, i was frankly stunned that when asked "what would labour do in the current economic climate where you cant spend", all 5 decided to attack the Tory policies. im watching and thinking, arent you supposed to be discussing what you as Labour Leader would suggest to do? same old New Labour, attack others rather than present their own policies.

presumably they cannot answer the question because the only policy they collectively know is to tax and spend, regardless of the economical background.

 

[Brovion]

There is absolutely NO WAY the banks could *ever* have been left to go bust, especially in a credit driven economy. Last time that happened was in 1920s America and it left people carting wheelbarrows of useless banknotes.

The correct answer, as Timmy points out, is that the banks should have been properly regulated. However, as Timmy won't dare point out, you can point the finger of blame on the Tories almost as much as Labour for that one. The rise of the financial sector started under the Tories, and we now have a Tory government during which you can bet your arse they'll take no steps to regulate the market IMO.

I don't disagree. I just find it a bit rich (if you'll excuse the pun) that all through the Thatcher years we were told that that whatever the problem the answer was deregulation, competition, market forces, free enterprise and with the government taking, ideally, no role in business whatsoever. We now find out that in fact the Thatcherites meant that that applied to every industry - except financial services. That industry wanted to have their cake and eat it. They wanted deregulated markets, but then when they f***ed up they expected the State to bail them out.

Again, I don't mind, and I always knew (as I guess you did too) that pure monetarist, Thatcherite economic policies were always flawed. Pity no one listened in the Eighties when the seeds for all this were sown but there you go.

 

[bhaexpress]

If I live that long in a few years time I expect a post 'Five good reasons why not to vote for Tory in the future'.

 

[beorhthelm]

Again, I don't mind, and I always knew (as I guess you did too) that pure monetarist, Thatcherite economic policies were always flawed. Pity no one listened in the Eighties when the seeds for all this were sown but there you go.

it was actually economic policy set down by Clinton that really seeded this, encouraging the US banks to lend to anyone. deregulation of the 80's is one thing, removing safeguards that had remained even then is another. Brown changed the regulatory framework so that the BoE experts had no insight or authority into market trading while the FSA had no expertise.

more importantly, Browns failing was to believe his own mantra that he had eradicated boom and bust, while also breaking his own "golden rules" about spending over the economic cycle as the cycle ended. We could have gone into the situation with moderate public debt and the bank bail outs would have been more manageable. instead we went in with well over £100 billion public borrowing debt.

 

[Danny-Boy]

One of the reasons we're billions in debt is because the Labour government, as you say, spent billions. However a rather large chunk of it was spent shoring up the banking industry. What would the Tories have done with the financial crisis? Brioadly speaking there were two alternatives:

1 - Let them go bust. That would have been the Thatcherite solution. (Market forces, free enterprise, laissez faire non-interventionary government and all that)

2 - Broadly followed the same path as Brown did in shoring them up and thus saddling us with the bill for bailing them out.

I AM genuinely interested in what you Tories think. I suppose it depends on whether you (and more importantly, Cameron) is a Thatcherite or a Heathite.

After the Northern Ireland statement, definitely a Heathite.

I think a few of his Tory Cabinet members like IDS must be squirming a bit now. And probably wishing they had voted for David Davies...

 

[Danny-Boy]

Gordon Brown is to blame, he inherited a strong economy and like a kid in a sweet shop or half-witted lottery winner pissed it all away and even had the cheek to have once said he would be 'prudent' with the country's money, last time I looked that meant being careful, not pissing it all away.
Whoever gives him a job anywhere near large sums of money money again wants their heads examined, let him buy (with his own money this time) and run a corner shop first to prove he understands the basics of economics.

He'll now probably end up in charge of the European Bank, following Kinnockio's example...

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

getting away from the banking regulations, i was frankly stunned that when asked "what would labour do in the current economic climate where you cant spend", all 5 decided to attack the Tory policies. im watching and thinking, arent you supposed to be discussing what you as Labour Leader would suggest to do? same old New Labour, attack others rather than present their own policies.

presumably they cannot answer the question because the only policy they collectively know is to tax and spend, regardless of the economical background.

You are the first to reply properly about the thread I started. I wasn't mentioning the banking crisis but the ineptitude of those standing for leadership. Not one of them had any idea about what to do, and to try and distance themselves from their last government is frankly laughable.

Regardless of the banking crisis the last government spent more in the good times than was raised through taxes etc and so was always heading the country for catastrophe.

 

[Mr Burns]

This is a WORLD recession. The one in the 90's which hit us harder was one entirely of the Tories making. Anyone who does not know that is retarded.

Well that would make sense, as Gordon Brown did deney we were heading for a recession, until we were in it

 

[Mr Burns]

But who allowed the Banking Industry the free rein to go largely unregulated? As long of course, as they continued to bolster the spend spend spend economy that the Labour Party embraced. Then of course after the peak the inevitable trough. But Labour didn't acknowledge the emerging financial crisis in the US despite warnings from many economists.

The banks weren't going to stop reckless lending to turn a desperate shilling without government intervention.

So yes they shored up the banks with our money, but they were as culpable as the banks.

Excellent post

 

[WATFORD zero]

Simpleton? If that means living off my entirely self created wealth and spending the day watching the footie and the racing then I suppose I must be.

But you told us that your wife worked and you rented out the flat she owned. I hope your good in the kitchen and bedroom to keep up your end of the bargain