FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Four in ten working households cannot afford average home prices
Four in ten working households cannot afford average home prices
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Going to sound controversial, why do people not move to another part of the country that they can afford to live in? If that happened the house prices would fall in those areas they are leaving and jobs will also be created in other parts of the country as a result. Levelling yourself up I would say, and I'm sure the standard of living would be higher too. " That’s quite a lot to level up though, 8 million odd households (40% of working households) to move ONS estimates 21.3 million households where at least one member is aged 16 to 64 years is working | |||
"Going to sound controversial, why do people not move to another part of the country that they can afford to live in? If that happened the house prices would fall in those areas they are leaving and jobs will also be created in other parts of the country as a result. Levelling yourself up I would say, and I'm sure the standard of living would be higher too. " Chicken and egg surely? What comes first, the jobs or the workforce to do the jobs? Homes are surely a by-product of both those things? | |||
| |||
"Who to blame for this …. …the nimbys, second home owners, the air bnb’ers, the house builders, the planners, the ex pat buyers, the right to buyer’s, the single person households, or the ageing population. Westminster won’t be accepting any responsibility " Capitalism and marker forces surely. | |||
"Who to blame for this …. …the nimbys, second home owners, the air bnb’ers, the house builders, the planners, the ex pat buyers, the right to buyer’s, the single person households, or the ageing population. Westminster won’t be accepting any responsibility Capitalism and marker forces surely. " Socialism worked great for housing? You just have to look at cities that enforced rent controls. | |||
"Who to blame for this …. …the nimbys, second home owners, the air bnb’ers, the house builders, the planners, the ex pat buyers, the right to buyer’s, the single person households, or the ageing population. Westminster won’t be accepting any responsibility " The country's population is increasing but the housing stock hasn't. Why? If there is a demand, the market would have reacted to it and built more houses right? But that's not the case. To build more houses, you either need to expand horizontally or vertically. Horizontal expansion is getting difficult because of green belts. Vertical expansion is getting difficult because of Nimbys. Given that the above two forces have essentially castrated the housing industry, giving away the ownership of houses in limited housing supply to the rich people from outside the country exacerbates the problem. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Who to blame for this …. …the nimbys, second home owners, the air bnb’ers, the house builders, the planners, the ex pat buyers, the right to buyer’s, the single person households, or the ageing population. Westminster won’t be accepting any responsibility Capitalism and marker forces surely. Socialism worked great for housing? You just have to look at cities that enforced rent controls." What's rent controls got to do with it if the houses are still private. You have big building companies sitting on land banks speculating on prices rising before they will build. Social housing stock sold of and never replaced. Margaret Thatchers policy of converting Labour supporters did a grand job then. In 1979 there were 6.5m social houses. Now there are 2.2m, while 4.5m are rent lingerie privately. Makes a nice balance sheet for some. Don't think what she done was much different from what Boris Yeltsin did when he sold of Russian assets for pennies to the oligarchs. Am a private landlord by the way so am all for private enterprise lol..  | |||
 | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around." Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash | |||
"Who to blame for this …. …the nimbys, second home owners, the air bnb’ers, the house builders, the planners, the ex pat buyers, the right to buyer’s, the single person households, or the ageing population. Westminster won’t be accepting any responsibility Capitalism and marker forces surely. Socialism worked great for housing? You just have to look at cities that enforced rent controls. What's rent controls got to do with it if the houses are still private. You have big building companies sitting on land banks speculating on prices rising before they will build. Social housing stock sold of and never replaced. Margaret Thatchers policy of converting Labour supporters did a grand job then. In 1979 there were 6.5m social houses. Now there are 2.2m, while 4.5m are rent lingerie privately. Makes a nice balance sheet for some. Don't think what she done was much different from what Boris Yeltsin did when he sold of Russian assets for pennies to the oligarchs. Am a private landlord by the way so am all for private enterprise lol.. "In your opinion, social housing stock should never have been sold. If that's the case, private house building wouldn't kick off as there is no point of that. The society will eventually move towards a state where all housing is owned by governments. You only have to look at the NHS to figure out what a disaster that would have turned out to be. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash " Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. " There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash " No the Blair government started the mass immigration policies and it was the US that started the sub prime bubble | |||
"Who to blame for this …. …the nimbys, second home owners, the air bnb’ers, the house builders, the planners, the ex pat buyers, the right to buyer’s, the single person households, or the ageing population. Westminster won’t be accepting any responsibility Capitalism and marker forces surely. Socialism worked great for housing? You just have to look at cities that enforced rent controls. What's rent controls got to do with it if the houses are still private. You have big building companies sitting on land banks speculating on prices rising before they will build. Social housing stock sold of and never replaced. Margaret Thatchers policy of converting Labour supporters did a grand job then. In 1979 there were 6.5m social houses. Now there are 2.2m, while 4.5m are rent lingerie privately. Makes a nice balance sheet for some. Don't think what she done was much different from what Boris Yeltsin did when he sold of Russian assets for pennies to the oligarchs. Am a private landlord by the way so am all for private enterprise lol..
In your opinion, social housing stock should never have been sold. If that's the case, private house building wouldn't kick off as there is no point of that. The society will eventually move towards a state where all housing is owned by governments. You only have to look at the NHS to figure out what a disaster that would have turned out to be."So there wasn't private houses being built before 1979..? | |||
"Who to blame for this …. …the nimbys, second home owners, the air bnb’ers, the house builders, the planners, the ex pat buyers, the right to buyer’s, the single person households, or the ageing population. Westminster won’t be accepting any responsibility Capitalism and marker forces surely. Socialism worked great for housing? You just have to look at cities that enforced rent controls. What's rent controls got to do with it if the houses are still private. You have big building companies sitting on land banks speculating on prices rising before they will build. Social housing stock sold of and never replaced. Margaret Thatchers policy of converting Labour supporters did a grand job then. In 1979 there were 6.5m social houses. Now there are 2.2m, while 4.5m are rent lingerie privately. Makes a nice balance sheet for some. Don't think what she done was much different from what Boris Yeltsin did when he sold of Russian assets for pennies to the oligarchs. Am a private landlord by the way so am all for private enterprise lol..
