Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

It will be interesting to see what Gideon does with Tax Credits - A certain body called the IFS before the election totally ripped apart the Cons pledges and showed how in fact that these had been going down in real terms 19% for the past few years. The right wing headline writers will no doubt see a different slant to this

Also the IFS stated this in April 2010

The tax and benefit measures implemented by Labour since 1997 have increased the incomes of poorer households and reduced those of richer ones, largely halting the rapid rise in income inequality we saw under the Conservatives. Despite this, inequality was still slightly higher in 2007-08 than when Labour came to office, according to the first set of Election Briefing Notes to be released by the IFS to help inform public debate during the general election campaign.

The new ConDem's will no doubt be hoping to see a return to the old Tory ways?

The IFS have also said in the past - Oct 2009

So it is fair to say that youth unemployment and income inequality have risen under Labour, and that, on a very narrow, and potentially uninformative, measure, the incomes of households with the lowest incomes are now lower than they were in 1996-97. But, although the performance of the last Conservative government is not necessarily a guide to a potential future administration, the record on youth unemployment was no better, and on poverty and inequality considerably worse, in the Thatcher and Major administrations than under Blair and Brown.

Blimey who would have thought it - I suppose that bit of history never happened also

Obama said this week to the G20

In a letter to fellow world leaders in advance of the G20 Summit in Toronto next week, President Obama warned that the world must learn from the "mistakes of the past when stimulus was too quickly withdrawn and resulted in renewed economic hardship and recession".

But of course he knows nothing and should be ignored, British Petroleum and all that

I suppose a lot of this shows that the mixed messages are out there if you want to look for them. The simple truth is that even some of these so called "experts" contradict themselves on each and every occasion. Maybe they are subject to world economy changes also?

[drat01]

that and try and deflect all blame to his fellow ConDem's ......and the previous Gvmt.

Who else is to blame? The party who has been in government for 12 years, or the party who hasn't? Labour has left the country in the worst mess it's ever been in.

See your rapid defence of anything to do with the ConDem's see you miss the point completely.

You say worst mess but that is bollox, maybe in your lifetime, but the mess we had under Thatcher when the pound plummeted and frankly became worthless is certainly up there for consideration. Maybe you don't remember 20% mortgages?, inflation running at record levels, mass unemployment with little or no welfare support?

You hate Labour - fair enough, but the simple facts are there, the ConDem's are going down a path that can and probably will lead to far worse impacts for the people living and working in the UK than many have seen for years.

[Richard]

Maybe you don't remember 20% mortgages?, inflation running at record levels, mass unemployment with little or no welfare support?

And maybe your memory is a little flawed?

On inflation at record levels, well maybe they were in 1979 when the Conservatives came into power, but as this table shows they came down steadily under the course of the Tory administration from 79 to 97 and end at 1.80%. Certainly nowhere near the peak of 24.2% under the Labour govt of 1975 to 1979. So Which year of the Tory govt was above that 25% ? As surely it would need to be above the 24.2% to be a record ?

On interest rates , can you point me to the 20% mortgages please as I don't remember those either and you seem to. this site seems to show the Bof E base rates from 1979 to 2008 and whilst they did peak at 17% just after the Tories came to power in 1979 they declined throughout the next 8 or so years, rising again for a 3 year period , then coming down. The average column shows the steady decrease. Maybe you are looking at different figures to me? Could you tell me.

Snowy, yes taken from that site but facts that struck with me. Next time I'll use the copywright mark

[Risso]

See your rapid defence of anything to do with the ConDem's see you miss the point completely.

You say worst mess but that is bollox, maybe in your lifetime, but the mess we had under Thatcher when the pound plummeted and frankly became worthless is certainly up there for consideration. Maybe you don't remember 20% mortgages?, inflation running at record levels, mass unemployment with little or no welfare support?

You hate Labour - fair enough, but the simple facts are there, the ConDem's are going down a path that can and probably will lead to far worse impacts for the people living and working in the UK than many have seen for years.

I only dip in and out of these discussions, but it seems clear that you're incapable of debating a point without making wholly unnecessary personal comments.

If it's "bollox" then maybe you should have a word with Alistair Darling, who said himself that it was the worst crisis in 60 years.

[Richard]

Could you tell me.

What am I thinking about, of course you can't, and if you could you wouldn't would you as you appear to have decided to not answer my posts.

[drat01]

I only dip in and out of these discussions, but it seems clear that you're incapable of debating a point without making wholly unnecessary personal comments.

If it's "bollox" then maybe you should have a word with Alistair Darling, who said himself that it was the worst crisis in 60 years.

