Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even though it is well over four years since it was in powe

SystemSystem Posts: 11,687
edited July 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even though it is well over four years since it was in power LAB is still getting the blame for the cuts

YouGov's "blame for the cuts" tracker has LAB equalling best figures for the year – but still it gets most blame. See pic.twitter.com/QS9Dd84yjk

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    They deserve it.
  • Options
    DaemonBarberDaemonBarber Posts: 1,626
    Fair enough though eh?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,002
    Surely it's "a little over four years", rather than "well over".
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308
    It is a remarkably consistent figure but it is also almost certainly made up of a very high proportion of those already voting Tory. The lesser spotted Lib Dem might also be in there but is unlikely to be statistically significant.

    For those more inclined to support Labour there is almost total denial of what the previous government did to this country. They make completely facetious points about Osborne borrowing as much in 4 years as Labour did in 13 completely ignoring the comparative starting positions.

    They moan about "austerity" and the present government's inability to cut spending simultaneously and inconsistently, they do not seem to regard Labour opposing every cut as being a problem and do not seem to be concerned about Labour's lack of planning for the cuts already built into the next Parliament. It is a gross kind of irresponsibility and a serious threat to provision and funding of essential services in this country.

    There, I feel better now.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    This is the one of the great dangers of Labour's tactic of keeping schtum on the economy for fear of splitting the party -- that Labour is blamed for the global crisis. The other danger is that the coalition gets credit for a recovery it delayed.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,481
    You can't trust Labour with the economy.
  • Options
    So the voting public aren't entirely stupid then.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308

    You can't trust Labour with the economy.


    On the contrary they have proved themselves absolutely consistent and reliable in terms of outcomes. It is those who refuse to accept the consistent evidence that I find exasperating.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Is there a box for those who wish to praise the cuts?
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,210
    FPT - In response to TSE, who said this:

    "Ah the third one, that's the one where the Israeli Defence Minister had to resign for being culpable for the massacre of innocent Muslims.

    The Israelis showed their revulsion for this chap and massacres of Muslims, they eventually made him Prime Minister."


    Sharon was found culpable for allowing (and helping, I cannot recall) the Falangists to enter the Sabra and Chatila camps knowing that they were intent on slaughtering the inhabitants. An appalling crime. But the massacre was carried out by the Falangists (Lebanese citizens) not by Israeli soldiers, though for them to facilitate it was quite bad enough.

    In more recent years similar criticism (and apportionment of legal responsibility) has been made of the Dutch soldiers who failed to protect the men in Srebenicza and, indeed, handed some of them in their protection over to the Serbs even after the massacre of 7000 Muslim men and boys had started and the Dutch were aware what was going on. That remains the worst war crime on European soil since WW2. And the way Europeans stood by as Bosnian Muslims were attacked and killed and expelled and tortured was utterly shameful. Perhaps we might remember our own utter moral cowardice and feebleness in the face of attacks on innocent European Muslims when being so vocal in attacking other countries.

    BTW thank you for your response on the headline about statefunded Islamic schools. Relieved that it is not official Labour Party policy.

    Those Israelis cheering on the death of children are a disgrace. They should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone glorying in the death of children should.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    If the public already know this then why are they going to vote Labour seemingly back in again then ?
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,343
    Hmm, I think in our current climate that if you said anything critical about any party, you could get 25-35% to agree with it. Do people dislike party X so they blame them for Y, or do they oppose party X who they'd otherwise have supported, because of Y?

    I don't think I've EVER met anyone who had planned to vote Labour but wasn't doing so because he thought we were to blame for the cuts. But I've certainly met Tories who didn't like the cuts but forgave them as they thought they were Labour's fault. Swing voters tend to say "both".
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DavidL said:

    You can't trust Labour with the economy.


    On the contrary they have proved themselves absolutely consistent and reliable in terms of outcomes. It is those who refuse to accept the consistent evidence that I find exasperating.
    There was a global crisis which was not caused by Gordon Brown's policy on bacon sandwiches. The position that Labour brilliantly side-stepped the global crisis but then led us into a uniquely British meltdown at precisely the same time seems farfetched.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Labour break economies. Tories fix them.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308
    Pulpstar said:

    If the public already know this then why are they going to vote Labour seemingly back in again then ?

    If 34% blame Labour then 66% don't, just over half of which are going to vote Labour, apparently.

    The Tories are fishing in the pool that blame both. Those who blame the Coalition or neither are almost certainly beyond reach (and help).

  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    Most countries, companies and individuals in the West started over borrowing at the exact same time.

    Weird coincidence huh.

    Lab are partially getting away with over borrowing because Con won't admit the banks ****ed up and even if they don't know the details people can smell a rat.


  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,003
    edited July 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    If the public already know this then why are they going to vote Labour seemingly back in again then ?

    Because for many, while the answer to the question "most to blame" is Labour, it's 60:40 with the shenanigans in the City, and among financiers (not necessarily our correspondent of that name) generally.
    It's felt/hoped that Labour have learned their lesson and will take a tougher line over some of the shadier practices.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,864
    Afternoon all :)

    I've said on here before that Brown's injection of money into public services after 1999 was tantamount to force-feeding a starving man a banquet. The atrophied organisations simply couldn't deal with the flood of money and ended up creating new bureaucracies to try and manage the money.

    The public spending crisis really started when the money coming in (taxes) collapsed. The money going out was unsupportable. The restoration of income as much as the management of the expenditure was (or should have been) the priority of the incoming Government in 2010.

    One of the unheralded achievements of the Coalition (and it should be trumpetted far more than some of the ideological guff) has been the liberalisation of local authority finances. Councils are now able to be much more inventive with borrowing, investment and re-financing. The more astute Authorities are seperately trying to reduce or even remove their dependence on central Government grant.

    The more they can free themselves from that dependence the more they will be insulated from future reducations in central Government spending.
  • Options
    compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    In the words of the very best of PB Hodges...." I can see a crossover coming....I....can see a crossover coming".
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820

    There was a global crisis which was not caused by Gordon Brown's policy on bacon sandwiches. The position that Labour brilliantly side-stepped the global crisis but then led us into a uniquely British meltdown at precisely the same time seems farfetched.

