Reply to: Autumn statement - economic stimulus

[Zero Liability]

I don't know since I'm not a Labour supporter. But I imagine some of the underlying principles of left-wing politics which we criticise on CUK, are the same things Labour supporters say are reasons why Labour are the ones who need to be in power.

I mean it's possible that they just want Labour in because they think they'll one day implement policies of a more leftist nature, but either way that would have little to do with the previous Labour government, which was centre-ish, as are the Tories.

Though maybe DA has hit upon a good reason for voting them in!

[BrilloPad]

You only have to look at the last two times labour were in power to see the low levels of competence and utter disaster that their activities achieve. Labour get into power by giving false hope and pandering to the politics of envy and class war. They do not have a bone of economic competence within them. They are also hopeless with their meddling of the tax system. it is far easier to fiddle taxes under one of their regimes than a Tory regime which is why I will probably vote for them

I have heard similar before - the city is supposed to like labour governments are there is more money floating round.

BBC News - Osborne: Autumn Statement cuts warnings 'hyperbolic' - Labour has said the government's deficit reduction targets were "all in tatters".

Very odd that they want (slightly)less deficit reduction than the Tories then.

[DodgyAgent]

I don't know since I'm not a Labour supporter. But I imagine some of the underlying principles of left-wing politics which we criticise on CUK, are the same things Labour supporters say are reasons why Labour are the ones who need to be in power.

You only have to look at the last two times labour were in power to see the low levels of competence and utter disaster that their activities achieve. Labour get into power by giving false hope and pandering to the politics of envy and class war. They do not have a bone of economic competence within them. They are also hopeless with their meddling of the tax system. it is far easier to fiddle taxes under one of their regimes than a Tory regime which is why I will probably vote for them

[d000hg]

How did they get it right then, or less wrong, for that matter?

I don't know since I'm not a Labour supporter. But I imagine some of the underlying principles of left-wing politics which we criticise on CUK, are the same things Labour supporters say are reasons why Labour are the ones who need to be in power.

[Zero Liability]

The origination of the credit is as much an issue as the bad debts. Besides, in the US where the bubble took off, the bad debt was purchased courtesy of the GSEs, creating a ready market for them for banks over there. In Europe, Basel helped tilt banks in favour of holding sovereign debts. At any rate, the crisis was the build up of years of bad government policies from both sides.

[vetran]

As far as I can tell on buying bad debt in those amounts there was no regulation. Also Major had a banking career, he would have had more insight into what was going on, and the problem did start after he was gone. We all knew that the economy was based on credit, it was obvious to everyone that it was unsustainable. Except Brown.

this, regulation is only part of the story close management is important.

[Zero Liability]

Your arguments don't make any sense. Labour supporters don't think "this time they'll get it right" they think Labour got it right (or more likely, less wrong) when they were in power, than the Tories would've.

Viewing others' actions through your own values and beliefs leads to a distorted picture.

How did they get it right then, or less wrong, for that matter? This is what I'm having trouble grasping. Milliband isn't Blair. So it makes perfect sense to question this. Basing how they will act in the future on a hypothetical alternative history that is contrasted with Blair as PM is rather baffling. I won't even touch on Brown.

[d000hg]

Anyone who supports them in the hopes of acting any differently, is.

Your arguments don't make any sense. Labour supporters don't think "this time they'll get it right" they think Labour got it right (or more likely, less wrong) when they were in power, than the Tories would've.

Viewing others' actions through your own values and beliefs leads to a distorted picture.

[Zero Liability]

I'm amazed you're the one in this thread I end up agreeing with most, and that you have the least partisan comments compared to a slew of "anyone who supports Labour is a moron" idiocy

Anyone who supports them in the hopes of acting any differently, is. I don't see New Labour making a comeback under Milliband or Cooper, and their policies basically just involve not making the cuts the Tories plan to, whilst increasing taxes and spending. Not saying the Tories are much better as I think they're cut from the same cloth, just that there's little point in disrupting their plans at this stage if the alternative is Milliband's Labour.

If the Conservatives were in power, there would have been even less regulation on banks, so the bailouts could well have been higher than Labour had to spend.

They are tightly regulated in most aspects. Their collapse had more to do with bad regulation and poor financial models that everyone took as gospel, as well as atrocious policy decisions. Where banks are given free reign is the reserves they hold relative to their lending, and this is where the central banks enter the scene, to coordinate this process. There is zero incentive for any political party promising bread and circuses to put any restraints on the process, other than token ones, as it artificially lowers their borrowing costs and raises tax takes by goosing up asset markets. Constraining reserve ratios in a meaningful way is completely off the table for any of the big 3 parties.

[minestrone]

If the Conservatives were in power, there would have been even less regulation on banks, so the bailouts could well have been higher than Labour had to spend.

As far as I can tell on buying bad debt in those amounts there was no regulation. Also Major had a banking career, he would have had more insight into what was going on, and the problem did start after he was gone. We all knew that the economy was based on credit, it was obvious to everyone that it was unsustainable. Except Brown.

[TheFaQQer]

not sure that is true, they may be pro business but they also want it regulated. Tony & co had the wool pulled over their eyes not sure the grown ups in the Tory party would have missed it.

That might be true of what they say now, but it certainly wasn't what they wanted in the run-up to the banking crisis:

Cameron to the Institute of Directors, 2006 - "I want to give you lower taxes and less regulation." (link)

Mark Hoban (then Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury) November 2006 - "Light-touch.. regulation is in the interests of the sector globally and the Government need to send that message more strongly"

Osborne, writing in The Telegraph, 2006 - "I fear that much of this regulation has been burdensome, complex and makes cross-border market penetration more difficult." (linky)

Cameron, June 206 - "The lessons from the City are clear. Low tax. Low regulation. Meritocracy. Openness. Innovation. These are the keys to success... we, on the centre-right, prefer to step out of the way of business."

Cameron, March 2009 speech entitled "Bringing law and order to the financial markets"- "Our approach is to cut regulation where the problem is too much of it"

Then the banks needed bailing out, and suddenly Osborne and Cameron were everywhere saying that Gordon Brown had been bamboozled by the banks and there hadn't been enough regulation.

[vetran]

I do not agree. When the economy goes "T**s up" immigrants will get the blame (just as the Nazis blamed the Jews) and UKIP having not been tainted by any c**k ups will grow in strength. As soon as they get any real power they will then go the way of the liberal democrats.

yes that's really scary I'm hoping immigration can be managed ahead of time so there is no reason for violence. Agree UKIP probably won't be effective first term.

[DodgyAgent]

No definitely Labour, Now UKIP apart from forcing action on immigration are pretty much irrelevant.

I do not agree. When the economy goes "T**s up" immigrants will get the blame (just as the Nazis blamed the Jews) and UKIP having not been tainted by any c**k ups will grow in strength. As soon as they get any real power they will then go the way of the liberal democrats.

[vetran]

If the Conservatives were in power, there would have been even less regulation on banks, so the bailouts could well have been higher than Labour had to spend.

not sure that is true, they may be pro business but they also want it regulated. Tony & co had the wool pulled over their eyes not sure the grown ups in the Tory party would have missed it.

[TheFaQQer]

If the conservatives were in power over that period we would have had minimal debt by 2008 and been able to spend our way through the recession.

If the Conservatives were in power, there would have been even less regulation on banks, so the bailouts could well have been higher than Labour had to spend.