Personal comments? What the hell are you talking about?

By stating that you may (or may not) remember the previous Tory regime? Bloody hell you have a sensitive streak if you class that as a "unnecessary personal comment". As you say you don't dip in but a quick look back shows that when you do its nearly, if not all with a comment that is seemingly anti Labour. As said no probs with that your choice, but if then I chose to point out what I see as the error in your judgement then so be it.

And just to point out to you Darling said it was the worst crisis that world had faced, bit of a difference to what you are saying or claiming it was the worst mess ever

[Richard]

when the pound plummeted and frankly became worthless

Sorry missed that bit, I do apologise.

Can you advise when that was based On this please

Was it that month that it was worth 1.09 USD or the average of 1.68 USD over the 18 year period. Just be interested to see what your definition of worthless extends to. I know what my definition of worthless is :winkold:

[bickster]

Hilarious, one Tory Party blaming another Tory Party for a mess that each of them would have created because they both would have had such a lax attitude to regulating the banks with the FSA. Its no good the blue side saying they are changing that now, they wouldn't have done if they'd been in power back then.

Nothing's changed the idiots are still in charge playing the blame game, just like the last lot of idiots who did exactly the same.

British politics, same horse different jockey

[Risso]

You say that Bicks, but there really is one person to blame for the FSA, and that's that utter **** Gordon Brown. Taking away the power of the Bank of England, and replacing it with the utterly piss poor FSA was the decision of a special kind of idiot.

[Richard]

It will be interesting to see what Gideon does with Tax Credits - A certain body called the IFS before the election totally ripped apart the Cons pledges and showed how in fact that these had been going down in real terms 19% for the past few years. The right wing headline writers will no doubt see a different slant to this

Also the IFS stated this in April 2010

The tax and benefit measures implemented by Labour since 1997 have increased the incomes of poorer households and reduced those of richer ones, largely halting the rapid rise in income inequality we saw under the Conservatives. Despite this, inequality was still slightly higher in 2007-08 than when Labour came to office, according to the first set of Election Briefing Notes to be released by the IFS to help inform public debate during the general election campaign.

The new ConDem's will no doubt be hoping to see a return to the old Tory ways?

The IFS have also said in the past - Oct 2009

So it is fair to say that youth unemployment and income inequality have risen under Labour, and that, on a very narrow, and potentially uninformative, measure, the incomes of households with the lowest incomes are now lower than they were in 1996-97. But, although the performance of the last Conservative government is not necessarily a guide to a potential future administration, the record on youth unemployment was no better, and on poverty and inequality considerably worse, in the Thatcher and Major administrations than under Blair and Brown.

Nice bit of bolding there. I also find that doing that can at times actually highlight the bits before and after that you don't want people to read but hey ho.

As you like the IFS I am a bit surprised that you mssed the bit from the April report that I posted above yours

IFS quote (IFS The public finances :1997 - 2010, 19 April 2010 (p2)) "During Labours first four years in office, the public finances strengthened further, as the new government stuck to the tight public spending plans laid out by the Conservatives. The following seven years, however, were characterised by fiscal drift. By the eve of the financial crisis, this had left the UK with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world"

Oh and for those that didn't read your quotes properly, I note you are always keen for that to happen too, here are the bits you didn't make bold for some reason.

"Despite this, inequality was still slightly higher in 2007-08 than when Labour came to office, according to the first set of Election Briefing Notes to be released by the IFS to help inform public debate during the general election campaign"

and

"So it is fair to say that youth unemployment and income inequality have risen under Labour, and that, on a very narrow, and potentially uninformative, measure, the incomes of households with the lowest incomes are now lower than they were in 1996-97"

Blimey who would have thought it - I suppose that bit of history never happened also

[bickster]

The Blue party would have done the exact same thing with their approach to the free market, whether it was under the umbrella of the BoE or the FSA (or whatever they called it), it was a move straight out of the the Witches Blue Party handbook. It wasn't about the FSA per se, that was just the conduit, the Blue party would have done the exact same thing in a different way. The Blue Party were all about removing regulation, still are underneath it all but they have to respond in a way that they think the public currently expects now. Back then, had they been in power they would have jumped at the chance of removing regulation just like the other dumbfuck did.

[Risso]

The Blue party would have done the exact same thing with their approach to the free market, whether it was under the umbrella of the BoE or the FSA (or whatever they called it), it was a move straight out of the the Witches Blue Party handbook.

The fact that "The Witch" didn't do it though, surely disproves this theory?