    Sure, the crisis itself wasn't Brown's fault (although the regulatory failure to a large extent was).

    You still have to explain why we had the biggest collapse in GDP of any major Western economy and why we ended up with the worst deficit in Europe other than Greece.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,002
    MrJones said:

    Most countries, companies and individuals in the West started over borrowing at the exact same time.

    Weird coincidence huh.

    Lab are partially getting away with over borrowing because Con won't admit the banks ****ed up and even if they don't know the details people can smell a rat.


    Yes, it must be a CONSPIRACY.
  • Options
    woody662woody662 Posts: 255
    Only a third, shocking
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,002
    BTW. Very cool story I knew nothing off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314
    "partly to blame, not learned, likely to do it again"

    Not my best post but YouGov's question on the economy and Lab bears repeating always.

    A bit like Auberon Waugh, when he took over the Literary Review, endeavoured to have the word "sex" on the front cover of every issue to boost circulation.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308

    DavidL said:

    You can't trust Labour with the economy.


    On the contrary they have proved themselves absolutely consistent and reliable in terms of outcomes. It is those who refuse to accept the consistent evidence that I find exasperating.
    There was a global crisis which was not caused by Gordon Brown's policy on bacon sandwiches. The position that Labour brilliantly side-stepped the global crisis but then led us into a uniquely British meltdown at precisely the same time seems farfetched.
    I thought the bacon sandwich policy was a creation of Ed's.

    Brown took the credit for the froth of the global credit mania which was worse here than almost anywhere else due to the City effect. He took all that unsustainable tax revenues and spent them. And then he spent some more creating the highest structural deficit in the western world. He allowed our banks to spiral out of control and our combined public and private debt ratios to reach the highest levels in the world. Anything to keep the wheels spinning and a delusion of wealth.

    We had the worse fall in GDP because we were the most exposed to this uncontrolled lunacy. We recovered more slowly because our debt ratios were worse than anyone else and our broken banks were unable to supply credit. We created the absurd and unsustainable expectation that nearly 60% of our population were magically going to get more from the state than they pay towards it.

    So there were global problems but they were problems that London played a key part in, mainly as result of chronically incompetent box ticking regulation. Our own problems were worse than any other large western country because our government had been staggeringly incompetent and had aggravated almost every aspect of the problems more than anyone else.

    Brown is lucky he is allowed to walk the streets.

  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    rcs1000 said:

    MrJones said:

    Most countries, companies and individuals in the West started over borrowing at the exact same time.

    Weird coincidence huh.

    Lab are partially getting away with over borrowing because Con won't admit the banks ****ed up and even if they don't know the details people can smell a rat.


    Yes, it must be a CONSPIRACY.
    The banks thought they'd discovered a method of dramatically reducing the risk of borrowing and so dramatically increased their leverage.

    The Con cheek of the political class won't admit it and people smell a rat.

  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    There was a global crisis which was not caused by Gordon Brown's policy on bacon sandwiches. The position that Labour brilliantly side-stepped the global crisis but then led us into a uniquely British meltdown at precisely the same time seems farfetched.

    Sure, the crisis itself wasn't Brown's fault (although the regulatory failure to a large extent was).

    You still have to explain why we had the biggest collapse in GDP of any major Western economy and why we ended up with the worst deficit in Europe other than Greece.
    A bigger financial services sector?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709126/Woman-car-towed-away-Foreign-Secretary-s-minders-three-point-turn-embarrassing-SEVEN-point-turn-hit-BMW.html

    Interesting - I sincerely hope the car wasn't towed away just because she happened to perform a slightly poor road manoeuvre near the Foreign Sec's residence.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,003
    edited July 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709126/Woman-car-towed-away-Foreign-Secretary-s-minders-three-point-turn-embarrassing-SEVEN-point-turn-hit-BMW.html

    Interesting - I sincerely hope the car wasn't towed away just because she happened to perform a slightly poor road manoeuvre near the Foreign Sec's residence.

    Case as stated; was confiscating the keys and impounding the car legal? I know the police think they've got draconian powers, but....
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,995
    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    » show previous quotes
    Very funny BBC sports report last night - the reporter, getting them as close as she could, said: English, Welsh and Scottish athletes have won medals today..

    Would love to take a look at the BBC memo instructing how to deal with UK athletes/medal winners...

    There have been slip ups, given that most of the presenters are imported, most Scottish ones relegated to radio Scotland. Been a good few TEAMGB slips. Great games so far though and wonderful atmosphere and spirit, great crowds with lots of cheering for underdogs as well as the home teams.
    Despite all the usual drivel spouted beforehand the English team have been cheered almost as much as the home team. Be a lot of disappointed bigots out there.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,481
    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,002
    MrJones said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MrJones said:

    Most countries, companies and individuals in the West started over borrowing at the exact same time.

    Weird coincidence huh.

    Lab are partially getting away with over borrowing because Con won't admit the banks ****ed up and even if they don't know the details people can smell a rat.


    Yes, it must be a CONSPIRACY.
    The banks thought they'd discovered a method of dramatically reducing the risk of borrowing and so dramatically increased their leverage.

    The Con cheek of the political class won't admit it and people smell a rat.

    There are numerous contributory causes of the credit explosion of the 2000 period. In no particular order:

    1. Basle II rules, which placed a very low capital weighting on mortgages, and therefore enabled banks to expand their balance sheets more than they would normally
    2. The rise of China as an exporter: to avoid dollars washing around the internal Chinese economy, trade surpluses were reinvested in buying up debt in the West, which both drove down interest rates, and made various different bonds correlate more than they should
    3. The very lax monetary policies pursued by the Fed and others following the bursting of the dot com bubble and 9/11.
    4. The very long period of constantly rising house prices in most markets (and particularly the US), which encouraged consumers to think that owning property (and leveraging up to buy it) was a one way bet.
    5. Political moves in the US to encourage banks to offer credit to buy houses to people who would not normally have been credit worthy enough
    6. Compensation policies at certain bank (Northern Rock, being the most obvious example) that encouraged growing the balance sheet at almost any cost
    7. Demutualisation of building societies encouraged profit chasing over stability
    8. The rise of a secondary mortgage market in the UK (and the growing importance of one in the US), which meant that banks were increasing selling on loans (and therefore were less concerned than they should have been about their ultimate credit worthiness)
    9. The ratings agencies who gave AAA rating to synthetic products such as CDOs, therefore encouraging excessive amounts of capital to flow into mortgage financing.