In your opinion, social housing stock should never have been sold. If that's the case, private house building wouldn't kick off as there is no point of that. The society will eventually move towards a state where all housing is owned by governments. You only have to look at the NHS to figure out what a disaster that would have turned out to be.
So there wasn't private houses being built before 1979..?"The % of private vs council housing in the 1970s was close to 50-50. And I am not sure how getting rid of privatisation is going to help the current problem either. The problem is a lack of space and money. Government isn't going to magically create space and money out of nowhere. | |||
"Who to blame for this …. …the nimbys, second home owners, the air bnb’ers, the house builders, the planners, the ex pat buyers, the right to buyer’s, the single person households, or the ageing population. Westminster won’t be accepting any responsibility Capitalism and marker forces surely. Socialism worked great for housing? You just have to look at cities that enforced rent controls. What's rent controls got to do with it if the houses are still private. You have big building companies sitting on land banks speculating on prices rising before they will build. Social housing stock sold of and never replaced. Margaret Thatchers policy of converting Labour supporters did a grand job then. In 1979 there were 6.5m social houses. Now there are 2.2m, while 4.5m are rent lingerie privately. Makes a nice balance sheet for some. Don't think what she done was much different from what Boris Yeltsin did when he sold of Russian assets for pennies to the oligarchs. Am a private landlord by the way so am all for private enterprise lol..
In your opinion, social housing stock should never have been sold. If that's the case, private house building wouldn't kick off as there is no point of that. The society will eventually move towards a state where all housing is owned by governments. You only have to look at the NHS to figure out what a disaster that would have turned out to be.
So there wasn't private houses being built before 1979..?
The % of private vs council housing in the 1970s was close to 50-50. And I am not sure how getting rid of privatisation is going to help the current problem either. The problem is a lack of space and money. Government isn't going to magically create space and money out of nowhere."You’ll probably find that Thatcher’s Right To Buy that was coupled with a tightening of rules to prevent Councils from building and replenishing the lost stock of Council housing that in turn saw many of those who had bought their council house on the cheap then sell on for huge profits to Buy-to-Let private landlords who have no rent controls and have subsequently been able to steadily increase rents to a level that is higher than would have been the case had Councils still had sufficient stock… is a key part of the issue! (lack of punctuation a deliberate stylistic choice  ) | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch " See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. | |||
| |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher." This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? " Don’t stop keep going! And also do fully explain big bang which was not only about technology. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? " Blair and Brown were in charge of government during the longest period of continuous economic growth in the UK. Mrs x | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? Blair and Brown were in charge of government during the longest period of continuous economic growth in the UK. Mrs x" all buit on sand,the first economic emergency they faced it all fell like a house of cards | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? Blair and Brown were in charge of government during the longest period of continuous economic growth in the UK. Mrs x" They spent money we didn't have, which we are still paying off today! The left can't let go of this myth that they brought such prosperity, the economic turnaround was delivered by conservative policies playing through. They then broke the country again and left it to the tories to try and rebuild it. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? Blair and Brown were in charge of government during the longest period of continuous economic growth in the UK. Mrs x They spent money we didn't have, which we are still paying off today! The left can't let go of this myth that they brought such prosperity, the economic turnaround was delivered by conservative policies playing through. They then broke the country again and left it to the tories to try and rebuild it. " Myth haha? This is a fact, a simple Google search will confirm this. It was ended by the 'Global' Crash, blame them for that as well. Mrs x | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? Blair and Brown were in charge of government during the longest period of continuous economic growth in the UK. Mrs x They spent money we didn't have, which we are still paying off today! The left can't let go of this myth that they brought such prosperity, the economic turnaround was delivered by conservative policies playing through. They then broke the country again and left it to the tories to try and rebuild it. " How do I get to this alternative reality you're living in? Over here we've had 14 years of the Tories running the country into the ground for the benefit of their donor's and their own bank balances. Not sure why people are expecting Labour to have fixed this clusterfuck in a few months. Seems unrealistic to me. | |||
" Over here we've had 14 years of the Tories running the country into the ground for the benefit of their donor's and their own bank balances. Not sure why people are expecting Labour to have fixed this clusterfuck in a few months. Seems unrealistic to me. " It will take a generation, austerity and wasted tax payers money, and the perpetual debt National debt 1997. £434bn 2010 £878bn (+ cost of 700 PFI contracts) 2024. £2.7trn If this was someone’s home borrowing £50k on a 1997 mortgage they would now owe Iro £310k and a six fold increase in interest payments. | |||
| |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? Blair and Brown were in charge of government during the longest period of continuous economic growth in the UK. Mrs x They spent money we didn't have, which we are still paying off today! The left can't let go of this myth that they brought such prosperity, the economic turnaround was delivered by conservative policies playing through. They then broke the country again and left it to the tories to try and rebuild it. Myth haha? This is a fact, a simple Google search will confirm this. It was ended by the 'Global' Crash, blame them for that as well. Mrs x" What I can’t help with is bias… I’ve explained the role Labour had in the financial crash, it is above and very clear. The misunderstood facts are Labour inherited policy changes from the tories that started an economic turnaround. You will also find the cost of housing increased unchallenged by the government, who were totally out of their depth and didn’t understand the financial market. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? Blair and Brown were in charge of government during the longest period of continuous economic growth in the UK. Mrs x They spent money we didn't have, which we are still paying off today! The left can't let go of this myth that they brought such prosperity, the economic turnaround was delivered by conservative policies playing through. They then broke the country again and left it to the tories to try and rebuild it. How do I get to this alternative reality you're living in? Over here we've had 14 years of the Tories running the country into the ground for the benefit of their donor's and their own bank balances. Not sure why people are expecting Labour to have fixed this clusterfuck in a few months. Seems unrealistic to me. " Do you know the health of the economy when Labour was replaced by the tories? Start from there  | |||
