Labour's maths...

LoveCurryPies · Post by **LoveCurryPies** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:04 am

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Love the notion we will all suddenly be teleported back to the 1970's!!

The people who voted for Brexit are taking us back to the 70's.

Corbyn wants to take the country back to the 50's & 60's.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Fri May 12, 2017 7:12 am

I see that Len McCluskey was at the meeting to thrash out the manifesto. Why ? That spells worrying times if the unions were involved in a Labour governments policy making. Would have been a more useful meeting if he had his own MPs there to get them onside.

Divisions ahead.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Fri May 12, 2017 9:50 am

It's been a roller coaster week for Corbyn for sure.

Diane Abbot was embarrassing to say the least but I think she has just redeemed herself in announcing the dates of those 4 new Bank Holidays when Labour get back to their rightful position with a landslide victory.

Get these dates in your diaries boys and girls :

31st Feb
37th May
42nd July
64th September

Happy Days !

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Fri May 12, 2017 9:56 am

The clue is in the name; 'Labour Party'

Theresa May often meets with people who donate large sums to the Conservative Party. This is probably why, after talking about making the economy work for the many and putting workers on the boards of large companies, she hasn't done anything about it.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 pm

CnBtruntru wrote:Surely if Corbyn can afford to pay for a chauffeur to run over the press he can at the least afford a decent calculator for Ms Abbott but then they need someone to show her how to use it

I assume Jeremy would only use it as a last resort, when all else had failed.

From what I've read (briefly) in the press today, there are several Labour party candidates for the elections who are refusing to support Jeremy's manifesto.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri May 12, 2017 7:49 pm

TVC15 wrote:It's been a roller coaster week for Corbyn for sure.

Diane Abbot was embarrassing to say the least but I think she has just redeemed herself in announcing the dates of those 4 new Bank Holidays when Labour get back to their rightful position with a landslide victory.

Get these dates in your diaries boys and girls :

31st Feb
37th May
42nd July
64th September

Happy Days !

I'd heard that they'd picked 25 December, 26 December, 1 Jan and 1 May (and dropped the other 4). We'll all need to work harder to pay all Jeremy's new taxes.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Fri May 12, 2017 8:35 pm

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri May 12, 2017 8:40 pm

If it be your will wrote:Just to reiterate for anyone that doesn't already know, there will be no increases in tax, either directly or indirectly, unless you earn more than 80,000/year. If you do fall into this category, it looks like any tax increases will be modest.

I guess you are right about this, iibyw.

So, when corporation tax is hiked up again and top rate of tax is higher than it is today, how many employers do you expect to leave UK and go elsewhere?

We won't need to worry about Brexit and the single market, Momentum's manifesto will have sorted everything for all of us.

Of course, this won't happen as the reports are that most (prospective) Labour MPs don't support the manifesto.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Fri May 12, 2017 9:13 pm

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri May 12, 2017 10:39 pm

If it be your will wrote:When Corporation tax is set at a rate that will be about the average for the EU (which is where it will be set if the manifesto confirms a rate of 26%) it would be reasonable to suppose the rate of corporate desertion from the UK will be similar to the of desertion in the EU.

If the rate of corporation tax is set at 26%, I would imagine a similar number of companies will leave as they did in 2011, when it was also 26%. In fact, I imagine companies will flood into the UK compared to when corporation tax was 35%+ in 1980s under Thatcher.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... e-tax-rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We of course know from your previous posts that you favour a complete abolition of corporation tax. But together with your desire for an insurance based health system, the abolition if inheritance tax, and a reduction in tax for the richest 1%, you're a bit of an extremist!

Hi iibyw, let's take the 3 taxes first:

Corporation Tax - too easy for international corporations to avoid (google, starbucks and all the rest), if there is no CT then following outcomes< (1) more employers based in UK, rather than selling in UK but based in Dublin or other low CT location, (2) more employers means more employment, more employees means higher wages and national insurance (paid by employers) and more income tax paid by employees; (3) no tax credit on dividends, because they haven't paid CT, so higher income tax paid by shareholders and (4) this may be a technical item, but it's one of the sources of the "world financial crisis", no CT so no tax differential favouring debt over equity, so no incentive for companies to be over-leveraged - and this should result in fewer bankruptcies, so fewer workers losing their jobs when firms fail.