  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,864

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I don't quite know what line you are trying to spin here, TSE, apart from the fact it's anti-LD and seems little more than an attempt to create a story out of nothing.

    It seems a perfectly reasonable statement to make - donations are inherently unpredictable. The Party recognises that, as a Member paying into that Party I'm well aware of that. Compared with where the fledgling Party was in 1989 my understanding is we're in fair shape despite the fall-off in membership.


  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308
    This match is slipping away to the inevitable draw. England really needed to finish the first Indian innings today if they were going to force a result.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,481
    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    » show previous quotes
    Very funny BBC sports report last night - the reporter, getting them as close as she could, said: English, Welsh and Scottish athletes have won medals today..

    Would love to take a look at the BBC memo instructing how to deal with UK athletes/medal winners...

    There have been slip ups, given that most of the presenters are imported, most Scottish ones relegated to radio Scotland. Been a good few TEAMGB slips. Great games so far though and wonderful atmosphere and spirit, great crowds with lots of cheering for underdogs as well as the home teams.
    Despite all the usual drivel spouted beforehand the English team have been cheered almost as much as the home team. Be a lot of disappointed bigots out there.

    I've been out in Glasgow for the last day or so.

    Loved it.

    Lovely people and atmosphere all over, and at the Hockey.

    I heard that the England team were booed at the Rugby sevens.

    Quite frankly, I'd be worried if The England team wasn't booed in Scotland
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    DavidL said:

    This match is slipping away to the inevitable draw. England really needed to finish the first Indian innings today if they were going to force a result.

    Just Dhoni, Jadeja and Kumar before the tail.

    May well pass England's score.

  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,003
    DavidL said:

    This match is slipping away to the inevitable draw. England really needed to finish the first Indian innings today if they were going to force a result.

    Well, with only three effective fast(er) bowlers, it's to be expected Something seriously wrong with Jordan's run-up.

    Of course, Cook could always bring himself on. Got a wicket last time IIRC!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    stodge said:

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I don't quite know what line you are trying to spin here, TSE, apart from the fact it's anti-LD and seems little more than an attempt to create a story out of nothing.

    It seems a perfectly reasonable statement to make - donations are inherently unpredictable. The Party recognises that, as a Member paying into that Party I'm well aware of that. Compared with where the fledgling Party was in 1989 my understanding is we're in fair shape despite the fall-off in membership.


    Are other parties accounts normally qualified to that degree ?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    TOPPING said:

    » show previous quotes
    Very funny BBC sports report last night - the reporter, getting them as close as she could, said: English, Welsh and Scottish athletes have won medals today..

    Would love to take a look at the BBC memo instructing how to deal with UK athletes/medal winners...

    There have been slip ups, given that most of the presenters are imported, most Scottish ones relegated to radio Scotland. Been a good few TEAMGB slips. Great games so far though and wonderful atmosphere and spirit, great crowds with lots of cheering for underdogs as well as the home teams.
    Despite all the usual drivel spouted beforehand the English team have been cheered almost as much as the home team. Be a lot of disappointed bigots out there.

    I've been out in Glasgow for the last day or so.

    Loved it.

    Lovely people and atmosphere all over, and at the Hockey.

    I heard that the England team were booed at the Rugby sevens.

    Quite frankly, I'd be worried if The England team wasn't booed in Scotland
    My view was that the Games would engender a togetherness, party-like feeling rather than a feeling of: right that's it, we're off.

    Is that what you're finding "on the street" (and "in the velodrome")?
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    DavidL said:

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).
    Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited July 2014
    DavidL said:

    I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).

    No they wouldn't. As long as the officers of the party reasonably believe they will be able to meet the obligations as they fall due, and assuming they have taken reasonable care and preferably documented their reasons, they are fine.

    It is true that, in the case of limited company, the directors are in big trouble if they continue trading when they know, or should know, that the company won't be able to meet its obligations as they fall due, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

    My reading of the text shown is that they are in some difficulty and will have to watch the financial position carefully, but that the bank is still happy to continue providing credit. As long as that remains the case, they are OK.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308

    DavidL said:

    This match is slipping away to the inevitable draw. England really needed to finish the first Indian innings today if they were going to force a result.

    Well, with only three effective fast(er) bowlers, it's to be expected Something seriously wrong with Jordan's run-up.

    Of course, Cook could always bring himself on. Got a wicket last time IIRC!
    I think he is still top of the bowling averages on that basis. I doubt he would want to risk that.

    Jordan is having a mare and Ali looks seriously unthreatening, just hoping for a mistake. The weight on Broad and Jimmy is just too great on such a flat pitch.

  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited July 2014
    ''Political moves in the US to encourage banks to offer credit to buy houses to people who would not normally have been credit worthy enough''

    This is the key one. Some people still see credit as some sort of democratic right, like voting or free healthcare or trial by jury.

    It isn't. Banks are meant to be private businesses, not social services. They are meant to lend to people who stand a chance of being able to pay back.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    rcs1000 said:

    BTW. Very cool story I knew nothing off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper

    I remember that story from the time. Gosh you know how to make a chap feel old on a fine summer's afternoon.
  • Options
    JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380

    In the words of the very best of PB Hodges...." I can see a crossover coming....I....can see a crossover coming".

    I am mentally preparing myself for Ed M as PM. I guess it won't be so bad. I think the best thing will be that all those anti-cuts protesters that are on Tv that are raging and full of hate will hopefully be cheered up and therefore hopefully there will be less rage and hate in the world.