| |||
| |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? Blair and Brown were in charge of government during the longest period of continuous economic growth in the UK. Mrs x They spent money we didn't have, which we are still paying off today! The left can't let go of this myth that they brought such prosperity, the economic turnaround was delivered by conservative policies playing through. They then broke the country again and left it to the tories to try and rebuild it. Myth haha? This is a fact, a simple Google search will confirm this. It was ended by the 'Global' Crash, blame them for that as well. Mrs x What I can’t help with is bias… I’ve explained the role Labour had in the financial crash, it is above and very clear. The misunderstood facts are Labour inherited policy changes from the tories that started an economic turnaround. You will also find the cost of housing increased unchallenged by the government, who were totally out of their depth and didn’t understand the financial market." “Many economists also argue that the growing dominance of finance, accelerated by the Big Bang, helped to bring about profound changes in the UK's economic model. George Osborne bemoans the imbalances in an economy far too focused on finance and debt, and with too little emphasis on Britain's former strengths in industry. But others argue that the Tories' deregulatory spree in the 80s could have done as much to bring about that out-of-kilter economic model as the forces of globalisation, which helped to undermine manufacturing. Dolphin says: "People talk about comparative advantage as if it's God-given and just emerges, but we know that's not true. Big Bang was important in cementing Britain's advantage in finance. "The fact that we had this growing financial industry did attract a lot of capital. Those capital flows, other things being equal, would have pushed sterling up, and therefore will have accelerated the decline of manufacturing." Dolphin points to the fact that, as the power of finance grew, Britain consistently ran trade deficits, year after year: "It produced a casualness about the decline of manufacturing and the collapse of all competing sectors which is really quite jaw-dropping." Lord Lawson concedes that some conflicts of interest may have emerged as investment banking evolved but says: "Nobody at the time realised that if you put everything together, there would be a problem." Britain was not the only country to unleash the money-spinning potential of the bankers, of course, but Thatcher's ideological convictions of unleashing the power of the markets put London in the vanguard — and Brown did nothing to fetter the masters of the universe.“ | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? Blair and Brown were in charge of government during the longest period of continuous economic growth in the UK. Mrs x They spent money we didn't have, which we are still paying off today! The left can't let go of this myth that they brought such prosperity, the economic turnaround was delivered by conservative policies playing through. They then broke the country again and left it to the tories to try and rebuild it. How do I get to this alternative reality you're living in? Over here we've had 14 years of the Tories running the country into the ground for the benefit of their donor's and their own bank balances. Not sure why people are expecting Labour to have fixed this clusterfuck in a few months. Seems unrealistic to me. Do you know the health of the economy when Labour was replaced by the tories? Start from there "A fuck load better than now.
Hope that helps. | |||
| |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? Blair and Brown were in charge of government during the longest period of continuous economic growth in the UK. Mrs x They spent money we didn't have, which we are still paying off today! The left can't let go of this myth that they brought such prosperity, the economic turnaround was delivered by conservative policies playing through. They then broke the country again and left it to the tories to try and rebuild it. How do I get to this alternative reality you're living in? Over here we've had 14 years of the Tories running the country into the ground for the benefit of their donor's and their own bank balances. Not sure why people are expecting Labour to have fixed this clusterfuck in a few months. Seems unrealistic to me. Do you know the health of the economy when Labour was replaced by the tories? Start from there
A fuck load better than now.
Hope that helps. "In what way was it better? | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. " I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” | |||
| |||
| |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” " I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy." I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. | |||
| |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation." The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. | |||
| |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy." Not sure if you believe what you are saying or not. So Blair and Brown can be blamed for fuelling the surge in house prices that are still being payed for today? What about the house price crash of 2008, the largest seen since WW2? What about the massive price rise during the pandemic? There's only been two larger rises in the last 175 years. Blair and Brown are to be blamed for this too are they? Anyway don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, and that's what you are doing, you are spinning a yarn. Mrs x | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy.Not sure if you believe what you are saying or not. So Blair and Brown can be blamed for fuelling the surge in house prices that are still being payed for today? What about the house price crash of 2008, the largest seen since WW2? What about the massive price rise during the pandemic? There's only been two larger rises in the last 175 years. Blair and Brown are to be blamed for this too are they? Anyway don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, and that's what you are doing, you are spinning a yarn. Mrs x" I’ve put the figures on a post in here, which I’m sure you will dispute. I’m not going to go through this again if you are not offering any disagreement other than what you think, not what happened over a period of time and the economic impact that has had on us for years. | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet." You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy.Not sure if you believe what you are saying or not. So Blair and Brown can be blamed for fuelling the surge in house prices that are still being payed for today? What about the house price crash of 2008, the largest seen since WW2? What about the massive price rise during the pandemic? There's only been two larger rises in the last 175 years. Blair and Brown are to be blamed for this too are they? Anyway don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, and that's what you are doing, you are spinning a yarn. Mrs x I’ve put the figures on a post in here, which I’m sure you will dispute. I’m not going to go through this again if you are not offering any disagreement other than what you think, not what happened over a period of time and the economic impact that has had on us for years. " OK.... "In 2021 house prices surged at an unprecedented rate. Indeed, they have only been higher in comparison to earnings twice in the last 175 years. As such, it seems prudent to consider whether this growth can be sustained in 2022 or whether a pullback is likely. So, firstly, how did we reach the current state of play in the property market? The pent-up demand from an industry which was forcibly shut down by the Covid-19 pandemic, competitive mortgages, low interest rates and Government incentives such as the stamp duty tax reduction, the furlough scheme and the mortgage guarantee scheme all played their part as both house prices and property transactions rose at a meteoric rate from July 2020 onwards. 