Inheritance Tax - what sort of civilised society taxes "grief?" Too easy for the truly wealthy to avoid, only catches and penalises the "middle" who weren't expecting to pay IHT (they weren't expecting to die early).

Top rate of income tax to be 40%. The higher the top rate is, the bigger the incentive to seek to avoid the tax, and eventually to leave the UK altogether. I reckon, if I was the Chancellor, I would rather have 40% of something than 50% or 60% of nothing. From the earners point of view - I will keep working if I can keep 60% of what I earn, but I'm less inclined to strive to add to my earnings if I'm losing more and more of this amount in tax.
It's called the Laffer curve. It's well known in economics. And, the UK experience when tax rates were cut in 198x from 60% to 40% proved that Laffer curve is real. Gordon Brown also maintained this rate all the way from 1997 until 2010 - he only pushed rates up to 50% when he was losing the upcoming election.

So, my tax proposals are to enable the government to collect more tax - and therefore have more tax to spend on welfare and do all the things that any decent society will want to do for its citizens.

National Health care (not the NHS): yes, I want the UK to copy the successful health care systems that operate in Germany, Netherlands, France and Spain (and probably others). I want everyone to have health insurance, the "better off" to pay for their own health insurance plus contribute towards the health insurance of those that aren't working/that need support from the "better off." I want everyone to have access to excellent health care. The doctors and nurses in the NHS are, very often, excellent. They are let down by the politicisation of the NHS. They are let down by the "free at the point of use" principle. We are all let down by a Labour party that created the NHS in a different time using a model that is now out-of-date - and we let ourselves down by not having the courage to face up to the failings in the way the NHS is organised and funded - and take it out of politics ourselves. It may be that an insurance based health care system will cost the "better off" a little more. I've no problem with this and I'm sure many of the "better off" will be happy to pay this extra, and for several of them they will make savings on their private health insurance that they get through their employment, or pay themselves. For the less well off, under my health insurance proposal, they will be given their health insurance for free, but they will get a better health care service because the insurance will pay the GPs/hospitals for the care that they need - and the GPs/hospitals will be ready to make appointments faster and met their health care needs faster. Health insurance will reduce the long drawn out waiting lists.

So, yes, call me an "extremist" if that's what you want. I'm interested in a better society. I'm motivated by wanting to do better for the "less well off." I don't care for the "top 1%" - if they are as wealthy as you say, they won't be troubled by anything I propose or anything JC proposes. The difference is, on my proposals they will all be here paying their taxes into our tax revenues. Under JC's system they will have moved elsewhere and be paying their taxes elsewhere - and we will be the ones who are poorer.

Stop taking, start giving. (c) Paul Waine 2017

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat May 13, 2017 12:00 am

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat May 13, 2017 12:13 am

It looks like claret charlie has a new alter ego

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat May 13, 2017 12:17 am

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat May 13, 2017 1:30 am

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat May 13, 2017 1:43 am

I was introduced to the Laffer curve in my A-level economics class years ago. I believe one of my exam questions was based around debunking it.

Here's a blogpost debunking its usefulness.

https://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/09/ ... fer-curve/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I especially like this entirely intellectually consistent Laffer curve

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat May 13, 2017 1:46 am

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat May 13, 2017 2:18 am

FWIW, I've said on here and on ClaretsMad for ages now how basic economics and philosophy (read: logic) 101 should be taught as a part of the curriculum. This country would be in a far better state were its citizens able to distinguish between govt. borrowing for investment in infrastructure projects with demonstrable built-in positive fiscal multipliers (a la the USA's approach post-'08 financial crisis), and borrowing to go on the beer for a weekend as the Tories would have everyone believe was Labour policy...despite themselves borrowing at record levels. (Not that I'm criticising the govt., even this shower, for borrowing at 0.25%)

(I should also point out that the blogpost linked above isn't authored by me, I'm just sharing it. Forgot to clarify that above!)