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,481
    stodge said:

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I don't quite know what line you are trying to spin here, TSE, apart from the fact it's anti-LD and seems little more than an attempt to create a story out of nothing.

    It seems a perfectly reasonable statement to make - donations are inherently unpredictable. The Party recognises that, as a Member paying into that Party I'm well aware of that. Compared with where the fledgling Party was in 1989 my understanding is we're in fair shape despite the fall-off in membership.


    Calm down dear.

    I'm not spinning any line, as I understand it, this is the first the time the Lib Dems (or any other major party in the UK) have had to put such a note in their accounts.

    On the plus side

    Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes · 21m

    Apols, Lib Dem membership figures elsewhere in accounts. They are on 43.451 (2012 42,501)
  • Options
    hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    This is a load of nonsense. With Lib Dems in coalition, you have them and Tory voters blaming Labour, plus some of the UKIP voters also joining in. Lib Dems and Tories spent the first two years in government constantly saying the same phrase over and over again, that Labour crashed the economy and overspent. The economy was doing quite well before Fred Goodwin and his mates made loads of dodgy investment decisions, causing banks to crash. The UK was over exposed in financial services and suffered more as a consequence.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,481
    hucks67 said:

    This is a load of nonsense. With Lib Dems in coalition, you have them and Tory voters blaming Labour, plus some of the UKIP voters also joining in. Lib Dems and Tories spent the first two years in government constantly saying the same phrase over and over again, that Labour crashed the economy and overspent. The economy was doing quite well before Fred Goodwin and his mates made loads of dodgy investment decisions, causing banks to crash. The UK was over exposed in financial services and suffered more as a consequence.

    Is that the Fred Goodwin that was Knighted by Labour?
  • Options
    BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    edited July 2014

    Labour break economies. Tories fix them.

    When has that ever happened?

    Not in 1979.

    Labour picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment after 18 years of woeful economic mismanagement in 1997.

    And the economy is certainly not fixed now.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314
    edited July 2014
    taffys said:

    ''Political moves in the US to encourage banks to offer credit to buy houses to people who would not normally have been credit worthy enough''

    This is the key one. Some people still see credit as some sort of democratic right, like voting or free healthcare or trial by jury.

    It isn't. Banks are meant to be private businesses, not social services. They are meant to lend to people who stand a chance of being able to pay back.

    Nope I'm afraid, convenient a hook to hang a causes-for-the-crash hat on as it at first seems.

    Studies have shown that default rates on Community Reinvestment Act loans were no higher and often lower than other mortgages of the time.

    Which was a pretty crazy time, that said.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    BenM said:

    Labour break economies. Tories fix them.

    When has that ever happened?

    Not in 1979.

    Labour picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment after 18 years of woeful economic mismanagement in 1997.

    And the economy is certainly not fixed now.
    I fear you might have misunderstood what happened in 1979 - Mrs T was for the good guys not Labour.

    You were probably a twinkle in the milkman's eye at that point mind you.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308
    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).
    Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

    In the hope that enough money is going to turn up? From somewhere? Maybe?

    I take the point that their bank is still willing to back them at this point but the responsibilities of a director or trustee cannot be delegated to a third party.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    England still well in the box seat in the test, should have probably hit out till we were all out though as it'll be whether India reach the follow on total that determines whether this match is a draw or a win.

    This is the test that has above all others created the modern day fashion for not enforcing the follow on (And I'd guess earlier than normal 1st innings declarations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9bV3MRVu3s Eden Gardens Calcutta 2001 - caused a psyche shift in the powerful Aus/Indian teams at the time and probably followed through to the modern day theory by Cook declaring on the 2nd evening. But with a big enough 1st innings the follow on is still a very powerful tool - Or the 3rd innings will inevitably go on too long in most circumstances, Cook won't risk a target of 250 in the 4th even though it may offer the best chance of winning due to being able to lose the game.

    Slogging out to get nearer to 600 may have been the better option.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    BenM said:

    Labour break economies. Tories fix them.

    When has that ever happened?

    Not in 1979.

    Labour picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment after 18 years of woeful economic mismanagement in 1997.
    Bravo! A wonderful piece of political chutzpah, rewriting history in a way so brazen that one can only stand back in admiration!
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    DavidL said:

    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).
    Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

    In the hope that enough money is going to turn up? From somewhere? Maybe?

    I take the point that their bank is still willing to back them at this point but the responsibilities of a director or trustee cannot be delegated to a third party.

    No, they expect to be able to operate as a going concern. If they only hoped that this would be the case then clearly the accounts couldnt have been prepared on a going concern basis. Do you think they've been audited by kids who dont know basic accounting standards?

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).
    Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

    In the hope that enough money is going to turn up? From somewhere? Maybe?

    I take the point that their bank is still willing to back them at this point but the responsibilities of a director or trustee cannot be delegated to a third party.

    No, they expect to be able to operate as a going concern. If they only hoped that this would be the case then clearly the accounts couldnt have been prepared on a going concern basis. Do you think they've been audited by kids who dont know basic accounting standards?

    Materially qualified going concern. THe auditors do know their stuff, that's why the huge rider has been put in there.

    I ask the question again though as I have not seen so many political parties "notes to the accounts" is this a normal qualification to put in in say the Labour, Green, Conservative, UKIP accounts or previous Lib Dem ones ?
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited July 2014
    @BenM
    Of course the economy is fixed.... Well, at least a lot of the rates were?
    They should have went for a "bottom up" approach, find out which markets WEREN'T being manipulated, then work from there.
    And after all these billions of pounds of fraud, how many British "bankers" have been jailed?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308
    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).
    Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

    In the hope that enough money is going to turn up? From somewhere? Maybe?

    I take the point that their bank is still willing to back them at this point but the responsibilities of a director or trustee cannot be delegated to a third party.

    No, they expect to be able to operate as a going concern. If they only hoped that this would be the case then clearly the accounts couldnt have been prepared on a going concern basis. Do you think they've been audited by kids who dont know basic accounting standards?