2020 saw an overall price rise of 8.5% and in October 2021, the average house price was £268,349 according to official Land Registry data, up 10.2% in 12 months. The biggest fall in UK house prices in recent memory was brought about by the financial crash of 2007-2009, which occurred as a result of deregulation in the financial industry and mortgage brokers in particular. Indeed, 2008 saw the biggest recession since World War II, with house prices dropping significantly from the previous bubble of 2000-2007 (which saw an average property price rise from £100,000 to £225,000). According to the Office for National Statistics, the average UK house price dropped by 15% from January 2008 to May 2009. Unfortunately unlike the recent ‘bounce back’ after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, in the wake of the 2008 financial crash properties did not achieve their pre-crash values until 2012 at the earliest. Indeed, property prices in Durham and Hartlepool in the Northeast of England are still yet to return to pre-2008 levels." That enough? Mrs x | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line." Quite right, Mrs x | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line." That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy.Not sure if you believe what you are saying or not. So Blair and Brown can be blamed for fuelling the surge in house prices that are still being payed for today? What about the house price crash of 2008, the largest seen since WW2? What about the massive price rise during the pandemic? There's only been two larger rises in the last 175 years. Blair and Brown are to be blamed for this too are they? Anyway don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, and that's what you are doing, you are spinning a yarn. Mrs x I’ve put the figures on a post in here, which I’m sure you will dispute. I’m not going to go through this again if you are not offering any disagreement other than what you think, not what happened over a period of time and the economic impact that has had on us for years. OK.... "In 2021 house prices surged at an unprecedented rate. Indeed, they have only been higher in comparison to earnings twice in the last 175 years. As such, it seems prudent to consider whether this growth can be sustained in 2022 or whether a pullback is likely. So, firstly, how did we reach the current state of play in the property market? The pent-up demand from an industry which was forcibly shut down by the Covid-19 pandemic, competitive mortgages, low interest rates and Government incentives such as the stamp duty tax reduction, the furlough scheme and the mortgage guarantee scheme all played their part as both house prices and property transactions rose at a meteoric rate from July 2020 onwards. 2020 saw an overall price rise of 8.5% and in October 2021, the average house price was £268,349 according to official Land Registry data, up 10.2% in 12 months. The biggest fall in UK house prices in recent memory was brought about by the financial crash of 2007-2009, which occurred as a result of deregulation in the financial industry and mortgage brokers in particular. Indeed, 2008 saw the biggest recession since World War II, with house prices dropping significantly from the previous bubble of 2000-2007 (which saw an average property price rise from £100,000 to £225,000). According to the Office for National Statistics, the average UK house price dropped by 15% from January 2008 to May 2009. Unfortunately unlike the recent ‘bounce back’ after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, in the wake of the 2008 financial crash properties did not achieve their pre-crash values until 2012 at the earliest. Indeed, property prices in Durham and Hartlepool in the Northeast of England are still yet to return to pre-2008 levels." That enough? Mrs x" Perfect
And that is the end of this interaction for me. | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip." It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip." You talk about Blair and Brown following Thatchers system but failing to see tge 'vulnerabilities' and that it needed a 'governance framework'. Well if that was true why didn't Thatcher account for this and put such a framework in place but she didn't did she. So, ergo, you are saying it's Thatchers fault... classic. And the irony is you cannot see this haha, Mrs x | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!”" You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash " Wow they must have had a great deal of influence in the entire western world then  | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Indeed. The previous Labour government had thirteen years to reverse thatchers disastrous polices but did nothing but promote exponential sales of sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash Agree with first part. New Labour/Blair should have got building more council houses. Second part is oddly inaccurate and revisionist. There were 2.5M private rented homes in 1997, and 4M by 2010. 60% increase At the time leading to the credit crisis a reported 40% of all new mortgages were sub prime Both on Labours watch See my post above this and… What you mean is Labour continued the policy of allowing the financial sector to self regulate which was introduced by the Reagan/Thatcher govts ushering in a neo-liberal nirvana that ultimately backfired. In the late 90s/early 00s there was an economic boom and neo-liberals put that down in part to a low level of govt interference in markets and low regulation/self regulation by the sector. Imagine the outcry had Labour tried to tighten up regulation in that environment? Sub-prime had it’s roots in late 80s Big Bang thanks to Thatcher. This view is revisionist or you don't have a 360 on the problem. It’s true, Labour under Blair and Brown continued and encouraged some deregulatory policies started by Thatcher and Reagan, but your argument ignores Labour’s role in subprime completely. The subprime crisis was a US driven problem, namely poor lending practices, and was not directly caused by Thatcher’s policies or the big bang, which was an attempt of modernisation for the financial sector. Labour’s approach was flawed not only in principal but approach. Blair and Brown tried to blend neoliberal economic policies, which goes against the very core of labour values, and then they tried to inflate with huge investments our public services, in other words they scored an own goal! Do you know what happened after this? Blair and Brown were in charge of government during the longest period of continuous economic growth in the UK. Mrs x They spent money we didn't have, which we are still paying off today! The left can't let go of this myth that they brought such prosperity, the economic turnaround was delivered by conservative policies playing through. They then broke the country again and left it to the tories to try and rebuild it. Myth haha? This is a fact, a simple Google search will confirm this. It was ended by the 'Global' Crash, blame them for that as well. Mrs x" Why not  | |||
"Those in this forum complaining about bias are of course correct. That reflects on all sides." | |||