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat May 13, 2017 3:51 am

Spiral wrote:I was introduced to the Laffer curve in my A-level economics class years ago. I believe one of my exam questions was based around debunking it.

Here's a blogpost debunking its usefulness.

https://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/09/ ... fer-curve/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I especially like this entirely intellectually consistent Laffer curve

Rowls loves the Laffer Curve. Or at least he did. When he sees your link, and if he reads it, he might decide he was joking all along.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat May 13, 2017 8:58 am

If it be your will wrote:I know the Laffer Curve. Everyone knows the Laffer Curve (alternatively called 'The Laughter Curve'). But you don't honestly believe it do you?? It was one of those crazy things dreamt up by the extreme free-market fundamentalists in the Chicago Group, and was drafted by Reagan to add some pseudo-intellectual weight to his politically motivated tax cuts. Do you consider yourself a fully fledged 'Supply-sider', then?? Please tell me you're joking.

Contrary what you say, there isn't a shred of evidence the Laffer Curve 'downslope' exists within the normal tax rates employed anywhere in the industrialised world (i.e. tax rates less than 70%, and probably even as high as 90%). It is complete and utter nonsense, and you know it. Even the Laffer Centre (laffercentre.com) plays down its significance, for goodness sake.

I got this from Wiki which I found quite funny:

David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director during his first administration and one of the early proponents of supply-side economics, was concerned that the administration did not pay enough attention to cutting government spending. He maintained that the Laffer curve was not to be taken literally—at least not in the economic environment of the 1980s United States. In The Triumph of Politics, he writes: "[T]he whole California gang had taken [the Laffer curve] literally (and primitively). The way they talked, they seemed to expect that once the supply-side tax cut was in effect, additional revenue would start to fall, manna-like, from the heavens. Since January, I had been explaining that there is no literal Laffer curve."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So go on, do you really believe in the Laffer Curve or just pretending to? Because if you do, I can sort of understand where you're coming from with everything else you say.

Yes, I saw that higher earning French workers left France when Hollande hiked the top rates of tax, Yes, I saw that UK tax revenues from the higher earners when Margaret Thatcher cut the top rate from 60% to 40% in the late 1980s. Yes, I saw that Gordon Brown maintained the top rate of tax at 40% all through the 13 years of a Labour gov't - despite the enormous increase in government spending through that period.

And, who's said anything about cutting Gov't spending? My changes in taxation are designed to build tax revenues and to, over time, get the country's finances back on a sustainable level. Is it fair that we are constantly creating more debts that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back? Is it fair that we risk having to be bailed out with an emergency loan from the IMF? The 6th largest economy in the world should never be a problem that takes funds from the IMF.

I'm happy to continue to debate. What is your argument to "soak the rich" other than the empty politics of envy? Surely the "left" can do better than this in the 21st century.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat May 13, 2017 10:31 am

Spiral wrote:I was introduced to the Laffer curve in my A-level economics class years ago. I believe one of my exam questions was based around debunking it.

Here's a blogpost debunking its usefulness.

https://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/09/ ... fer-curve/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi Spiral, iibyw and IT,

so, who is the guy that's written this blog? There are a number of gaps in what he writes. The most obvious is that it assumes the high earners cannot move themselves and/or their income to another country. This isn't an unreasonable assumption for high earners in the USA, the USA taxes US citizens even if they are living/working in another country. But we know that many high earners in Europe can and do move to other countries to lower their marginal rate of tax. As above, the French moving to London, in the UK the "fleeing of high earners" from UK (60s/70s) to other countries to escape high margin tax rates - and their return when rates were lowered. Similarly, the desire of sportsmen and women to live in Monaco (as also Philip Green's wife) or to offshore their "image rights" to escape UK's highest rate of income tax. (Putting aside the "Belgium dentist" who's money was often kept out of reach of the tax authorities in a secret Swiss bank account).

I agree with Spiral - and have stated this before - that economics and philosophy are key subjects. I'd worry, however, about school students, even at a-level being asked to answer questions that "de-bunk" X or Y economic theory (whatever those theories are). Yes, they may remember this "teenage rebellion" but will they have grasped the foundations of the subject and be able to develop their understanding - and independence of thought - through their adult lives.

