C4 Conservative leader debate

[elwaclaret]

Ride out the storm? Boris was never a supporter of austerity? Almost rewriting history.

So where is all this money suddenly going to come from for Boris’s promises like the Northern Powerhouse? If these were Labour or Lib Dem’s manifesto promises they would be absolutely crucified by the Tories and the Tory press.

All this money is the result of some number cruncher having failed to realise a major war debt repayment was ending with the yanks. So May suddenly realised she didn’t need to do it after all. Can’t remember which war think it might be Falklands. I’m not a Tory, just stating facts... the fact that all that misery was the result of them not rechecking the figures enough, should be reason enough for a government to be ousted.

[martin_p]

All this money is the result of some number cruncher having failed to realise a major war debt repayment was ending with the yanks. So May suddenly realised she didn’t need to do it after all. Can’t remember which war think it might be Falklands. I’m not a Tory, just stating facts... the fact that all that misery was the result of them not rechecking the figures enough, should be reason enough for a government to be ousted.

I fear you’d be financially crippled if my proposed gullibility tax ever became law!

[elwaclaret]

[quote="martin_p"]I fear you’d be financially crippled if my proposed gullibility tax ever became law![/

. There is nothing gullible about facts. The reason the Torres were shitting themselves so much that they brought in austerity was in large part due to outgoings in re-payments to the yanks. If anyone had bothered to look hard enough the “financial black hole” that brought the panic of austerity could have been easily ridden out without any of the draconian measures.

[Greenmile]

There is nothing gullible about facts. The reason the Torres were shitting themselves so much that they brought in austerity was in large part due to outgoings in re-payments to the yanks. If anyone had bothered to look hard enough the “financial black hole” that brought the panic of austerity could have been easily ridden out without any of the draconian measures.

And nobody bothered to look hard enough? Nobody? Really??

[elwaclaret]

And nobody bothered to look hard enough? Nobody? Really??

Nobody that mattered.

[martin_p]

Come on then, evidence me some ‘facts’, because the war debt figures I’ve seen are a pin prick in percentage of National Debt terms.

[Greenmile]

Nobody that mattered.

Even someone who didn’t matter could have shared their discovery with somebody who did matter, couldn’t they? It seems like a pretty big thing to have been missed, and even if it was just a random anti-austerity campaigner who brought this news to their local MP’s attention, you’d think they might have checked out whether it was true or not.

As it is, the timing of this revelation seems far too handy for it to be believed by anyone but the most gullible.

[elwaclaret]

Personally I think it’s a disgrace that the Tories are trying to make out austerity was necessary, and that this sudden Brexit Chest.... it is money through incompetence they had earmarked for the yanks, but the debt is paid.

[dsr]

The austerity he was part of help implement? Funny how both of them now deem it unnecessary I can’t think why that would be!

You know that the Mayor of London doesn't have a cabinet post? The position has certain influence, but not, as a rule, in respect of national economic policy.

He wasn't an MP from 2008 to 2015.

[Greenmile]

Personally I think it’s a disgrace that the Tories are trying to make out austerity was necessary, and that this sudden Brexit Chest.... it is money through incompetence they had earmarked for the yanks, but the debt is paid.

That would be a disgrace, yes.

On an entirely unrelated note, I have a bridge for sale that you might be interested in.

[elwaclaret]

Even someone who didn’t matter could have shared their discovery with somebody who did matter, couldn’t they? It seems like a pretty big thing to have been missed, and even if it was just a random anti-austerity campaigner who brought this news to their local MP’s attention, you’d think they might have checked out whether it was true or not.

As it is, the timing of this revelation seems far too handy for it to be believed by anyone but the most gullible.

Hardly a revelation, I’ll have got it from the BBC political programmes, or a documentary (I don’t do conspiracies, I deal in best evidence).

[Greenmile]

You know that the Mayor of London doesn't have a cabinet post? The position has certain influence, but not, as a rule, in respect of national economic policy.

He wasn't an MP from 2008 to 2015.

Did austerity end in 2015? Nobody told the folk queueing up at my local food bank. You’d have thought they’d have seen the news on their brand new iPhones and plasma TVs.

