The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[hullefc]

I've got a question; the previous Labour government are often blamed for not regulating the banks in the run up to the financial crash, seemingly because we can't trust banks to do a decent job without being regulated (as we found out).

If banks cannot be trusted to operate properly without being regulated, why would anybody be against central banking through government?

Because the rich, who have excess capital to lend wouldn't make even more money through borrowing. The likes of Cameron and Osbourne wouldn't have their family money to 'get on in life'.

 

[roydo]

Re "The Banks" and all that, it should be remembered that that it wasnt just the lending policies, sub prime in the US being the, er, prime example o poor practice. It was more the securitisation of junk grade credit into AAA rated bonds that really screwed us by having to bail them out when that came to light.

In important point that often gets overlooked.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

It's a very good question mate.

Ed Balls has changed strategy significantly through the course of this Parliament. Back in 2010 he made a widely reported speech to Bloomberg savagely attacking the idea that you could achieve economic growth whilst pursuing "austerity". Since that point he has given ground time and time again until really he's not that different (other than the major difference of spending priorities which as I said above is critical) from the Tory line.

I think the only answer to your point is that Labour believe that National Debt levels are actually not that important to voters. (ICM for the Guardian in October showed only 7% of voters thought that national debt levels are important). The most important areas are NHS, jobs, wages and cost of living, education and immigration. Hence the focus being on these issues where apart from immigration Labour find it easier, than the economy where undeservedly Conservatives get a free run, hence it being almost the sole focus of their campaign

But that's the point mate, the Tories can't bang on about how great they are for the economy when they failed to wipe out the deficit as they said they would at the end of this term, and the national debt has doubled, how can you say that shows success?

It's all smoke and mirrors, and if I was running the Labour campaign I'd be banging home those points every time the Tories piped up on the economy.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

As long as there is a culture of greed and desire, probably not.

BTW. The bank managers should have said no.

Of course they should, but that isn't generally how credit works is it? Try getting a credit card or a mortgage if you've never been in debt in your life In a bubble, it takes a brave person to jump off of the carousel.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I've got a question; the previous Labour government are often blamed for not regulating the banks in the run up to the financial crash, seemingly because we can't trust banks to do a decent job without being regulated (as we found out).

If banks cannot be trusted to operate properly without being regulated, why would anybody be against central banking through government?

Given the way many politicians managed their expenses (and the state finances as I highlighted earlier), what makes us think the state could do a better job?

 

[Seanjd]

Given the way many politicians managed their expenses (and the state finances as I highlighted earlier), what makes us think the state could do a better job?

They can't do much worse.

 

[Seanjd]

Labour manifesto: creation of a state owned rail line to compete with privately owned franchise.

 

[hullefc]

Of course, the banks have to take their share too, but so do each of the people that borrowed more than they should have. The thing is, most of the economic policy from around the world since the crash has seemed to revolve around encouraging business and consumers to borrow (and spend) to boost 'growth'.

You have to ask yourself, have any lessons really been learned?

And who should be the 'authority' that determines what a person borrows that is 'more than they should have'?

 

[daylightrobber]

Now is probably a sensible time to revisit the widening of the wealth gap issue.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

David Cameron’s policy is to increase Britain’s debt by 60 per cent, more than any European country. To increase it more over five years than Labour did over 13 years. Just yesterday, we learned the national debt had hit £1,111 billion and it’s heading to £1,400 billion.

By no stretch of the English language can this be described as “paying down Britain’s debts.” What Cameron said is not an exaggeration. It’s a straight falsehood, and one that demeans his office. He has previously used different language, saying that he is “dealing with the debt”. The below graph says it all:



As Cameron says in his party political broadcast, he’s only half way through his term of office. So what progress does he intend to make on national debt in the remainder of his parliament? His deputy, Nick Clegg, has previously boasted that his government is “wiping the slate clean of debt”. An utterly misleading analogy. Here are the Treasury’s published plans:



It is hard to avoid the conclusion that David Cameron and Nick Clegg have an agreed strategy: that it is not important to tell the truth about how much debt their government is saddling voters with. That a little deception is no bad thing.

It really is quite shameful. Financiers are, quite literally, prosecuted for this kind of thing

 

[Bruce Wayne]

And who should be the 'authority' that determines what a person borrows that is 'more than they should have'?

Well indeed, it's a matter for you (the borrower) and whoever lends it to you.

 

[Mrk]

@the esk ,Can you explain to me why the Tories are seen as being good for the economy when the national debt has doubled under them this term, and why are Labour not hammering this home to the public?

I don't understand it, am I missing something?

Because Labour have publicly opposed spending cuts?

You can't oppose spending cuts on one hand and then criticise the government for raising debt at the same time. So that's why.

 

[Seanjd]

Because Labour have publicly opposed spending cuts?

You can't oppose spending cuts on one hand and then criticise the government for raising debt at the same time. So that's why.

But the Tories used spending cuts as their way of wiping the deficit by 2015..

 

[The Mighty Quint]

"Under austerity, the current government has demolished some of the country’s most precious social protections while presiding over the worst post-recession economic recovery on record. But what lies ahead if they are returned to power will be much worse. In the foreword to the paperback edition of my book Austerity Bites, Mark Blyth, author of Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea, writes that when he walks around the UK today, “outside the London housing bubble and the financial perma-party of the capital’s ‘well-to-do’, I see a society transformed from the ‘haves and have-nots’ I grew up with in Scotland, to what might be called the ‘have-it-all-and-screw-the-poor’ society of today. I used to think Mrs Thatcher did a good number on the working classes of the UK. It turns out that I hadn’t seen anything yet.”

If the past five years have taught us anything it’s that we need to challenge a political status quo that believes it’s fine to further enrich the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. If we don’t fight for social justice for the whole of society and if we don’t make sure every person has a voice then, in less than a generation, there will not be anything resembling a welfare state left for us to save".

 

[hullefc]

Well indeed, it's a matter for you (the borrower) and whoever lends it to you.

Indeed. Maybe the whole lending thing would 'work better' if the banks weren't forced by law, the government, to 'hold' some assets that can determine what they can lend. Banks without controls, maybe.