    On the contrary I think they have been audited by professionals who are seriously concerned and wanted that concern (as they are statutorily required to do) to be reflected in a very unusual statement that made it clear that the judgment on going concern was that of the trustees based on their knowledge rather than the auditors.



  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    BenM said:

    Labour break economies. Tories fix them.

    When has that ever happened?

    Not in 1979.

    Labour picked up the pieces of Tory mass unemployment after 18 years of woeful economic mismanagement in 1997.

    And the economy is certainly not fixed now.
    Not fixed, certainly. By any yardstick, though, it's better than in May 2010.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Glad Labour are still getting the blame, given it's largely their fault.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Studies have shown that default rates on Community Reinvestment Act loans were no higher and often lower than other mortgages of the time.

    You seem to be arguing that there was no such thing as subprime....? Having read Lewis' book on the topic I find that difficult to believe.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,325
    edited July 2014
    FPT
    MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MikeK said:

    rcs1000 said:

    25% of under-5s are Muslim, I gather

    The actual number is 9.1% (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census).

    But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
    I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?
    The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?

    As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).
    I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.
    Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?
    The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!
    Very funny TSE.
    For your interest only Sunil.

    1) Milhemet Adhasha (war of attrition, Suez front) 1967 -1969 various times on reserve duty about 4 months total in all.

    2) Milhemet Yom Kippor (Yom Kippor war) October 1973-November 1973 although I did 5 months continuous service. Egyptian Front, capture of Fayid air base.

    3. Milhemet Levanon (Lebanese war ) 1982 First two weeks, then released from service.
    Interesting. So why are are you a member of UKIP instead of, say, Likud?
  • Options
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    rcs1000 said:



    There are numerous contributory causes of the credit explosion of the 2000 period. In no particular order:

    1. Basle II rules, which placed a very low capital weighting on mortgages, and therefore enabled banks to expand their balance sheets more than they would normally
    2. The rise of China as an exporter: to avoid dollars washing around the internal Chinese economy, trade surpluses were reinvested in buying up debt in the West, which both drove down interest rates, and made various different bonds correlate more than they should
    3. The very lax monetary policies pursued by the Fed and others following the bursting of the dot com bubble and 9/11.
    4. The very long period of constantly rising house prices in most markets (and particularly the US), which encouraged consumers to think that owning property (and leveraging up to buy it) was a one way bet.
    5. Political moves in the US to encourage banks to offer credit to buy houses to people who would not normally have been credit worthy enough
    6. Compensation policies at certain bank (Northern Rock, being the most obvious example) that encouraged growing the balance sheet at almost any cost
    7. Demutualisation of building societies encouraged profit chasing over stability
    8. The rise of a secondary mortgage market in the UK (and the growing importance of one in the US), which meant that banks were increasing selling on loans (and therefore were less concerned than they should have been about their ultimate credit worthiness)
    9. The ratings agencies who gave AAA rating to synthetic products such as CDOs, therefore encouraging excessive amounts of capital to flow into mortgage financing.

    No doubt but the point I'm making is there's people who blame Lab for over borrowing, there's people that don't and there's people who think they probably did but smell a rat over that being the whole reason.

  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Sean_F
    To all intents and purposes it is exactly the same as it was before the crash, and as usual, those lower down were blamed and made to pay, while those who saw the real profits from the shambles quietly got on with getting richer.
    Richard Navabi asked why the UK was hit so badly by the crash (insinuating it was Labours fault), while all the time knowing it is because the UK has the most unbalanced economy in the developed world, and relies on the service sector for almost 80% of GDP.

  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited July 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    @Sean_F
    To all intents and purposes it is exactly the same as it was before the crash, and as usual, those lower down were blamed and made to pay, while those who saw the real profits from the shambles quietly got on with getting richer.
    Richard Navabi asked why the UK was hit so badly by the crash (insinuating it was Labours fault), while all the time knowing it is because the UK has the most unbalanced economy in the developed world, and relies on the service sector for almost 80% of GDP.


    If there was no crash why the bump between 2007 and 2012 ?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

    Just the imagination of those out of work ?

  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,003
    Smarmeron said:

    @Sean_F
    To all intents and purposes it is exactly the same as it was before the crash, and as usual, those lower down were blamed and made to pay, while those who saw the real profits from the shambles quietly got on with getting richer.
    Richard Navabi asked why the UK was hit so badly by the crash (insinuating it was Labours fault), while all the time knowing it is because the UK has the most unbalanced economy in the developed world, and relies on the service sector for almost 80% of GDP.

    It's the rich wot make the trouble;
    It's the poor wot get the blame!
    It's the same the 'ole world over!
    Ain't all a bleeding' shame!

    Never was truer word spoken!
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314
    taffys said:

    Studies have shown that default rates on Community Reinvestment Act loans were no higher and often lower than other mortgages of the time.

    You seem to be arguing that there was no such thing as subprime....? Having read Lewis' book on the topic I find that difficult to believe.

    Of course there were and are subprime mortgages but specifically the CRA loans had average default rates and yet they are often cited as being the "cause" of the credit crunch.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,003

    FPT

    MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MikeK said:

    rcs1000 said:

    25% of under-5s are Muslim, I gather

    The actual number is 9.1% (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census).

    But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
    I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?
    The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?

    As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).
    I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.
    Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?
    The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!
    Very funny TSE.
    For your interest only Sunil.

    1) Milhemet Adhasha (war of attrition, Suez front) 1967 -1969 various times on reserve duty about 4 months total in all.

    2) Milhemet Yom Kippor (Yom Kippor war) October 1973-November 1973 although I did 5 months continuous service. Egyptian Front, capture of Fayid air base.