Let's make "tax avoidance" socially unacceptable. Let's do it by getting rid of the "politics of envy" and setting the top rate of tax at a level that doesn't give anyone any reasons to move their earnings away from the UK.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sat May 13, 2017 11:20 am

Bacchus wrote:Liebour - can I add that to Remoaner, Bliar and Druncker in the list of Ringo attempts to be smart but sounds like a 4 year old? It's like conversing with a toddler and that's before we even get on to your fundamental misunderstanding of just about everything.

Some quality, playing the man not the ball their fella!!!

So, did Labour bail out the banks to the tune of billions, as a direct result of their "soft touch regulation" or not?

A simple question.

Try and resist the name calling please.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sat May 13, 2017 11:40 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Try and resist the name calling please.

My irony meter has just exploded.

Yes, Labour bailed the banks out. There was no alternative. Letting them go to the wall would have been catastrophic. I suspect even you know that, really.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sat May 13, 2017 11:54 am

Bacchus wrote:My irony meter has just exploded.

Yes, Labour bailed the banks out. There was no alternative. Letting them go to the wall would have been catastrophic. I suspect even you know that, really.

So we're part of the way there now. So you agree it was Labour who bailed out the banks. So would you now agree to the rest of what I said. Which was it was billions of pounds, those billions will not be paid off for generations time. And this is the really tricky one. Was it any way possible that the "soft touch regulation" that Labour boasted about, was responsible for the near economic catastrophe? Anyway at all?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat May 13, 2017 12:13 pm

Bacchus wrote:My irony meter has just exploded.

Yes, Labour bailed the banks out. There was no alternative. Letting them go to the wall would have been catastrophic. I suspect even you know that, really.

Hi Bacchus, in what way would it have been catastrophic if the banks hadn't been bailed out? Deposits were guaranteed (100% to £x and 90% up to £y) - a number that was above the savings of the "ordinary working man and woman." Why did it have to be a 100% bail out - however, much you'd deposited in the bank? And, why was it 100% bail out even if the bank was a non-UK bank and was offering exceptionally high interest rates?

Why did HBOS have to be bought by Lloyds - which ended in Lloyds having to be bailed out, a little bit like "bad bank destroys good bank..."

Why did the government support banks offering 125% mortgages to people with "uncertified" incomes - and others who were "driving around" and "flying off on holiday" on their "mortgages?"

As a certain person asked "Why did know one see it coming?"

If we are to avoid another financial crash it is important that we understand what took us down that path in the first place. And, then, maybe there will be some alternatives.

cblantfanclub · Post by **cblantfanclub** » Sat May 13, 2017 12:21 pm

Thatchers de regulaton of the financial industry sent us down this road.
Along with the naked greed of bankers who preyed on people with no hope of repaying said toxic loans.
Why ? because they were socially and morally bankrupt having no idea that this wasn't feasible
Their politics ?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat May 13, 2017 12:25 pm

KeighleyClaret · Post by **KeighleyClaret** » Sat May 13, 2017 12:34 pm

I don't really care about the maths - I just like the idea that we should spend the money we do have in a different way, that benefits those people who have not been shielded by the last 2 governments and redresses the balance a bit.

Maybe we cannot afford everything ion the Labour manifesto but we sure as heck cannot afford another 5 years of May and co unless you are already comfortable.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat May 13, 2017 12:36 pm

If it be your will wrote:So the answer is 'yes', you are a committed 'supply-side' economist, and firmly believe the Laffer Curve reflects reality.

Only I know this is not to be true. I know you don't believe the Laffer Curve reflects reality. I know you are not attempting to illuminate an underlying truth, or gain a deeper understanding, because I know none of Laffer's adherents actually believe it - because it's nonsense and you know it. Every single one of your posts always arrives at the same, dark conclusion: We must tax the rich less for the good of everyone. Every single time.