"Aside from all the cut and pasting I believe owning a house is a privilege not a right. Work hard, get a better job, save, make sacrifices and it's possible. Piss money down the pub toilet and nah .. Next thing we'll hear those on benefits want to take out a mortgage " Depends if you mean solely on benefits. I needed benefits to top up my income. Had a mortgage. Now own house outright. | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. " Understanding root cause is key. While it happened on their watch, NOBODY understood the complexity that deregulation/big bang lead onto via securitisation, not even the banks themselves. I think trying to blame Blair/Brown is disingenuous and misleading for all the reasons already said. I think it is you holding onto your argument because you seem determined to attack everything Labour have ever done throughout history and seemingly dilute any blame heading the way of the Tories. As I have already said, during a period of global economic boom it would have taken a very brave or ideologically wedded govt to interfere in the financial sector that everyone was saying was the driving force behind the boom. Just look at how much lobbying happened to remove the increased regulation that was put in place after 2008. It was one of the cornerstones of Brexit, ie unleash the potential of the City again once we get rid of those pesky EU rulemakers! | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. Understanding root cause is key. While it happened on their watch, NOBODY understood the complexity that deregulation/big bang lead onto via securitisation, not even the banks themselves. I think trying to blame Blair/Brown is disingenuous and misleading for all the reasons already said. I think it is you holding onto your argument because you seem determined to attack everything Labour have ever done throughout history and seemingly dilute any blame heading the way of the Tories. As I have already said, during a period of global economic boom it would have taken a very brave or ideologically wedded govt to interfere in the financial sector that everyone was saying was the driving force behind the boom. Just look at how much lobbying happened to remove the increased regulation that was put in place after 2008. It was one of the cornerstones of Brexit, ie unleash the potential of the City again once we get rid of those pesky EU rulemakers!" Oh behave! You give a person the keys to a car they are responsible for maintenance and driving it correctly. The Labour government had the keys and went joy riding! That’s it for me now… | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. " You make me giggle with some of your posts. It's as if you just say something without thinking about what you are actually saying, just choosing random stuff to suit your narrative rather than things that will support the actual argument you try to propose. Take your "history" position and how would that help with economic understanding. Well history is extremely important in understanding most things. How can you understand things that went well or didn't without looking back at the results. Analysis of anything is extremely important in moving forward in most fields. This is the part that history plays in planning for the future, without it we'd be rushing forward in the dark. It seem quite silly when you say "...Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding." In economics studying history is so important so we can see what led to, played a part in and triggered economic disasters, with thr South Sea Bubble and Great Depression of the 30's being such examples. The only reason, I can think of you thinking studying history is of no use is because it means you don't want anyone to look further back than Blair & Brown to Thatcher, who you quite openly say set us on the trail of this kind of economy. You don't want anyone to do this because as you say there were "vulnerabilities", within this system, and it required a "governance framework" both of which Thatcher ignored and didn't remedy. So you say that Blair "capialised" upon this system and place all subsequent negative issues, and blame, upon Blair & Brown using this economic model. The silly thing with this notion is that you admit Thatcher started this model through deregulation. You go on further and point out the faults with this broken system and yet you refuse to put any blame at the feet of the Tories under Thatcher at this time. Blair & Brown did have the longest continuous period of economic growth in modern political history, which was brought to an end by the Global Crash, which originated in the US and their market practices. You go on to say that Blair & Brown were also responsible for this mess. However that may be backed up if other economies were following the same economic model as the UK but they weren't. This crash affected the whole globe, clue in the title Global Crash and so what the US did affected everyone. So if what happened in the US didn't happen, or happened after Labout left office, this period would be seen as a glorious economic age. What I giggled about mostly when reading your disdain for using history is the irony in your statement. You are actually using history as a tool to spin your narrative. Without history you couldn't even talk about Blair & Brown. It was so funny when you then go back further and mention Thatcher. Funny, funny, funny haha, what next? Understanding Math is shite for economic theory... maybe. Mrs x | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. Understanding root cause is key. While it happened on their watch, NOBODY understood the complexity that deregulation/big bang lead onto via securitisation, not even the banks themselves. I think trying to blame Blair/Brown is disingenuous and misleading for all the reasons already said. I think it is you holding onto your argument because you seem determined to attack everything Labour have ever done throughout history and seemingly dilute any blame heading the way of the Tories. As I have already said, during a period of global economic boom it would have taken a very brave or ideologically wedded govt to interfere in the financial sector that everyone was saying was the driving force behind the boom. Just look at how much lobbying happened to remove the increased regulation that was put in place after 2008. It was one of the cornerstones of Brexit, ie unleash the potential of the City again once we get rid of those pesky EU rulemakers! Oh behave! You give a person the keys to a car they are responsible for maintenance and driving it correctly. The Labour government had the keys and went joy riding! That’s it for me now… " Hahahaha what a sully analogy. Cars get recalled for faults all the time without the drivers ever being aware of the problem. Thatchers 'cars' were dodgy as fuck haha, Mrs x | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. Understanding root cause is key. While it happened on their watch, NOBODY understood the complexity that deregulation/big bang lead onto via securitisation, not even the banks themselves. I think trying to blame Blair/Brown is disingenuous and misleading for all the reasons already said. I think it is you holding onto your argument because you seem determined to attack everything Labour have ever done throughout history and seemingly dilute any blame heading the way of the Tories. As I have already said, during a period of global economic boom it would have taken a very brave or ideologically wedded govt to interfere in the financial sector that everyone was saying was the driving force behind the boom. Just look at how much lobbying happened to remove the increased regulation that was put in place after 2008. It was one of the cornerstones of Brexit, ie unleash the potential of the City again once we get rid of those pesky EU rulemakers! Oh behave! You give a person the keys to a car they are responsible for maintenance and driving it correctly. The Labour government had the keys and went joy riding! That’s it for me now… " Brave brave Sir Robin 😗 (If you know you will know 😉) Yeah but the car was a cut n shunt that the new owner didn’t know about 🤷🏻♂️ | |||