    3. Milhemet Levanon (Lebanese war ) 1982 First two weeks, then released from service.
    Interesting. So why are are you a member of UKIP instead of, say, Likud?
    Sunil, wouldn't you think Likud a bit too far left for our friend?
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @TGOHF
    Did I say there wasn't a crash?
    You will have to make yourself a little clearer Harry.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @MrSteerpike: How is Ed Miliband's 'New Politics' coming along? http://t.co/sevU4Fx2pX
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    hucks67 said:

    This is a load of nonsense. With Lib Dems in coalition, you have them and Tory voters blaming Labour, plus some of the UKIP voters also joining in. Lib Dems and Tories spent the first two years in government constantly saying the same phrase over and over again, that Labour crashed the economy and overspent. The economy was doing quite well before Fred Goodwin and his mates made loads of dodgy investment decisions, causing banks to crash. The UK was over exposed in financial services and suffered more as a consequence.

    Is that the Fred Goodwin that was Knighted by Labour?
    Or a financial services sector that was paying huge amounts in taxes that Gordon Brown was spending like a drunken clipper-hand in port on the apparent assumption that he had abolished the economic cycle. A financial services sector, moreover, that was regulated by having thousands of box tickers but absolutely no one looking at the bigger picture.

    I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol, rather they have all taken their big fat pensions and been allowed to honourably retire. Even today its still going on, Lloyds Bank has been fined £218m for corrupt practices - the blow falls on the shareholders - not the incompetents who were in charge or the thieves that were ripping everyone off. Never mind, we are told that the SFO is considering, no really, considering whether they should investigate. The Septics get a lot wrong in their criminal justice system but, by the cringe, they don't fanny about when it comes to white collar crime. Want to clean up the city? Then make some of the senior people take real, personal, responsibility.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,703
    FPT:
    malcolmg said:

    TOPPING said:

    malcolmg said:

    JackW said:

    BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****

    The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection (Changes Since 15st July)

    Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?

    YES 37% (NC) .. No 63% (NC)

    Turnout Projection 81.5% (+1%)

    ......................................................................

    WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
    JNN - Jacobite News Network
    McARSE - My Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

    YAWN
    Very funny BBC sports report last night - the reporter, getting them as close as she could, said: English, Welsh and Scottish athletes have won medals today..

    Would love to take a look at the BBC memo instructing how to deal with UK athletes/medal winners...
    Despite all the usual drivel spouted beforehand the English team have been cheered almost as much as the home team. Be a lot of disappointed bigots out there.
    You mean the 11% of Scots who would cheer an English loss?

  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,325
    DavidL said:

    This match is slipping away to the inevitable draw. England really needed to finish the first Indian innings today if they were going to force a result.

    Keep Karma and carry on :)
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,002

    I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol

    Find me the criminal statutes broken by Fred Godwin and the like.

    Unless what they did at the time was illegal, then there can be no criminal prosecution.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    FPT

    MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MikeK said:

    rcs1000 said:

    25% of under-5s are Muslim, I gather

    The actual number is 9.1% (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census).

    But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
    I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?
    The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?

    As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).
    I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.
    Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?
    The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!
    Very funny TSE.
    For your interest only Sunil.

    1) Milhemet Adhasha (war of attrition, Suez front) 1967 -1969 various times on reserve duty about 4 months total in all.

    2) Milhemet Yom Kippor (Yom Kippor war) October 1973-November 1973 although I did 5 months continuous service. Egyptian Front, capture of Fayid air base.

    3. Milhemet Levanon (Lebanese war ) 1982 First two weeks, then released from service.
    Interesting. So why are are you a member of UKIP instead of, say, Likud?
    Sean Fear with his wide knowledge of Hertfordshire politics will know but close to me, there's probably a decent sized Likud branch in Radlett

  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited July 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    Richard Navabi asked why the UK was hit so badly by the crash (insinuating it was Labours fault), while all the time knowing it is because the UK has the most unbalanced economy in the developed world, and relies on the service sector for almost 80% of GDP.

    Given that Labour had been in charge for an entire decade, with a huge majority, and with tax revenues pouring in faster than ever known before, yes, it was Labour's fault that the economy was so unbalanced. Who on earth else could possibly be to blame? It was even more Labour's fault that Brown built up spending commitments, many of them extremely wasteful, on the back of those revenues. Most especially - and this is absolutely unforgivable - when the crisis hit, he forbade any planning on how to reduce spending, and cynically cancelled the spending review, thus wasting two entire years. Unbelievably, after the crisis hit he even managed to increase spending commitments.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited July 2014
    @CarlottaVance
    Be fair? When the English lads used to come up for the five nations, we used to boo them consistently and rub their faces in the ordure for anything up to 2 hours after the match, then get drunk with them. When England won, they did the same to us.
    These lads would travel up from as far away Bristol to watch the match in our local pub, go figure? But they did it for years, even if they couldn't get tickets for the match itself.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).
    Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

    In the hope that enough money is going to turn up? From somewhere? Maybe?

    I take the point that their bank is still willing to back them at this point but the responsibilities of a director or trustee cannot be delegated to a third party.

    .... Do you think they've been audited by kids who dont know basic accounting standards?

    No, I expect them to have been audited by accountants who know the City's standards.

    Mr. Cole quoted the old song, the Red Flag up-thread. I would suggest that with relation to accounting standards in the UK, Cole Porter's, "Anything Goes" would be more appropriate.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,703
    Smarmeron said:

    @CarlottaVance
    Be fair? When the English lads used to come up for the five nations, we used to boo them consistently and rub their faces in the ordure for anything up to 2 hours after the match, then get drunk with them. When England won, they did the same to us.
    These lads would travel up from as far away Bristol to watch the match in our local pub, go figure? But they did it for years, even if they couldn't get tickets for the match itself.

    I have no doubt that's true - and the vast majority of both Scots and English are either indifferent to the other country's team's fate, or wish them well. But what malcolmg's challenged intellect cannot cope with is that twice as many Scots as English wish the other team to lose - so he adopts the usual Nat tactic of bluster and invective......

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,002
    Small economics update.

    One of the most interesting indicators (to me at least) is the point at which government debt-to-GDP starts to fall.

