Vince Cable - muppet

[cunning fergus]

The people who are going on strike are the not ones who created the financial mess in the first place. Yet they are the ones who are probably going to lose their jobs.



Are you sure about that statement?

Surely the truth is that millions of people in this country borrowed more money than they could afford to repay in the event of a downturn.

If so then they all have a stake in this "financial mess" whether they borrowed for property, other types of loans or any other form of credit. I doubt the only reckless borrowers were from the private sector.

The Govt and FSA are to blame for allowing the banks to lend money without regard to the implications of what they were doing, and of course the banks are to blame for being reckless with their financial strategy.

On that basis the only ones who are truly not to blame are those who haven't borrowed recklessly or who have saved judiciously.

It is a fact of life that peoples lives are affected by others who are in control...............typically politicans. The fact that we want to constantly blame only the banks and bankers is just slight of hand by the politicans.

 

[drew]

The people who are going on strike are the not ones who created the financial mess in the first place. Yet they are the ones who are probably going to lose their jobs.



Are you sure about that statement?

Surely the truth is that millions of people in this country borrowed more money than they could afford to repay in the event of a downturn.

If so then they all have a stake in this "financial mess" whether they borrowed for property, other types of loans or any other form of credit. I doubt the only reckless borrowers were from the private sector.

The Govt and FSA are to blame for allowing the banks to lend money without regard to the implications of what they were doing, and of course the banks are to blame for being reckless with their financial strategy.

On that basis the only ones who are truly not to blame are those who haven't borrowed recklessly or who have saved judiciously.

It is a fact of life that peoples lives are affected by others who are in control...............typically politicans. The fact that we want to constantly blame only the banks and bankers is just slight of hand by the politicans.

Quite frankly I suspect you are talking a load of bull. You try to suggest that millions of people are on the verge of bankruptcy because they over extended themselves with personal debt. The credit crunch was not caused by people in the uk overborrowing but by the reckless lending by American Banks and then the subsequent sale to other banks of toxic debt. There may well be some people who over extended themselves but exactly how many of the 125% mortgages actually ended up as repossessions?

As for personal debt in this country, the onus is on the banks to accurately assess the risk of whatever lending they carry out. If they issue credit cards to the wrong type of customer then that is on their head although at the end of the day it is everyone else that has to pay for it. If someone gets an inivitation to take up a credit card from one bank or another and no questions asks then whose fault is it if it goes pearshaped. If you owned a sweetshop next to a school, would you leave it unlocked and unattended when the kids come out. Of course you wouldn't but that is ostensibly what many banks did.

The banks deserve the lionshare of the blame but the politicians of both sides should take some responsibility. As I understood it, the regulatory failing was that the tripartite system didn't do what it should have done, ie talked to each other. The banks wanted less regulations so they could do what they liked and the politicians bowed to their superior knowledge of the sytems. However, before you bang on about Labour, deregulation of the banking sector started long before 1997.


As for cable, he continues to make a pigs ear of his one and only period in government however, I suspect this is more down to the Tories playing a blinder in terms of the internal politics of the coalition. At at time when attention should be directed at the NHS and the disastrous proposals, they are deflecting attention onto their junior partner who seem to continually get the role of bad guys. First the fees and now Cable and his ill conceived comments. His errors have also allowed News International to get their feet further under the political table and he may now be being used by the tories to stoke up a battle with the unions. Can't remember the last time a tory party did that!!!!!

It will all end in tears.

 

[cunning fergus]

Quite frankly I suspect you are talking a load of bull. You try to suggest that millions of people are on the verge of bankruptcy because they over extended themselves with personal debt. The credit crunch was not caused by people in the uk overborrowing but by the reckless lending by American Banks and then the subsequent sale to other banks of toxic debt. There may well be some people who over extended themselves but exactly how many of the 125% mortgages actually ended up as repossessions?

As for personal debt in this country, the onus is on the banks to accurately assess the risk of whatever lending they carry out. If they issue credit cards to the wrong type of customer then that is on their head although at the end of the day it is everyone else that has to pay for it. If someone gets an inivitation to take up a credit card from one bank or another and no questions asks then whose fault is it if it goes pearshaped. If you owned a sweetshop next to a school, would you leave it unlocked and unattended when the kids come out. Of course you wouldn't but that is ostensibly what many banks did.

The banks deserve the lionshare of the blame but the politicians of both sides should take some responsibility. As I understood it, the regulatory failing was that the tripartite system didn't do what it should have done, ie talked to each other. The banks wanted less regulations so they could do what they liked and the politicians bowed to their superior knowledge of the sytems. However, before you bang on about Labour, deregulation of the banking sector started long before 1997.


As for cable, he continues to make a pigs ear of his one and only period in government however, I suspect this is more down to the Tories playing a blinder in terms of the internal politics of the coalition. At at time when attention should be directed at the NHS and the disastrous proposals, they are deflecting attention onto their junior partner who seem to continually get the role of bad guys. First the fees and now Cable and his ill conceived comments. His errors have also allowed News International to get their feet further under the political table and he may now be being used by the tories to stoke up a battle with the unions. Can't remember the last time a tory party did that!!!!!

You can suspect what you like in the UK personal bankruptcy is at record levels, and much of this is to do with reckless borrowing. We clearly agree about the recklessness of bank lending but they didn't lend in a vacum.

Its not all to do with the US either, Bradford and Bingley (for example) had over 50% of their mortage book on self certified mortgages, which are now banned by the FSA. Similarly 125% mortgages (Northern Rocks speciality) are now like the dodo and interest only mortgages are next on the list. The FSA who are an instrument of the Govt are regulating too little too late.

Your analogy is about right, however it was the Labour Govt who were running the sweetshop. I love your thought that the politicians bowed to the banks........that's brilliant..........the truth is that the tax money was pouring into the treasury from stamp duty etc. and they thought "if it aint broke......".

Gordon Brown congratulated himself in the 2006 Mansion House speech for maintaining a light touch regulatory system in the UK despite advice to lock up the sweetshop. Who knows the Tories could have been worse, but we'll never know.

So, back to the point, people losing their jobs in the public sector are not responsible for the financial mess. If you dont think they include reckless borrwoers, well how about if they voted Labour in 2005?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

You really do have a pair of red tinted glasses don't you!?

How can anyone blame the private sector for "NEW" Labour wasting vast amounts of money on white elephants in the public sector - and committing us all to paying for them for years to come?

The private sector lent 'New Labour' the money via PPP's, whether that money was wasted depends on how you value the new hospitals, schools, prisons, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, Eurofighter Typhoon, high speed rail links, libraries, nursery care provision etc that the money paid for.

The terms of many PPP's is disastrous for the economy and for the taxpayer who is basically paying their taxes to give private investors a huge return on their investment over a very very long period.

A sensible government would have taken the money from direct taxation - there is no debt to repay. And therefore there is no interest due on the money taken either.

To describe public sector investment as 'white elephants' is a cheap shot not worthy of discussion. Aircraft carriers cost billions, railway lines left in the hand of Railtrack would now be so unsafe that there would be crashes and people dying on a regular basis ( as there were when Railtrack were in charge ). The country's infrastructure needs constant investment simply to stay viable. It's when that infrastructure fails the country's requirements that it becomes a white elephant.