" Understanding Math is shite for economic theory" Math! We are not Americans (they largely got us into the mess we are discussing). We are British so it is “maths”. Pedant I know I know 😉 | |||
"Point of order Norty when you say… Understanding Math is shite for economic theory Math! We are not Americans (they largely got us into the mess we are discussing). We are British so it is “maths”. Pedant I know I know 😉 "You know I was just seeing if you actually reading what I posted, well spotted, Mrs x | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. You make me giggle with some of your posts. It's as if you just say something without thinking about what you are actually saying, just choosing random stuff to suit your narrative rather than things that will support the actual argument you try to propose. Take your "history" position and how would that help with economic understanding. Well history is extremely important in understanding most things. How can you understand things that went well or didn't without looking back at the results. Analysis of anything is extremely important in moving forward in most fields. This is the part that history plays in planning for the future, without it we'd be rushing forward in the dark. It seem quite silly when you say "...Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding." In economics studying history is so important so we can see what led to, played a part in and triggered economic disasters, with thr South Sea Bubble and Great Depression of the 30's being such examples. The only reason, I can think of you thinking studying history is of no use is because it means you don't want anyone to look further back than Blair & Brown to Thatcher, who you quite openly say set us on the trail of this kind of economy. You don't want anyone to do this because as you say there were "vulnerabilities", within this system, and it required a "governance framework" both of which Thatcher ignored and didn't remedy. So you say that Blair "capialised" upon this system and place all subsequent negative issues, and blame, upon Blair & Brown using this economic model. The silly thing with this notion is that you admit Thatcher started this model through deregulation. You go on further and point out the faults with this broken system and yet you refuse to put any blame at the feet of the Tories under Thatcher at this time. Blair & Brown did have the longest continuous period of economic growth in modern political history, which was brought to an end by the Global Crash, which originated in the US and their market practices. You go on to say that Blair & Brown were also responsible for this mess. However that may be backed up if other economies were following the same economic model as the UK but they weren't. This crash affected the whole globe, clue in the title Global Crash and so what the US did affected everyone. So if what happened in the US didn't happen, or happened after Labout left office, this period would be seen as a glorious economic age. What I giggled about mostly when reading your disdain for using history is the irony in your statement. You are actually using history as a tool to spin your narrative. Without history you couldn't even talk about Blair & Brown. It was so funny when you then go back further and mention Thatcher. Funny, funny, funny haha, what next? Understanding Math is shite for economic theory... maybe. Mrs x" You say an awful lot on what you believe is relevant or more likely what you’ve misunderstood. This is why I leave these topics, I’m not going to get drawn into never ending posts that are missing relevance. | |||
"Who to blame for this …. …the nimbys, second home owners, the air bnb’ers, the house builders, the planners, the ex pat buyers, the right to buyer’s, the single person households, or the ageing population. Westminster won’t be accepting any responsibility Capitalism and marker forces surely. " Right to buy…. Great scheme in theory…. Unless the councils didn’t have the chance to replenish the housing stock they had thru building more houses… And then you run in planning regulations and nimbys…. | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. You make me giggle with some of your posts. It's as if you just say something without thinking about what you are actually saying, just choosing random stuff to suit your narrative rather than things that will support the actual argument you try to propose. Take your "history" position and how would that help with economic understanding. Well history is extremely important in understanding most things. How can you understand things that went well or didn't without looking back at the results. Analysis of anything is extremely important in moving forward in most fields. This is the part that history plays in planning for the future, without it we'd be rushing forward in the dark. It seem quite silly when you say "...Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding." In economics studying history is so important so we can see what led to, played a part in and triggered economic disasters, with thr South Sea Bubble and Great Depression of the 30's being such examples. The only reason, I can think of you thinking studying history is of no use is because it means you don't want anyone to look further back than Blair & Brown to Thatcher, who you quite openly say set us on the trail of this kind of economy. You don't want anyone to do this because as you say there were "vulnerabilities", within this system, and it required a "governance framework" both of which Thatcher ignored and didn't remedy. So you say that Blair "capialised" upon this system and place all subsequent negative issues, and blame, upon Blair & Brown using this economic model. The silly thing with this notion is that you admit Thatcher started this model through deregulation. You go on further and point out the faults with this broken system and yet you refuse to put any blame at the feet of the Tories under Thatcher at this time. Blair & Brown did have the longest continuous period of economic growth in modern political history, which was brought to an end by the Global Crash, which originated in the US and their market practices. You go on to say that Blair & Brown were also responsible for this mess. However that may be backed up if other economies were following the same economic model as the UK but they weren't. This crash affected the whole globe, clue in the title Global Crash and so what the US did affected everyone. So if what happened in the US didn't happen, or happened after Labout left office, this period would be seen as a glorious economic age. What I giggled about mostly when reading your disdain for using history is the irony in your statement. You are actually using history as a tool to spin your narrative. Without history you couldn't even talk about Blair & Brown. It was so funny when you then go back further and mention Thatcher. Funny, funny, funny haha, what next? Understanding Math is shite for economic theory... maybe. Mrs x You say an awful lot on what you believe is relevant or more likely what you’ve misunderstood. This is why I leave these topics, I’m not going to get drawn into never ending posts that are missing relevance. " Not a fan of Billy Ocean then? Mrs x | |||
"Who to blame for this …. …the nimbys, second home owners, the air bnb’ers, the house builders, the planners, the ex pat buyers, the right to buyer’s, the single person households, or the ageing population. Westminster won’t be accepting any responsibility Capitalism and marker forces surely. Right to buy…. Great scheme in theory…. Unless the councils didn’t have the chance to replenish the housing stock they had thru building more houses… And then you run in planning regulations and nimbys…. " 75% of RTB proceeds were to repay central government loans (made to councils) | |||