    German government debt-to-GDP has been falling since 2011.
    By the end of 2014, Ireland and the US will see debt-to-GDP numbers peak. (We may see Irish debt-to-GDP decline from 3Q, but it will be 4Q at the latest.)
    At some point next year, the UK will see see debt-to-GDP starting to decline. Italy should follow by the end of the year.
    If Spain's economic growth momentum continues then it should start to see its debt levels peak in early 2016 (and I may be pessimistic).

    Although French debt-to-GDP increased just 1.2% last year, the ongoing and persistent recession, combined with the almost total absence of structural reforms, means that I'm not comfortable forecasting any reduction in debt-to-GDP in the foreseeable future.
  • Options

    hucks67 said:

    This is a load of nonsense. With Lib Dems in coalition, you have them and Tory voters blaming Labour, plus some of the UKIP voters also joining in. Lib Dems and Tories spent the first two years in government constantly saying the same phrase over and over again, that Labour crashed the economy and overspent. The economy was doing quite well before Fred Goodwin and his mates made loads of dodgy investment decisions, causing banks to crash. The UK was over exposed in financial services and suffered more as a consequence.

    Is that the Fred Goodwin that was Knighted by Labour?
    I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol.
    That would be Gordon Brown and Ed Balls. The banks did what they do within the limits of what their regulator allowed. No laws were broken. But...there were two criminally stupid decisions that ruined the country:
    1. Break a working regulatory regime and replace with a politically motivated mess that removed oversight of systemic risk; and
    2. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, bloat the public sector, spend, more bloat, more spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, borrow, spend, belch, there's no money left.

    And we voted for that shit 3 times in a row.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Richard_Nabavi
    Do I blame New Labour for wasting an opportunity to rectify the insanity "Thatcherism" started? Yes, and have said so on many occasions here.
    Your problem is you think that George has changed anything, but the fundamentals of the idiocy remain solidly in place.
    Governments and the markets basically "create money" at convenience, whim, or greed, and call it a "free market" economy. An economy that has no substance behind it other than blind faith.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,003

    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).
    Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

    In the hope that enough money is going to turn up? From somewhere? Maybe?

    I take the point that their bank is still willing to back them at this point but the responsibilities of a director or trustee cannot be delegated to a third party.

    .... Do you think they've been audited by kids who dont know basic accounting standards?

    No, I expect them to have been audited by accountants who know the City's standards.

    Mr. Cole quoted the old song, the Red Flag up-thread. I would suggest that with relation to accounting standards in the UK, Cole Porter's, "Anything Goes" would be more appropriate.
    That wasn't the Red Flag, Mr Llama. IIRC correctly I quoted the chorus to "She was poor but she was honest". Which I recall from student days! The words, but not the tune!
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited July 2014
    He was cheered as he said it.

    OK but what is your point? some Jewish people are bloodthirsty islamophobes?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    taffys said:

    ''Political moves in the US to encourage banks to offer credit to buy houses to people who would not normally have been credit worthy enough''

    This is the key one. Some people still see credit as some sort of democratic right, like voting or free healthcare or trial by jury.

    It isn't. Banks are meant to be private businesses, not social services. They are meant to lend to people who stand a chance of being able to pay back.

    "stand a chance" sounds a bit risky to me!

    The big mistake that most banks make is they lend against the asset, not the person.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @OldKingCole
    The tune varied considerably according to how much drink had been consumed (and also the words) ;-)
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    rcs1000 said:

    I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol

    Find me the criminal statutes broken by Fred Godwin and the like.

    Unless what they did at the time was illegal, then there can be no criminal prosecution.
    We will never know will we, because they managed to bankrupt their companies without anyone investigating, or being allowed to investigate.

    I note that today the BoE Chairman said of Lloyds Bank, “Such manipulation is highly reprehensible, clearly unlawful and may amount to criminal conduct.” The legal authorities have it would seem promised to consider whether they should investigate. What some people did was unlawful and those in charge are going to think about investigating.

    If the Chairman of Lloyds Bank at the time of these malpractices can be allowed to accept his pension and wander off as if nothing had happened then we have the the risk to reward ratio totally wrong. I really begin to wonder whether the 80% plus tax rates of yesteryear were really such a bad idea.

  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited July 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    @Richard_Nabavi
    Do I blame New Labour for wasting an opportunity to rectify the insanity "Thatcherism" started? Yes, and have said so on many occasions here.
    Your problem is you think that George has changed anything, but the fundamentals of the idiocy remain solidly in place.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with Thatcherism, which rescued us from being the 'sick man of Europe'. Maggie stood down 18 years before the financial crisis: it was Labour, and Labour alone, who were in control of the country for an entire decade leading up to the crisis, in the most favourable circumstances for reforming things. The responsibility is theirs.

    As for what this government has done, yes, a lot of the structural problems remain. It's a bit rich of a supporter of a party which completely failed to fix the problems as they arose, and when it would have been much easier, and when money was plentiful, for the fact that they landed the coalition with a God-awful mess and no money. Of course it's taking time to fix that mess - I always said it would take three parliamentary terms.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929

    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Neil said:

    DavidL said:

    Sam Coates of the Times


    The formal Lib Dem statement in 2013 accounts over whether the party is financially viable sounds v ominous

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Btt2gZmIcAAnHaV.jpg

    Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 5m

    The Lib Dem statement appears to acknowledge the risk that it might not be able to meet obligations (because of "unpredictable" donations)

    I think a director who signed off accounts on that sort of basis would be at serious risk of having his collar felt by the DTI (or whatever ludicrous name it has these days).
    Why? They have clearly explained why they consider that the accounts can be prepared on a going concern basis as is required.

    In the hope that enough money is going to turn up? From somewhere? Maybe?

    I take the point that their bank is still willing to back them at this point but the responsibilities of a director or trustee cannot be delegated to a third party.

    .... Do you think they've been audited by kids who dont know basic accounting standards?

    No, I expect them to have been audited by accountants who know the City's standards.