[dsr]

Did austerity end in 2015? Nobody told the folk queueing up at my local food bank. You’d have thought they’d have seen the news on their brand new iPhones and plasma TVs.

Well, if you want to put it that way, it's clear that Johnson's opposition to the government's long established economic policy wasn't so great that he would refuse to join the cabinet. But if you expect anyone, ever, in history, to refuse to serve as Foreign Secretary because they think the Chancellor is just a bit tight with the purse strings - then you have a very rigid view of collective cabinet responsibility.

You can equally blame Boris for Hunt's messing about with the NHS and May's dismal performance with the police. He was, after all, in the cabinet when they happened. But hardly his responsibility.

[martin_p]

Personally I think it’s a disgrace that the Tories are trying to make out austerity was necessary, and that this sudden Brexit Chest.... it is money through incompetence they had earmarked for the yanks, but the debt is paid.

What’s really surprising is that Labour haven’t picked up on this as it means the claim they left the country in a mess is now disproved. Labour probably had better accountants and knew this debt was due to be paid off!

So anyway, some evidence of this claim would be nice.

[martin_p]

Well, if you want to put it that way, it's clear that Johnson's opposition to the government's long established economic policy wasn't so great that he would refuse to join the cabinet. But if you expect anyone, ever, in history, to refuse to serve as Foreign Secretary because they think the Chancellor is just a bit tight with the purse strings - then you have a very rigid view of collective cabinet responsibility.

You can equally blame Boris for Hunt's messing about with the NHS and May's dismal performance with the police. He was, after all, in the cabinet when they happened. But hardly his responsibility.

He was a crap foreign secretary though and you can’t lay that at anyone else’s door.

[Greenmile]

Hardly a revelation, I’ll have got it from the BBC political programmes, or a documentary (I don’t do conspiracies, I deal in best evidence).

When did you find out? Did the Tories find out by watching the same documentary or BBC political programme?

In all honesty, this is the first I’ve heard of this war debt repayment ending, but if it’s significant enough to have meant austerity was unnecessary, I just can’t believe that nobody noticed until Boris (and Hunt) needed something to bribe the electorate with. The Tories may be useless, but there must be some people in the Civil Service who aren’t completely incompetent.

[elwaclaret]

What’s really surprising is that Labour haven’t picked up on this as it means the claim they left the country in a mess is now disproved. Labour probably had better accountants and knew this debt was due to be paid off!

So anyway, some evidence of this claim would be nice.

Haha research isn’t for this time of night. But it will be a matter of record what payment ended (seem to recall debt in relation to the Falklands conflict, but may be wrong on that) and the Tories started throwing money around (for them), it was all very sudden and now there’s the magic war chest?

[Greenmile]

Well, if you want to put it that way, it's clear that Johnson's opposition to the government's long established economic policy wasn't so great that he would refuse to join the cabinet. But if you expect anyone, ever, in history, to refuse to serve as Foreign Secretary because they think the Chancellor is just a bit tight with the purse strings - then you have a very rigid view of collective cabinet responsibility.

You can equally blame Boris for Hunt's messing about with the NHS and May's dismal performance with the police. He was, after all, in the cabinet when they happened. But hardly his responsibility.

I can and do blame all Tory MPs (especially cabinet members) for all (major) Tory policies. I don’t think that’s an unreasonably “rigid view of collective cabinet responsibility”. If I was an MP for a party which was unnecessarily causing crushing poverty in large swathes of the population, I’d resign my position, especially if my family were so rich I’d never need to work again anyway.

Maybe you view that as ridiculously principled (and maybe it is), but I don’t.

[elwaclaret]

I can and do blame all Tory MPs (especially cabinet members) for all (major) Tory policies. I don’t think that’s an unreasonably “rigid view of collective cabinet responsibility”. If I was an MP for a party which was unnecessarily causing crushing poverty in large swathes of the population, I’d resign my position, especially if my family were so rich I’d never need to work again anyway.

Maybe you view that as ridiculously principled (and maybe it is), but I don’t.

But you chose to forget the number of resignations there have been because they found it impossible to shift May’s set position on all kind of matters. That cabinet ministers chose to resign or battle on is a matter for them. May was trying to be Thatcher. And was nearly as crazed by the end.

