[Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Fresnillo

World? Nope. The Aussie banking system did not collapse, the British did.

Brown was the chancellor for donkey years overseeing the Banks. Even a blind Bank regulator (or with one eye) should have seen the collapse coming....

So did Gordon Brown actually force these bankers to act irresponsibly then?

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I said at the begining of this election crap, if the Tories get in they will make cutbacks in services, and they are, it was stated today that they are making cutbacks in service's straight away to save money, up goes VAT to 20%, cutbacks in services, they are going ahead with crossrail, even though it is expensive, who is going to pay for all this US. what is next for cutbacks, income tax will go up next, l told you so.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

As a contractor you can claim back £0.40 per mile, netting you well over £4K from the tax man.
Your car is too new and "environmentally friendly" to run on anything but environmentally damaging derv (go figure).
Normally SVO costs me 71ppl, but Tesco are doing a deal so its about 50ppl.

I think you'll find that is up to four thousand pounds that he can set against his taxable profits (only for the first ten thousand miles, it is twenty-five pence per mile after that), assuming he is paying basic rate tax, that will net him only eight hundred pounds (or up to one thousand six hundred pounds, if he pays tax at the higher rate).

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So did Gordon Brown actually force these bankers to act irresponsibly then?

No - he just set up the regulatory framework which allowed them to do so unhindered by proper scrutiny. Whilst they were at it he was too busy spending and dining out on the tax revenues generated to worry about what was going on and what it was all based upon. The fact that he doled out honours to a large number of them (including a Knighthood to Fred the Shred) and spoke boldly of his desire to 'encourage the risk takers' during an official address to City financiers indicates that he wasn't exactly discouraging their activities or advocating the 'prudence' he boasted so much about during his time as Chancellor.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Osem

No - he just set up the regulatory framework which allowed them to do so unhindered by proper scrutiny. Whilst they were at it he was too busy spending and dining out on the tax revenues generated to worry about what was going on and what it was all based upon.

So, he didn't cause the collapse of the banks, they brought that upon themselves.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

who is going to pay for all this US.

Yep. We were always going to have to pay for it.

The new Government have a pretty tough task ahead of them, they've inherited an economy on life support and a country thats been spending FAR more than it was making for a number of years.

The country cannot go on spending money it does not have, unless you have another solution then cuts have to be made and taxes have to rise to cover the mismanagement of the last 13 years.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, he didn't cause the collapse of the banks, they brought that upon themselves.

Which was a world-wide problem resulting in many countries across the globe having to take similar measures as the UK (though not necessarily as severe).

The reality was that the international banking system is so intertwined that many banks found themselves exposed to dodgy practices elsewhere in the world. Brown bears part of the blame, but it's not obvious he could have done much to avoid it.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, he didn't cause the collapse of the banks, they brought that upon themselves.

He didn't hold a gun to their heads but he made it possible for them to act in the way they did.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, he didn't cause the collapse of the banks, they brought that upon themselves.

You missed this bit:

The fact that he doled out honours to a large number of them (including a Knighthood to Fred the Shred) and spoke boldly of his desire to 'encourage the risk takers' during an official address to City financiers indicates that he wasn't exactly discouraging their activities or advocating the 'prudence' he boasted so much about during his time as Chancellor.

Brown clearly did not directly cause the collapse but he and his Government were culpable by allowing it to happen on their watch. As the world's pre-eminent financial centre Brown had a clear duty to ensure the City was subject to adequate scrutiny.

---------- Post added at 13:02 ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek S

He didn't hold a gun to their heads but he made it possible for them to act in the way they did.

...and he rewarded them for it.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Derek S

He didn't hold a gun to their heads but he made it possible for them to act in the way they did.

So, he is to blame because the banks have no morals?

No, he is to blame for not regulating appropriately.

(btw, I love the way you keep changing the question when you don't get the answer you want.... )

[danielf]

Does anyone know how much of the current debt is due to the banking crisis, and how much is due to 'regular' overspending? I.e: how much debt would we have had if there hadn't been a banking crisis?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

No, he is to blame for not regulating appropriately.

(btw, I love the way you keep changing the question when you don't get the answer you want*.... )

You noticed that too The way some people try to deflect responsibility from Brown, anyone would think he wasn't Chancellor for all those years....

* .....and isn't that just what they do with respect to referenda on the EU?.....

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by danielf

Does anyone know how much of the current debt is due to the banking crisis, and how much is due to 'regular' overspending? I.e: how much debt would we have had if there hadn't been a banking crisis?

The trouble is Daniel, is that much of the extra public spending has been due to the recession and supporting those who have been affected by it. It would be interesting to see the figures from the year before the crisis.

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

No, he is to blame for not regulating appropriately.

(btw, I love the way you keep changing the question when you don't get the answer you want.... )

I must have missed that, what have I kept change?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by danielf

Does anyone know how much of the current debt is due to the banking crisis, and how much is due to 'regular' overspending? I.e: how much debt would we have had if there hadn't been a banking crisis?

Probably the easiest way to estimate that would be to compare the figures for govenment borrowing just before the banking collapse and after their intervention but it's not just about actual debt/losses, there's also the question of future liabilities. The additional complication with what happened to the banks is that potential losses still cannot be quantified. IIRC RBS in particular (and hence the UK taxpayer) is still exposed to some extremely dodgy lending which could wind up costing us £billions more than has already been spent/lost.

There's more detail here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4...oxic-debt.html

Confirmation yesterday that the bankers' avarice has officially plunged Britain into recession added to the growing bewilderment as to exactly why we are on the hook for almost £1 trillion in bail-outs and guarantees.

No one even knows exactly how many of these toxic assets British banks are holding, and how much more it might cost the taxpayer to get out of this unholy mess...

and here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-1833830.html

Government support for Britain's banks has reached a staggering £850bn and the eventual cost to taxpayers will not be known for years, the public spending watchdog says today.

The commitments include buying £76bn of shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group; indemnifying the Bank of England against losses incurred in providing more than £200bn of liquidity support; guaranteeing up to £250bn of wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity; providing £40bn of loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services compensation Scheme; and insurance cover of over £280bn for bank assets.