    Mr. Cole quoted the old song, the Red Flag up-thread. I would suggest that with relation to accounting standards in the UK, Cole Porter's, "Anything Goes" would be more appropriate.
    City accounts will have to be audited to IFRS standards now, whereas these are under the somewhat easier British rules.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098


    Mr. Cole quoted the old song, the Red Flag up-thread. I would suggest that with relation to accounting standards in the UK, Cole Porter's, "Anything Goes" would be more appropriate.

    That wasn't the Red Flag, Mr Llama. IIRC correctly I quoted the chorus to "She was poor but she was honest". Which I recall from student days! The words, but not the tune!

    You are absolutely right, Mr. Cole and I apologise unreservedly for any offence my stupid mistake may have given. I should have known better, indeed I do. My only plea in mitigation was that at the time I was trying to remember who write "Anything Goes". My first memory was that it was Arthur Anderson.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,002

    rcs1000 said:

    I find intensely annoying that nobody at the top decision making level, including those in the Treasury, has gone to gaol

    Find me the criminal statutes broken by Fred Godwin and the like.

    Unless what they did at the time was illegal, then there can be no criminal prosecution.
    We will never know will we, because they managed to bankrupt their companies without anyone investigating, or being allowed to investigate.

    I note that today the BoE Chairman said of Lloyds Bank, “Such manipulation is highly reprehensible, clearly unlawful and may amount to criminal conduct.” The legal authorities have it would seem promised to consider whether they should investigate. What some people did was unlawful and those in charge are going to think about investigating.

    If the Chairman of Lloyds Bank at the time of these malpractices can be allowed to accept his pension and wander off as if nothing had happened then we have the the risk to reward ratio totally wrong. I really begin to wonder whether the 80% plus tax rates of yesteryear were really such a bad idea.

    What Northern Rock, HBOS, Bradford & Bingley all did to precipitate bankrupcy was to lend too much money to people whose prospects were uncertain and without adequate assets to underwrite the loans. (125% LTV, etc.)

    Lax lending standards are definitely stupid, may well be reprehensible, but they are certainly not (currently) criminal.

    With RBS and Lloyds the situtations are slightly different. RBS bought ABN Amro for cash at the top of the cycle - substantially increasing its leverage into a downturn. Stupid? Yes. But not criminal. Lloyds bought HBOS because they were asked to. Stupid? Yes. But not criminal.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,210
    I do find it grimly amusing that, according to their own website, one of the advisors to Res Publica, the body which has come up with the idea of getting bankers to swear oaths, is one Vicky Pryce, ex-wife of Chris Huhne and, er, recently jailed for lying on oath.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,325
    Cyclefree said:

    I do find it grimly amusing that, according to their own website, one of the advisors to Res Publica, the body which has come up with the idea of getting bankers to swear oaths, is one Vicky Pryce, ex-wife of Chris Huhne and, er, recently jailed for lying on oath.

    A Pryce worth paying in that case :)
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,864

    DavidL said:

    This match is slipping away to the inevitable draw. England really needed to finish the first Indian innings today if they were going to force a result.

    Keep Karma and carry on :)
    I suspect those backing the Draw may not be feeling so comfortable since tea.

  • Options
    QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    SeanT said:

    taffys said:

    He was cheered as he said it.

    OK but what is your point? some Jewish people are bloodthirsty islamophobes?

    Did you see the video of the youths in Tel Aviv singing joyously about dead Gazan kids? It's on the prior thread.

    Did you read the essay by the Deputy Leader of the Knesset calling for the ethnic cleansing of all Gaza, the slaughter of all Arabs that resist, and the repopulation of Gaza by Jews?

    That was on a thread a couple of days ago.

    Did you read about the Israeli women who demanded, online, that more boys should die on Gaza beaches, that "it's a shame we only killed four", “There isn’t a more beautiful picture than those of dead Arab children,” etc etc?

    We discussed that a few days back.

    My point is that Israel is now a country seriously diseased by racism and hatred, sick to its soul, and that Israel is now - arguably - unworthy of western support. Yet we continue to support it, ensuring a generation of Muslims will hate us, too.

    And so the awful cycle will continue.

    You don't think you might be extrapolating a bit much? You could probably find people on British streets who'd make those comments, you could certainly find some willing to say it about Muslim immigrants. The camera is drawn to the shocking, that doesn't mean it is the mainstream.

  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Richard_Nabavi
    "Thatcherism" and "Reaganism" were the brainchild of a certain economist, whose had a theory that appeared to be true, and certainly seemed to be having results....
    Up until you stood back from it and saw the entire wood, and not just your personal investment tree.
    I have little hope that you and your ilk will ever be able to avert your gaze away from your favourite plant in order to start stepping backwards enough to see, and as such, this is becoming a waste of time.
    Enjoy your day
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    SeanT said:

    Leader of NY Board of Rabbis says, at a rally, that any Gazan who voted for Hamas deserves to be killed by the Israeli Army.

    That's 440,000 Gazans.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/israel-leader-rabbis.html

    He was cheered as he said it.

    The fact is you are so drunk on your own and other journalists hyperbole that your posts have less and less meaning. Also you have a complete inability to get beyond the 'Palestine good/Israel bad' meme that people simply discount you.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:

    This match is slipping away to the inevitable draw. England really needed to finish the first Indian innings today if they were going to force a result.

    Keep Karma and carry on :)
    I suspect those backing the Draw may not be feeling so comfortable since tea.

    Price hasn't moved much - from 1.8 to 2.14 after 2 quick wickets.

    Will be favourite again very soon.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,325
    felix said:

    SeanT said:

    Leader of NY Board of Rabbis says, at a rally, that any Gazan who voted for Hamas deserves to be killed by the Israeli Army.

    That's 440,000 Gazans.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/israel-leader-rabbis.html

    He was cheered as he said it.

    The fact is you are so drunk on your own and other journalists hyperbole that your posts have less and less meaning. Also you have a complete inability to get beyond the 'Palestine good/Israel bad' meme that people simply discount you.
    Consider:
    How many Israeli civilians have been killed by the Palestinians?
    How many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel?
This discussion has been closed.