[dsr]

I can and do blame all Tory MPs (especially cabinet members) for all (major) Tory policies. I don’t think that’s an unreasonably “rigid view of collective cabinet responsibility”. If I was an MP for a party which was unnecessarily causing crushing poverty in large swathes of the population, I’d resign my position, especially if my family were so rich I’d never need to work again anyway.

Maybe you view that as ridiculously principled (and maybe it is), but I don’t.

And then again, maybe Johnson didn't believe that the UK in 2015 was vastly poorer and with great swathes of "crushing poverty" compared with 2010.

[Greenmile]

And then again, maybe Johnson didn't believe that the UK in 2015 was vastly poorer and with great swathes of "crushing poverty" compared with 2010.

I’m sure he didn’t. He’s not the type to notice all the poor people around him, is he?

[martin_p]

But you chose to forget the number of resignations there have been because they found it impossible to shift May’s set position on all kind of matters. That cabinet ministers chose to resign or battle on is a matter for them. May was trying to be Thatcher. And was nearly as crazed by the end.

Given your reluctance to provide any evidence can I assume you’ve dropped your ridiculous claim that austerity was down to an accounting error?

[Greenmile]

But you chose to forget the number of resignations there have been because they found it impossible to shift May’s set position on all kind of matters. That cabinet ministers chose to resign or battle on is a matter for them. May was trying to be Thatcher. And was nearly as crazed by the end.

Perhaps you could remind me of all the cabinet ministers who resigned in protest at the Tories’ austerity (not Brexit) policies, as it seems I have chosen to forget them (or maybe I just forgot them without any conscious effort to do so)

[Paul Waine]

Nor can the global financial crisis be placed on the previous Labour govt’s shoulders.

And nor was austerity the only answer to that problem - see your northern powerhouse comment above - it was and is just an easy way of making the poor pay the price for the crash without impacting on the traditional Tory voters.

Come on, Paul. You’re better than this.

Hi Greenmile, I know the financial crisis was felt globally, but if you look at the UK's position in that crisis you will understand that it hit the UK hard because of a number of Blair/Brown policies and actions leading up to the crisis. Plus, don't forget the Labour guy who left the note saying "there's no money left....."

In the immediate aftermath of the "global financial crisis" there was "no money left" - and there was no one with any money to lend to anyone who wanted to borrow - without digging a bigger hole. Belt tightening was needed. In reality, of course, there were a number of government expenditure programmes that were maintained and some that were cut. It took some time to get the annual deficit under control - and for the economy to star growing again.

Of course, quantitative easing was either a brave or a foolish solution. There's no doubt that QE has resulted in massive asset inflation - alongside "near zero" interest rates. All of that is a big distortion. Yes, if there's an "asset inflation" the people who are "long" assets will see them grow in value - and the people who don't have assets will "miss out" on this asset inflation.

Anyway, enough for this evening. If I'm going to be a "future PM" I need my sleep. (Can't have anyone saying my health is not up to it)!

[Greenmile]

Hi Greenmile, I know the financial crisis was felt globally, but if you look at the UK's position in that crisis you will understand that it hit the UK hard because of a number of Blair/Brown policies and actions leading up to the crisis. Plus, don't forget the Labour guy who left the note saying "there's no money left....."

In the immediate aftermath of the "global financial crisis" there was "no money left" - and there was no one with any money to lend to anyone who wanted to borrow - without digging a bigger hole. Belt tightening was needed. In reality, of course, there were a number of government expenditure programmes that were maintained and some that were cut. It took some time to get the annual deficit under control - and for the economy to star growing again.

Of course, quantitative easing was either a brave or a foolish solution. There's no doubt that QE has resulted in massive asset inflation - alongside "near zero" interest rates. All of that is a big distortion. Yes, if there's an "asset inflation" the people who are "long" assets will see them grow in value - and the people who don't have assets will "miss out" on this asset inflation.

Anyway, enough for this evening. If I'm going to be a "future PM" I need my sleep. (Can't have anyone saying my health is not up to it)!

You know that fabled “no money left”note was a joke, don’t you Paul? It’s just a shame right-wingers have no sense of humour. Has a joke ever led to more lost votes for a single party in history?

