Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
...by their own creation....
I have said all along that Brown was responsible for the banking crisis due to his regulatory changes.
Now the Financial Services Authority, his creation that inherited the job of banking regulation from the Bank of England, has named Brown alongside Balls and Blair because they placed 'sustained political pressure' on the FSA not to regulate the banks.
This is even worse than I thought. I was under the impression that Brown just botched the regulatory system in the changes but no, this was done deliberately.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
no surprize there then,cameron/osbournes names will be added to the list soon.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL Brian. The crisis Brown and co caused is with us now....
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
Sorry to steal your sweets but if you had read other post's properly I think I am right in saying everyone one the forum has agreed Brown got it wrong with the bankers.
So repeatedly telling us what we already know is quite pointless.
Still blaming Brown after so long, is also wearing thin.
Just when are these cuts going to work?
PS. Should this new thread be on Barry's Blogg political page and not on here?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Blair, Brown and Balls shared the driving and were always in the front seat, but Dave and George in the back seat were entirely content to sit there and wait their turn. Not only did they keep their hands off the door handles they also enjoyed the view, content to be on that particular road and not the least displeased to be in the fast lane.
The Champagne flowed freely, the bottles passed back and forth...all paid for through expenses. The fortunes of each and all growing like Topsey. The Mansions popping-up on either hand were a delight to behold, the shanty towns along the verge a mere inconvenience. At least these growing numbers of peasants had the shiny Charabanc of modern Laissez-faire capitalism to gawk at.
Now that 'the case is altered' and the road-movie has scrub-land for a back-drop the sound track is the same and the money keeps rolling-in for those happy travellers. Some of the newish mansions are on the market, true, but Council Tax is being kept at an all-time-low and personal allowances at an all-time-high...just for the peasants, you understand.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Tom - you push the imagination a bit to say the least, Brown made his regulatory changes in 1997 before Osborne and Cameron were even MPs... I am always amused at how some of you desperately try to deflect blame.
GaryC - first of all the present government is still grappling with the results of Brown's economic mismanagement so how we got where we are is very relevant. What is a joke is how so many on the left love to try to pin the blame on a certain woman who left office 21 years ago - now that is a joke. This thread is topical because of the FSA evidence that has just been provided. I have never yet seen you agree Brown's guilt Gary - all I seen you do is try to whitewash that and place all the blame on the bankers. Some bankers certainly are guilty of poor management as I have always agreed but that was enabled and actively encouraged by Brown.
GaryC - you ask when the cuts are going to work. That is actually a good question because I have been critical of Osborne all along for not cutting enough and, as a result these minimal so called cuts have not really bitten yet. The government is spending and borrowing more every day, far to much. The core to all our present problems lay in the high spending of Brown and other like-minded government in Europe and must be cut to a sustainable level. You cannot go on borrowing more and more forever in order to sustain day to day spending - common sense and logic alone should tell you that.
As for whether this belongs on my blog - not necessarily, plenty of political discussion takes place in the main forum and I am not ready to update my blog yet.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
All of this is far too complex for me, what I would ask Barry are the FSA always right? and if in the future they lay any blame at the door of Osborne and Cameron will you accept their findings?
Audere est facere.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Ever the dab-hand with the stiletto Martin.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL Martin - no they are not always right.... I am not a fan of the FSA but they have been unequivocal in their evidence that they came under 'sustained political pressure' not to properly regulate the banks. We all remember, after all, Brown's infamous Mansion House speech that I have referred to before and it is a simple fact that it was Brown who instigated the FSA and removed the Bank of England's role in regulating the banks.
I believe Brown was also responsible for the Tsunami in Thailand, and I did hear rumours about his involvement in the Jack the Ripper goings on.......
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Now now Bern - you know better than that kind of silliness.
I like silly!!
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
As I said, yet again, very boring, you do not read post's properly.
I do believe that you believe you are right, which makes me believe more than ever that it is pointless talking to you.
To say and believe, that these cuts have "not really bitten yet" just proves you are in a little bubble of your own and oblivious to what is really going on in this country.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
What is more important, the past or the future? Answers on a postcard please.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Gary - you have a problem in that you prefer to hide from, the truth. I read exactly what you said whatever you prefer to claim whenever you get yourself into a bind.
Britain still has a massive deficit. For your information a deficit means that you are spending more than your income. Britain's position is akin to you spending every year 130% of your income with the 30% being added to your credit card debt annually.
If in that position with your family finances what would you do to correct it? Countries are still subject to the same basic common sense budgetary issues as a family.
To put that deficit into perspective Britain's debt at 80% of GDP compares to Spain, who are having serious problems at 60.1% of their GDP.
A failure to cut spending would mean a loss in confidence from those on whom we depend to lend the government that money. That means higher interest rates, hitting not only government gilt prices but mortgage rates as well - further damaging economic growth and requiring more cuts eventually being made.
More cuts now mean the need for less cuts later but sadly Osborne is only doing the minimum to satisfy the markets but that is just not enough.
No - the minor cuts already implemented have not yet bitten properly. The government is still spending far more than ever and borrowing more than ever to fund it and that will continue until 2016 on Osborne's plan.
Of course Gary - you are not interested at all in the hard facts of what is happening. Not only do you not understand it, but you don't want to, preferring to live in some fantasy world in which spending cuts need not be made and we can live all happily ever after on the never never. I prefer the real world to your fantasy, uncomfortable as it may be at least it is the truth.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
bern,why stop at thailand,brown has got the blame for the japanease one to.
barry,cameron and the eurosecptics will allso be named [probably 1 and 2 on the list].
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Of-course Labour got our Country into oblivion, in many ways. We are waiting for the Government to introduce laws that lead to recovery, but only spending cuts have come to light.
Barry is by no means wrong regards Labour, he also will give it a go with his own ideas, such as less big government, which is essential for economic recovery.
But we do all agree, except Barry, that the "spending cuts only" cure is not helpful.
Barry:
Dave, IDS and Osborne should start delivering their promises to create more jobs for local people.
This would more than counter-ballance the spending cuts.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Government's should have nothing to do with creating jobs. They only invent pretend jobs such as council climate change advisors and waste and recycling officers - both an immense burden to us all. They should make it their business to provide a place where it is easier for companies, both here and abroad, to invest.
As it stands many smaller and medium sized businesses as well as large corporations complain of excessive red tape, green measures they have to comply with and a stupid taxation system.
This is of course not helped by our stringent compliance with eu law which helps nobody but those deluded fool europhiles.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Agree 100 %
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Philip is absolutely right, governments do not create jobs only successful businesses really create jobs.
Alexander - I am not saying spending cuts only. Real cuts are essential but we also need to boost growth through tax cuts, less red tape and a reduction in the role of government in our lives. Ideally we should get public spending down from 53% of GDP at present to under 30% of GDP so we can compete economically. hat can only be done over a sustained period through a combination of real spending cuts and boosting businesses.