[drat01]

You say that Bicks, but there really is one person to blame for the FSA, and that's that utter **** Gordon Brown. Taking away the power of the Bank of England, and replacing it with the utterly piss poor FSA was the decision of a special kind of idiot.

I would be interested then on your views on what Osborne is proposing as an alternative

Remembering

- The FT have said "not only will their “plans for wholesale butchery” make the FSA’s task more difficult over the coming year, but it risks imbuing too much power in an “unchecked and unchallenged” central bank."

- The FSA model is one that is used in Germany

- The proposed replacement for the FSA is in fact a contradiction to Gideon and Cameron and their "pledge" to diminish quango's

- The fact that one of the biggest opponents to the FSA are those scum of the earth the hedge fund managers - who not surprisingly are also some of the biggest donates to the old Tory party

You see the FSA as some sort extension to the Labour party?

[drat01]

The fact that "The Witch" didn't do it though, surely disproves this theory?

The FSA has the legal form of a company limited by guarantee (number 01920623). It was incorporated on 7 June 1985 under the name of The Securities and Investments Board Ltd ("SIB") at the instigation of the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the sole member of the company and who delegated certain statutory regulatory powers to it under the then Financial Services Act 1986. After a series of scandals in the 1990s culminating in the collapse of Barings Bank, there was a desire to bring to an end the self-regulation of the financial services industry and to consolidate regulation responsibilities which had been split amongst multiple regulators. The SIB revoked the recognition of The Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association (FIMBRA) as a Self-Regulatory Organisation (SRO) in June 1994 subject to a transitional wind-down period to provide for continuity of regulation whilst members moved to the Personal Investment Authority (PIA), which in turn was subsumed.

The Securities and Investments Board changed its name to the Financial Services Authority on 28 October 1997 and it now exercises statutory powers given to it by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, that replaced the earlier legislation and came into force on 1 December 2001. In addition to regulating banks, insurance companies and financial advisers, the FSA has regulated mortgage business from 31 October 2004 and general insurance (excluding travel insurance) intermediaries from 14 January 2005.

From Wiki

[Gringo]

Nice bit of bolding there. I also find that doing that can at times actually highlight the bits before and after that you don't want people to read but hey ho.

I think that's one of the reasons Snowy is so keen on you providing links when quoting articles from other sites. So people can do just that.

[Risso]

The SIB didn't have the power to regulate the banks. It didn't become the FSA until October 1997. I'll leave you to work out what other important political event happened that year.

[Gringo]

The Blue party would have done the exact same thing with their approach to the free market, whether it was under the umbrella of the BoE or the FSA (or whatever they called it), it was a move straight out of the the Witches Blue Party handbook.

The fact that "The Witch" didn't do it though, surely disproves this theory?

The structure is not overly important. People criticised the tripartate structure as being unable to manage in the midst of a crisis. But the regulation is driven from the top, and blue or red, the same sucking up to the city and banks would have occurred, and the same mess ensued.

Maybe the tories wouldn't have spent as much, but they'd also have targetted to lower taxes as well. Would this mean the deficit wouldn't have been as big? Or just that the solution following a blue mess would have been raising taxes, as opposed to the current solution of cutting spending.

[Richard]

Nice bit of bolding there. I also find that doing that can at times actually highlight the bits before and after that you don't want people to read but hey ho.

I think that's one of the reasons Snowy is so keen on you providing links when quoting articles from other sites. So people can do just that.

So people could read the bits before and after those that I quoted?

Strange when I have actually not missed anything out of the facts which are substantive.

On the link, well I typically do and think this is about the first time I neglected to. Still it didn't take away from the substantive comment or facts, certainly not in the eay bolding tends to.

[Gringo]

The SIB didn't have the power to regulate the banks. It didn't become the FSA until October 1997. I'll leave you to work out what other important political event happened that year.

Which just shows that the policy is continuous, only the party pushing it changes.

Just like gordon removing the tax breaks from dividends for pension funds - only expanding on a policy started by lawson and continued by lamont.

Regulation was going out of the door, and the fact the nulab promised the city they would continue the work carried out by the tories was important in them getting a lot of support from the city / business at large.

[snowychap]

Snowy, yes taken from that site but facts that struck with me. Next time I'll use the copywright mark

Richard, sorry I didn't mean it to be rude but the point was that they are facts with a definite slant and, I'm afraid in some cases, without any real meaning (in that they require context - both in terms of other numbers, whether their effect upon our country is the same as the countries against which comparisons are being made and, as Grings points out, in terms of who is making the comments).