I’m not going to pretend to fully understand QE, but the way you describe it suggests it helped traditional Tory voters whilst placing the burden on the poor (via cuts to essential services) which is pretty much what I said. Still, as long as your properties maintained their value, who cares about (eg) cuts to disability benefits, eh?

Besides, today I learned that we had loads of money in the pipeline anyway and that the whole austerity thing was always unnecessary. Elwa saw it on a BBC politics programme (or maybe a documentary) so it’s definitely true.

[dsr]

I’m sure he didn’t. He’s not the type to notice all the poor people around him, is he?

He would only be matching you from 2010. Poverty wasn't invented in 2011, you know. Even if you didn't see the poverty in 2010, it was there.

[Devils_Advocate]

This thread has been absolute top billing tonight with the Four Horsemen themselves that is DSR, Paul Waine, Elwa & Crosspools all involved. Right wing nonsense gold dust all the way

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

You know that the Mayor of London doesn't have a cabinet post? The position has certain influence, but not, as a rule, in respect of national economic policy.

He wasn't an MP from 2008 to 2015.

He has held a cabinet post under this government that has implemented cuts as has Hunt. At no point that I can recall has either come out and said austerity was unnecessary. Maybe they would hage if they’d spoke to that number cruncher!

[Greenmile]

He would only be matching you from 2010. Poverty wasn't invented in 2011, you know. Even if you didn't see the poverty in 2010, it was there.

I’m not sure I get your point. You seem to be saying that, as long as something isn’t deteriorating, it doesn’t need fixing, no matter how bad it’s got previously.

I must have misunderstood you though - you’re not that dim, surely.

[Paul Waine]

You know that fabled “no money left”note was a joke, don’t you Paul? It’s just a shame right-wingers have no sense of humour. Has a joke ever led to more lost votes for a single party in history?

I’m not going to pretend to fully understand QE, but the way you describe it suggests it helped traditional Tory voters whilst placing the burden on the poor (via cuts to essential services) which is pretty much what I said. Still, as long as your properties maintained their value, who cares about (eg) cuts to disability benefits, eh?

Besides, today I learned that we had loads of money in the pipeline anyway and that the whole austerity thing was always unnecessary. Elwa saw it on a BBC politics programme (or maybe a documentary) so it’s definitely true.

Good morning, Greenmile. Interesting to hear you say that the note was the joke - and not the way that Labour "trashed" the economy. I'm sure some will want to believe you.

QE. So, first ressponse to "re-float" the economy was to drop interest rates to "almost zero" (and some places there have been negative interest rates). This wasn't getting things going, so more money was created by buying assets from the banks and giving them more cash to nake more loans.

"Traditional Tory voters" we often think of as being people in the older age groups, many would be pensioners, many will be living on their savings. So, ask yourself how much "extra" are they making when interest rates are cut to near zero?

Then think of the people who are in the earlier stage in their adult life. Maybe they've got a mortgage - lots of people were buying property with mortgages in the 2000s, all the way up to 2008 - what happens to the cost of their mortgage when interest rates are reduced. Maybe you are in that group?

Yes, of course, once confidence returns asset valuations rise when the cost of debt to acquire those assets falls - and is seen to be low for an extended period. So, house prices rise. And, I agree, if you don't have a house you will find that tough.

And, if you are the "traditional Tory" who may have already paid off their mortgage, you will see your house value rise - but you will also see the value of all alternative houses rise, while your savings income has fallen, so maybe not the ones who have been helped.

[Imploding Turtle]

Good morning, Greenmile. Interesting to hear you say that the note was the joke - and not the way that Labour "trashed" the economy. I'm sure some will want to believe you.

...

I see we're still blaming the Labour party in the UK for the global financial meltdown that trashed the global economy.

[claretonthecoast1882]

With Labour being so good, the country doing so well when they are in power, everyone eating and working as well as having loads of cash
how did they lose to the tories and then lose again to the worst government ever in history.

Thought it was horses fitted with blinkers to assist

[Imploding Turtle]

With Labour being so good, the country doing so well when they are in power, everyone eating and working as well as having loads of cash
how did they lose to the tories and then lose again to the worst government ever in history.