But you know this stance not to be genuine. You know 'The Trickle Down Effect' is a load of rubbish, just as you know 'A rising tide lifts all boats' is a completely invalid claim. I know you know this. What you are doing is using your economic knowledge to further your pre-determined political agenda - lower taxes on the rich - every single time. You are using economics as a dark art to lend intellectual credibility to a mission, a mission which - if successful - you stand to gain handsomely. You get out the stock phrases like 'politics of envy' and 'soak the rich', yet you have no idea how much I stand to gain or lose financially if the supply-siders get their way.

Whatever I write on here might be right or it might be wrong, but I can honestly claim it is correct to the best of my beliefs. That is the fundamental difference between you and I. You don't actually believe what you are saying, and no amounts of "Hi..." this and "Hi..." that, or silly tags of "Stop Taking; Start Giving" can disguise it anymore.

You have been sharp to the point of rude with me a few times on this board when I've called out your fallacies. You've taken the gloves off and I've stepped back in the interests of decorum. But not this time. Nothing you say can be taken at face value anymore.

You are a fraud, Paul Waine.

Blimey. That was a bit of an outburst wasn't it?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sat May 13, 2017 12:53 pm

cblantfanclub wrote:Thatchers de regulaton of the financial industry sent us down this road.
Along with the naked greed of bankers who preyed on people with no hope of repaying said toxic loans.
Why ? because they were socially and morally bankrupt having no idea that this wasn't feasible
Their politics ?

Some would argue that its irrelevent which party is in governement. (The City of london is not just a geographical location. Its a corporation.) The Bankers have the real power...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ki ... ut-1874811" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/06 ... for-banks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat May 13, 2017 12:56 pm

Damo wrote:Blimey. That was a bit of an outburst wasn't it?

First time I read iibyw's post I read "fraud" as "friend" - I must get my glasses checked.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat May 13, 2017 12:57 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Some would argue that its irrelevent which party is in governement. (The City of london is not just a geographical location. Its a corporation.) The Bankers have the real power...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ki ... ut-1874811" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/06 ... for-banks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How much of the bank bailout are we still owed?

Oh, i forgot. You can't answer this because you have your fingers in your ears like this guy does...

Bobinho wrote:Don't quote me again.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat May 13, 2017 1:22 pm

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat May 13, 2017 5:11 pm

If it be your will wrote: You are a fraud, Paul Waine.

No worries, if it be your will.

I'm not too concerned about economic theories. I don't think the choice is between "supply side" and "demand side" or Keynes. Let's leave it at that. You can express your views and I'll express mine.

Take care.

RMutt · Post by **RMutt** » Sat May 13, 2017 5:45 pm

'Let's make "tax avoidance" socially unacceptable. Let's do it by getting rid of the "politics of envy" and setting the top rate of tax at a level that doesn't give anyone any reasons to move their earnings away from the UK.'
Does anyone really believe that the left are motivated by envy? It's just another untruth, a right wing Daily Mail type statement that they hope will take root in the minds of ordinary people. No left leaning person I know is envious of the wealth of the rich or their lifestyles. All are thinking of others not themselves.They want a fairer distribution of the wealth everybody helps to create.They want better funding of the services those in need require. I think it is insulting to to describe us as envious. I suspect that the truly envious do not subscribe to left wing political views, more likely they are Tory voting Mondeo ( or whatever they're driving these days) men trying to get up the greasy pole. But then it's probably not their fault either as they are just victims of the materialistic advert driven ' you need this' world we live in.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sat May 13, 2017 9:20 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:So we're part of the way there now. So you agree it was Labour who bailed out the banks. So would you now agree to the rest of what I said. Which was it was billions of pounds, those billions will not be paid off for generations time. And this is the really tricky one. Was it any way possible that the "soft touch regulation" that Labour boasted about, was responsible for the near economic catastrophe? Anyway at all?

Of course I agree that Labour bailed out the banks. That's an indisputable matter of fact. Has anybody ever argued otherwise?

Banks were (maybe still are) poorly regulated. If you're actually arguing that this is something that jut happened under Labour you're even more blinkered than I'd realised. It came to a head on their watch, of course, on a global level - again nobody disputes this and only the really hard of thinking still try to hold the government of the time entirely responsible. As the saying goes: the "America sneezed and the rest of the world caught a cold."