Thought it was horses fitted with blinkers to assist

wtf you wittering on about?

[claretonthecoast1882]

wtf you wittering on about?

be quiet

[Steve1956]

Have they decided yet,is it Boris?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Pigs will fly before the Tories invest heavily in the North.

I agree, but this is their last chance. Northern voters have never been so enticing, Corbyn moving away from them. If the Tories don’t invest in the next 2-3 years, it will be never. That’s why we have to find out.

So you are advocating boom and bust, as that what his promises amount to?

I am not. I am advocating that we agree that spreadsheet Phil is naive, he is running the books for a country not a company. That whilst balancing the books remains important there are some priorities which supersede them if we are to have a country in which every citizen has a certain standard of living befitting of our status as a leading world nation.

Fast, affordable, modern public transport. Fibre broadband for all (facilitating home working, smart home technology, TV streaming and many other things). Social care in old age. Those three things outweigh any argument that they cannot be afforded. The first two are critical to modern life or it forces people to live in the slow lane, which in turn makes us a country within a country.

Or do you disagree?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Regarding my above point, in reference to Greenmile fishing last night, I would say that hospitals, schools, police etc are not as important to warrant crashing the finances.

The reason being we have all three of those in place now, free at the point of need. We could argue more could be spent but the other three things I mentioned above (transport, broadband and social care) are way behind other developed nations and can only be accessed if you live in the right place or are wealthy. That is the difference. They have to be funded because we in the north (and not just the north) deserve it.

In other words a bit of Corbynomics and a bit of Toryomics. You could call it Crosspoolomics if you like.

[dsr]

I’m not sure I get your point. You seem to be saying that, as long as something isn’t deteriorating, it doesn’t need fixing, no matter how bad it’s got previously.

I must have misunderstood you though - you’re not that dim, surely.

You have certainly misunderstood. And I don't think that what I said was that complicated, but I can see how you misunderstood.

You mentioned that austerity was the cause of crushing poverty. I took that to mean that you believed there wasn't crushing poverty before and austerity caused it to happen - austerity created poverty where poverty hadn't been.

Obviously if by "caused" you meant that there was already poverty and austerity failed to solve it, then you wouldn't understand my response.

[Erasmus]

I see your point to some extent, Crosspool. The problem is that people right are suffering and dying because of the underfunding of the NHS and social care. We have to do something about this. Education may be currently in place but it is deteriorating due to underfunding; my son's school is down to a 4.5 day week text term and classroom assistants have been laid off. Surely, the answer is that we have to raise taxes for richer people to go part of the way towards reducing the deficit, not just cutting vital services. And I would include myself as one of the richer people who ought to pay more tax. I can afford it and can so can many others I know.

And to Paul Waine. Paul, I have a lot of respect for most of what you post, but your suggestion that the aftereffects of the 2008 crash were down to Labour 'trashing the economy' is just silly. Governments have only a marginal influence over global economic trends. Your comments there have more than a whiff of tribalism about them.

[dsr]

And to Paul Waine. Paul, I have a lot of respect for most of what you post, but your suggestion that the aftereffects of the 2008 crash were down to Labour 'trashing the economy' is just silly. Governments have only a marginal influence over global economic trends. Your comments there have more than a whiff of tribalism about them.

The government wasn't responsible for the global crash, but it was responsible for the state of the UK economy at the time of the crash. And the UK economy was in a very poor state to meet it.

It's like two individuals who lose their jobs. They both have zero influence over the economy and the employer who has gone bust, so it is absolutely not their fault that they are unemployed. But the one whose credit cards are maxed out and has two or three HP agreements and personal loans to pay off, is a lot worse off than the one who has spent less and doesn't have the loans. Brown's government was the feckless one with maxed out cards.

[martin_p]

The government wasn't responsible for the global crash, but it was responsible for the state of the UK economy at the time of the crash. And the UK economy was in a very poor state to meet it.

It's like two individuals who lose their jobs. They both have zero influence over the economy and the employer who has gone bust, so it is absolutely not their fault that they are unemployed. But the one whose credit cards are maxed out and has two or three HP agreements and personal loans to pay off, is a lot worse off than the one who has spent less and doesn't have the loans. Brown's government was the feckless one with maxed out cards.