I'm interested to hear what you think would have happened if the banks hadn't been bailed out.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat May 13, 2017 9:26 pm

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sat May 13, 2017 9:27 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Bacchus, in what way would it have been catastrophic if the banks hadn't been bailed out? Deposits were guaranteed (100% to £x and 90% up to £y) - a number that was above the savings of the "ordinary working man and woman." Why did it have to be a 100% bail out - however, much you'd deposited in the bank? And, why was it 100% bail out even if the bank was a non-UK bank and was offering exceptionally high interest rates?

Why did HBOS have to be bought by Lloyds - which ended in Lloyds having to be bailed out, a little bit like "bad bank destroys good bank..."

Why did the government support banks offering 125% mortgages to people with "uncertified" incomes - and others who were "driving around" and "flying off on holiday" on their "mortgages?"

As a certain person asked "Why did know one see it coming?"

If we are to avoid another financial crash it is important that we understand what took us down that path in the first place. And, then, maybe there will be some alternatives.

Could it have been done differently? Maybe. I'm not clued up enough to understand all the potential scenarios. It would have taken a brave man to let the banks fail when your economy is so dependent on them. Personal deposits might have been safe (although guarantees on those would still have come from public funds) but what about business accounts? Banks failing and taking businesses with them doesn't sound like a risk I'd want to take.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat May 13, 2017 9:34 pm

: IMG_20170513_213324.jpg (163.45 KiB) Viewed 2810 times

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat May 13, 2017 10:45 pm

This board is so partisan that I expect the above figures to be an endorsement of Tory policy. Lets ignore for a moment how long overdue an increase in the NMW actually was and look at who deserves credit for making the working-poor slightly less poor.

Oh, golly! Look, it's quite straight forward, really! Increasing the income tax threshold was actually a LibDem policy. In fact, it was considered a red-line if I'm not mistaken. There literally wouldn't have been a Tory-led coalition had Cameron not yielded to the LibDem's income tax threshold policy.

You can thank Nick Clegg for your numbers.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat May 13, 2017 11:59 pm

The 2016-17 and 2017-18 minimum wages and tax threshholds were set by the Conservative government without Liberal support. OK, you can argue that if Labour had been in a coalition government the Liberal would have forced them to increase the tax threshholds as well; but that's hardly an endorsement of the Labour party.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun May 14, 2017 1:14 am

Bacchus wrote:Of course I agree that Labour bailed out the banks. That's an indisputable matter of fact. Has anybody ever argued otherwise?

Banks were (maybe still are) poorly regulated. If you're actually arguing that this is something that jut happened under Labour you're even more blinkered than I'd realised. It came to a head on their watch, of course, on a global level - again nobody disputes this and only the really hard of thinking still try to hold the government of the time entirely responsible. As the saying goes: the "America sneezed and the rest of the world caught a cold."

I'm interested to hear what you think would have happened if the banks hadn't been bailed out.

My original post was a reply to this post which was about Labour myths- "And clear the mountainous debts racked up by the tories."

I pointed out that it was labour who had straddled the country with debt as they had bailed out the banks. And you've still avoided my question to you . Which was - did labour's boast of "soft touch regulation" have anything to do with the crash? You still haven't answered.

If the banks hadn't not been bailed out . Other banks would have taken on the deposits and liabilities and the sky wouldn't have fallen in.

Isn't it strange. People of the Left support the financial propping up of London based banks (with tax payers money) without question. Yet. When Nissan were reassured that their future was secure( with tax payers money) we heard nothing but bile and criticism!

So basically for the ideologically confused Left, London based banking jobs are precious and Northern manufacturing jobs are surplus to requirements!!

Anyway mate, why the sudden interest in what a "toddler " thinks?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 14, 2017 1:19 am

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sun May 14, 2017 1:36 am

If it be your will wrote:Hi Damo,

I notice your figures aren't adjusted for inflation, and have also not taken into account the recent reduction in working tax credits. Is there any chance you could do this so we can make a more impartial judgement?

It also doesn't take into account things like marriage tax allowance if your partner earns less than £11500.
My point was regarding take home pay not benefit entitlement

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun May 14, 2017 1:45 am

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun May 14, 2017 9:18 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:My original post was a reply to this post which was about Labour myths- "And clear the mountainous debts racked up by the tories."

I pointed out that it was labour who had straddled the country with debt as they had bailed out the banks. And you've still avoided my question to you . Which was - did labour's boast of "soft touch regulation" have anything to do with the crash? You still haven't answered.

If the banks hadn't not been bailed out . Other banks would have taken on the deposits and liabilities and the sky wouldn't have fallen in.

Isn't it strange. People of the Left support the financial propping up of London based banks (with tax payers money) without question. Yet. When Nissan were reassured that their future was secure( with tax payers money) we heard nothing but bile and criticism!

So basically for the ideologically confused Left, London based banking jobs are precious and Northern manufacturing jobs are surplus to requirements!!

Anyway mate, why the sudden interest in what a "toddler " thinks?

I directly answered your question about regulation - try reading my response.

Maybe other banks would / could have stepped in. Maybe not. It's doubtful that any bank would just take on all the liabilities of a bankrupt competitor though, and any government guaranteed savings would still have had to come from the public purse. There wasn't a cost free solution as you seem to be implying.

There is a big difference between stepping in to save banks that have failed overnight as a result of a global crash and bribing a company not to leave the UK as the result of us deciding to leave the EU.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun May 14, 2017 11:14 am

Bacchus wrote:I directly answered your question about regulation - try reading my response.

Maybe other banks would / could have stepped in. Maybe not. It's doubtful that any bank would just take on all the liabilities of a bankrupt competitor though, and any government guaranteed savings would still have had to come from the public purse. There wasn't a cost free solution as you seem to be implying.

There is a big difference between stepping in to save banks that have failed overnight as a result of a global crash and bribing a company not to leave the UK as the result of us deciding to leave the EU.

I asked if you thought Labour was responsible? Cos I was pointing out to a previous poster that the debt the country had, was not exclusively brought about by the tories. And you've still to accept that, why, after years and years of other government's (Tory and Labour) control on the City of London, it only happened on Labours watch. And you seem swerve any responsibilty for Labour by saying it was a "Global crash" deludedly kidding yourself that it happened somewhere else!. Do you not accept that the City of London is at the epicentre of the global economy, and it was Labour's incompetence that thru its policy of "soft touch regulation" that was a direct cause? Stop the buck passing and the responsibility denial mate. You're not Ed Balls are you!?

As for your view that preserving, much needed, high quality, manufacturing jobs in the North is "bribery". Yet you're happy with the propping up of casino banks, that were recklessly playing loose with billions. Banks who were aided and abetted by a Labour government, that bragged of its "prawn cocktail offensive" to get on the right side of the bankers, then used tax payers money to cover up their incompetence. That's ok is it!? Fair enough.

Its that attitude thats lead to Labour losing its former heartlands fella. Pandering to the South while the North can rot.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Sun May 14, 2017 2:44 pm

Ringo - if you're looking for a party that is serious about investing in industry, and will give the financial sector the strong and stable regulation it requires, then look no further than Corbyn's Labour Party.

You certainly won't get regulation out of the Conservatives - who have spent public money on fighting banking regulation. Arguably they've done nothing to address the issues in the seven years they've had. With them in charge it's only a matter of time before there's another crash.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun May 14, 2017 3:22 pm

Under the total time Labour was in office, manufacturing fell from a share of 18% of the economy in 1997 to 10% by 2010 (the closest available approximations). Up to the end of Tony Blair's premiership it fell to 11% by 2007. No previous stint of government for any party since 1970 saw this level of decline from start to finish.

Claretrew · Post by **Claretrew** » Sun May 14, 2017 4:28 pm

Have a read at this from a while back about the toxic debt left by labour https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... BEblkKxvog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Claretrew · Post by **Claretrew** » Sun May 14, 2017 4:32 pm

Then there is this http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_na ... t_analysis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;