By what measure are you claiming the U.K. economy was in a very poor state? It was certainly unbalanced, but that had been the case since the recession in the 80s with the economy more and more dependant on spiralling house prices and the service sector.

[martin_p]

You have certainly misunderstood. And I don't think that what I said was that complicated, but I can see how you misunderstood.

You mentioned that austerity was the cause of crushing poverty. I took that to mean that you believed there wasn't crushing poverty before and austerity caused it to happen - austerity created poverty where poverty hadn't been.

Obviously if by "caused" you meant that there was already poverty and austerity failed to solve it, then you wouldn't understand my response.

It’s clear that he’s talking about the increase in poverty caused by austerity. Yes poverty existed before austerity, but more people became ‘poverty stricken’ as a result of austerity.

[RingoMcCartney]

It seems that the reality deniers on here are airbrushing out Labours cosying up to the City of London and it's financial institutions.

Labour boasted of its "prawn cocktail offensive" as it went against all its socialist principles and gleefully jumped into bed with the bankers.

Peter Madelson - " We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich"

And the glaringly misguided brag of Gordon Brown- " We have abolished boom and bust !!!!!! "
[/size]

Here is a sample of Brown’s saucer-eyed adoration for financial whizzkids from his Mansion House speech in 2007. “I congratulate you on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London ... I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created." 

Likewise he told the CBI in 2005 how he proposed to crack down on red tape about boring stuff like health and safety standards that got in the way of profit-making. “No inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification, not just a light touch but a limited touch.”

He therefore called for ‘light touch regulation,’ in other words less regulation on the City and finance capital. Before his Mansion House audience in 2007, he called for, "a risk-based regulatory approach".Completely suckered by the arrogance and pushiness of the City elite, Brown was determined as Chancellor to let them have their head. He seemed to harbor the insane delusion that an island of 60 million souls could all make a living in the world on the backs of the mysterious activities of a few tens of thousands of people in the City and Canary Wharf.

https://www.socialist.net/brown-light-t ... lation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gordon Brown's infamous policy of "light touch regulation" was a direct cause of the 2008 crash, people taking money out of Northenden Rock, tanking the economy and bailing out the banks and burdening generations yet unborn with the debt he personally put upon them.





Gordon Brown a so called "socialist," was responsible for the redistribution of DEBT.

[elwaclaret]

Given your reluctance to provide any evidence can I assume you’ve dropped your ridiculous claim that austerity was down to an accounting error?

You could do or you could take it that I feel no inclination to justify myself to you. The information is every bit as a available for you as it would be for me... and I’ve already stated my source.

But if it makes you feel superior, good for you.

[elwaclaret]

Unlike most on here I’m not into rosette party politics. A look at the partisan crap on here only reaffirms my position.

[martin_p]

You could do or you could take it that I feel no inclination to justify myself to you. The information is every bit as a available for you as it would be for you... and I’ve already stated my source.

But if it makes you feel superior, good for you.

You’ve stated some documentary that you can’t link to and no one else heard. I’ve googled it and the last war debt payment we made was in 2015 (in respect of WWI) and was peanuts compared to the size of the national debt and the amount of cuts made due to austerity. The debt from WWII was paid off in 2006.

Somehow this big debt that means austerity was unnecessary doesn’t seem to have made it to the Internet.

Edit - and I’m not trying to make myself look superior, I’m trying to get you to back up your claim. What’s wrong with that?

[martin_p]

It seems that the reality deniers on here are airbrushing out Labours cosying up to the City of London and it's financial institutions.

Labour boasted of its "prawn cocktail offensive" as it went against all its socialist principles and gleefully jumped into bed with the bankers.

Peter Madelson - " We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich"

And the glaringly misguided brag of Gordon Brown- " We have abolished boom and bust !!!!!! "
[/size]

Here is a sample of Brown’s saucer-eyed adoration for financial whizzkids from his Mansion House speech in 2007. “I congratulate you on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London ... I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created." 

Likewise he told the CBI in 2005 how he proposed to crack down on red tape about boring stuff like health and safety standards that got in the way of profit-making. “No inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification, not just a light touch but a limited touch.”

He therefore called for ‘light touch regulation,’ in other words less regulation on the City and finance capital. Before his Mansion House audience in 2007, he called for, "a risk-based regulatory approach".Completely suckered by the arrogance and pushiness of the City elite, Brown was determined as Chancellor to let them have their head. He seemed to harbor the insane delusion that an island of 60 million souls could all make a living in the world on the backs of the mysterious activities of a few tens of thousands of people in the City and Canary Wharf.

https://www.socialist.net/brown-light-t ... lation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gordon Brown's infamous policy of "light touch regulation" was a direct cause of the 2008 crash, people taking money out of Northenden Rock, tanking the economy and bailing out the banks and burdening generations yet unborn with the debt he personally put upon them.





Gordon Brown a so called "socialist," was responsible for the redistribution of DEBT.

So you’re a Marxist now?

[If it be your will]

You could do or you could take it that I feel no inclination to justify myself to you. The information is every bit as a available for you as it would be for me... and I’ve already stated my source.

But if it makes you feel superior, good for you.

That's no good! You can't do that!

I, too, have spent valuable time checking this claim, thinking maybe it has merit. I, too, can find nothing of any material importance. So there's at least 2 of us. You can't make a bombshell claim and expect everyone else to research it, then become hostile when they genuinely can't find it!

[dsr]

By what measure are you claiming the U.K. economy was in a very poor state? It was certainly unbalanced, but that had been the case since the recession in the 80s with the economy more and more dependant on spiralling house prices and the service sector.

National debt way too high. (It still is.)

Brown thought he had abolished "boom and bust" so he borrowed to the hilt in "boom" years and didn't have an answer when "bust" happened.

The national debt is vastly understated by use of off-balance sheet finance, ie. public-private initiative. It tied the government into vastly expensive contracts that aren't mentioned in the national debt figures, and aren't (so far as I know) publicly quantified; even though, if it was a plc that was incurring these debts, they would have to be shown on the balance sheet as money owed. The government doesn't use normal financial rules.

[AndrewJB]

Hi Greenmile, I know the financial crisis was felt globally, but if you look at the UK's position in that crisis you will understand that it hit the UK hard because of a number of Blair/Brown policies and actions leading up to the crisis. Plus, don't forget the Labour guy who left the note saying "there's no money left....."

In the immediate aftermath of the "global financial crisis" there was "no money left" - and there was no one with any money to lend to anyone who wanted to borrow - without digging a bigger hole. Belt tightening was needed. In reality, of course, there were a number of government expenditure programmes that were maintained and some that were cut. It took some time to get the annual deficit under control - and for the economy to star growing again.

Of course, quantitative easing was either a brave or a foolish solution. There's no doubt that QE has resulted in massive asset inflation - alongside "near zero" interest rates. All of that is a big distortion. Yes, if there's an "asset inflation" the people who are "long" assets will see them grow in value - and the people who don't have assets will "miss out" on this asset inflation.

Anyway, enough for this evening. If I'm going to be a "future PM" I need my sleep. (Can't have anyone saying my health is not up to it)!

Byrne's note was following in the tradition of Reggie Maudling, who left a similar note to Callaghan when he took over the Exchequer in '64.

Britain was exposed to the financial crash due to lack of regulation around financial services, and for that we blame Thatcher (for deregulating), and the Major, Blair, and Brown governments for not reversing the more dangerous elements of this deregulation. During their time in opposition, the Tories called for more deregulation, and until the financial crisis hit, Osborne promised to match Labour's spending.

While in government, Labour could and should have taken a more interventionalist approach. At a time when all the certainties about economics were under question, Labour could have used QE to invest in the economy in a more proactive way, by funding infrastructure, and greening the economy. They could have turned the nationalised banks into investment engines for British business. And they could have overhauled banking regulations, taxation, and repatriated some British money from abroad.

The the Tories took power their reason for austerity was to bring the deficit down to zero by 2015. Not only did they fail to do this, and in doing so pretty much treble our national debt, but their policies have tipped a lot of people into miserable lives, and effectively transferred a lot of wealth from the poorest in the country to the richest.