| |||
"Rent a house then, like me, my parents and grandparents before them. When did people automatically assume they need a middle class lifestyle, when I was a kid, having a private house was only for people with fairly well paid white collar jobs, blue collar working class folks lived in council houses." Thatcher in the 80s | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. You make me giggle with some of your posts. It's as if you just say something without thinking about what you are actually saying, just choosing random stuff to suit your narrative rather than things that will support the actual argument you try to propose. Take your "history" position and how would that help with economic understanding. Well history is extremely important in understanding most things. How can you understand things that went well or didn't without looking back at the results. Analysis of anything is extremely important in moving forward in most fields. This is the part that history plays in planning for the future, without it we'd be rushing forward in the dark. It seem quite silly when you say "...Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding." In economics studying history is so important so we can see what led to, played a part in and triggered economic disasters, with thr South Sea Bubble and Great Depression of the 30's being such examples. The only reason, I can think of you thinking studying history is of no use is because it means you don't want anyone to look further back than Blair & Brown to Thatcher, who you quite openly say set us on the trail of this kind of economy. You don't want anyone to do this because as you say there were "vulnerabilities", within this system, and it required a "governance framework" both of which Thatcher ignored and didn't remedy. So you say that Blair "capialised" upon this system and place all subsequent negative issues, and blame, upon Blair & Brown using this economic model. The silly thing with this notion is that you admit Thatcher started this model through deregulation. You go on further and point out the faults with this broken system and yet you refuse to put any blame at the feet of the Tories under Thatcher at this time. Blair & Brown did have the longest continuous period of economic growth in modern political history, which was brought to an end by the Global Crash, which originated in the US and their market practices. You go on to say that Blair & Brown were also responsible for this mess. However that may be backed up if other economies were following the same economic model as the UK but they weren't. This crash affected the whole globe, clue in the title Global Crash and so what the US did affected everyone. So if what happened in the US didn't happen, or happened after Labout left office, this period would be seen as a glorious economic age. What I giggled about mostly when reading your disdain for using history is the irony in your statement. You are actually using history as a tool to spin your narrative. Without history you couldn't even talk about Blair & Brown. It was so funny when you then go back further and mention Thatcher. Funny, funny, funny haha, what next? Understanding Math is shite for economic theory... maybe. Mrs x You say an awful lot on what you believe is relevant or more likely what you’ve misunderstood. This is why I leave these topics, I’m not going to get drawn into never ending posts that are missing relevance. Not a fan of Billy Ocean then? Mrs x" Does Billy Ocean like posting long quotes? | |||
"Rent a house then, like me, my parents and grandparents before them. When did people automatically assume they need a middle class lifestyle, when I was a kid, having a private house was only for people with fairly well paid white collar jobs, blue collar working class folks lived in council houses." If rent wasn't so ridiculously high it might be a good idea, I'm not much younger then you, My parents was in there early to mid 30s when they bought the house that they still live in, Mum was a cleaner and dad labourer at the time, Nothing middle class about them. | |||
"Rent a house then, like me, my parents and grandparents before them. When did people automatically assume they need a middle class lifestyle, when I was a kid, having a private house was only for people with fairly well paid white collar jobs, blue collar working class folks lived in council houses. If rent wasn't so ridiculously high it might be a good idea, I'm not much younger then you, My parents was in there early to mid 30s when they bought the house that they still live in, Mum was a cleaner and dad labourer at the time, Nothing middle class about them. " I bought my first house in 1980 as a 22 year old plumber who worked on building sites. Dead middle class I was. | |||
"Rent a house then, like me, my parents and grandparents before them. When did people automatically assume they need a middle class lifestyle, when I was a kid, having a private house was only for people with fairly well paid white collar jobs, blue collar working class folks lived in council houses. If rent wasn't so ridiculously high it might be a good idea, I'm not much younger then you, My parents was in there early to mid 30s when they bought the house that they still live in, Mum was a cleaner and dad labourer at the time, Nothing middle class about them. I bought my first house in 1980 as a 22 year old plumber who worked on building sites. Dead middle class I was." If you are dead how are you posting middle class or not 🤔 | |||
"Rent a house then, like me, my parents and grandparents before them. When did people automatically assume they need a middle class lifestyle, when I was a kid, having a private house was only for people with fairly well paid white collar jobs, blue collar working class folks lived in council houses." In the mid to late 90s, councils were giving money to residents to free up stock, ie good deposit. It was the only way I could get a four bedroom house. I never wanted to buy (now glad I did). | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. You make me giggle with some of your posts. It's as if you just say something without thinking about what you are actually saying, just choosing random stuff to suit your narrative rather than things that will support the actual argument you try to propose. Take your "history" position and how would that help with economic understanding. Well history is extremely important in understanding most things. How can you understand things that went well or didn't without looking back at the results. Analysis of anything is extremely important in moving forward in most fields. This is the part that history plays in planning for the future, without it we'd be rushing forward in the dark. It seem quite silly when you say "...Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding." In economics studying history is so important so we can see what led to, played a part in and triggered economic disasters, with thr South Sea Bubble and Great Depression of the 30's being such examples. The only reason, I can think of you thinking studying history is of no use is because it means you don't want anyone to look further back than Blair & Brown to Thatcher, who you quite openly say set us on the trail of this kind of economy. You don't want anyone to do this because as you say there were "vulnerabilities", within this system, and it required a "governance framework" both of which Thatcher ignored and didn't remedy. So you say that Blair "capialised" upon this system and place all subsequent negative issues, and blame, upon Blair & Brown using this economic model. The silly thing with this notion is that you admit Thatcher started this model through deregulation. You go on further and point out the faults with this broken system and yet you refuse to put any blame at the feet of the Tories under Thatcher at this time. Blair & Brown did have the longest continuous period of economic growth in modern political history, which was brought to an end by the Global Crash, which originated in the US and their market practices. You go on to say that Blair & Brown were also responsible for this mess. However that may be backed up if other economies were following the same economic model as the UK but they weren't. This crash affected the whole globe, clue in the title Global Crash and so what the US did affected everyone. So if what happened in the US didn't happen, or happened after Labout left office, this period would be seen as a glorious economic age. What I giggled about mostly when reading your disdain for using history is the irony in your statement. You are actually using history as a tool to spin your narrative. Without history you couldn't even talk about Blair & Brown. It was so funny when you then go back further and mention Thatcher. Funny, funny, funny haha, what next? Understanding Math is shite for economic theory... maybe. Mrs x You say an awful lot on what you believe is relevant or more likely what you’ve misunderstood. This is why I leave these topics, I’m not going to get drawn into never ending posts that are missing relevance. Not a fan of Billy Ocean then? Mrs x Does Billy Ocean like posting long quotes?" He just likes to get going, Mrs x | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around." Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? " Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x" Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. " Same answer. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. " So it's a private conversation, sorry I didn't realise, thought all forum posts are open for discussion, silly me. Mrs x | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. You make me giggle with some of your posts. It's as if you just say something without thinking about what you are actually saying, just choosing random stuff to suit your narrative rather than things that will support the actual argument you try to propose. Take your "history" position and how would that help with economic understanding. Well history is extremely important in understanding most things. How can you understand things that went well or didn't without looking back at the results. Analysis of anything is extremely important in moving forward in most fields. This is the part that history plays in planning for the future, without it we'd be rushing forward in the dark. It seem quite silly when you say "...Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding." In economics studying history is so important so we can see what led to, played a part in and triggered economic disasters, with thr South Sea Bubble and Great Depression of the 30's being such examples. The only reason, I can think of you thinking studying history is of no use is because it means you don't want anyone to look further back than Blair & Brown to Thatcher, who you quite openly say set us on the trail of this kind of economy. You don't want anyone to do this because as you say there were "vulnerabilities", within this system, and it required a "governance framework" both of which Thatcher ignored and didn't remedy. So you say that Blair "capialised" upon this system and place all subsequent negative issues, and blame, upon Blair & Brown using this economic model. The silly thing with this notion is that you admit Thatcher started this model through deregulation. You go on further and point out the faults with this broken system and yet you refuse to put any blame at the feet of the Tories under Thatcher at this time. Blair & Brown did have the longest continuous period of economic growth in modern political history, which was brought to an end by the Global Crash, which originated in the US and their market practices. You go on to say that Blair & Brown were also responsible for this mess. However that may be backed up if other economies were following the same economic model as the UK but they weren't. This crash affected the whole globe, clue in the title Global Crash and so what the US did affected everyone. So if what happened in the US didn't happen, or happened after Labout left office, this period would be seen as a glorious economic age. What I giggled about mostly when reading your disdain for using history is the irony in your statement. You are actually using history as a tool to spin your narrative. Without history you couldn't even talk about Blair & Brown. It was so funny when you then go back further and mention Thatcher. Funny, funny, funny haha, what next? Understanding Math is shite for economic theory... maybe. Mrs x You say an awful lot on what you believe is relevant or more likely what you’ve misunderstood. This is why I leave these topics, I’m not going to get drawn into never ending posts that are missing relevance. Not a fan of Billy Ocean then? Mrs x Does Billy Ocean like posting long quotes?He just likes to get going, Mrs x" Only when the going gets tough! | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. You make me giggle with some of your posts. It's as if you just say something without thinking about what you are actually saying, just choosing random stuff to suit your narrative rather than things that will support the actual argument you try to propose. Take your "history" position and how would that help with economic understanding. Well history is extremely important in understanding most things. How can you understand things that went well or didn't without looking back at the results. Analysis of anything is extremely important in moving forward in most fields. This is the part that history plays in planning for the future, without it we'd be rushing forward in the dark. It seem quite silly when you say "...Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding." In economics studying history is so important so we can see what led to, played a part in and triggered economic disasters, with thr South Sea Bubble and Great Depression of the 30's being such examples. The only reason, I can think of you thinking studying history is of no use is because it means you don't want anyone to look further back than Blair & Brown to Thatcher, who you quite openly say set us on the trail of this kind of economy. You don't want anyone to do this because as you say there were "vulnerabilities", within this system, and it required a "governance framework" both of which Thatcher ignored and didn't remedy. So you say that Blair "capialised" upon this system and place all subsequent negative issues, and blame, upon Blair & Brown using this economic model. The silly thing with this notion is that you admit Thatcher started this model through deregulation. You go on further and point out the faults with this broken system and yet you refuse to put any blame at the feet of the Tories under Thatcher at this time. Blair & Brown did have the longest continuous period of economic growth in modern political history, which was brought to an end by the Global Crash, which originated in the US and their market practices. You go on to say that Blair & Brown were also responsible for this mess. However that may be backed up if other economies were following the same economic model as the UK but they weren't. This crash affected the whole globe, clue in the title Global Crash and so what the US did affected everyone. So if what happened in the US didn't happen, or happened after Labout left office, this period would be seen as a glorious economic age. What I giggled about mostly when reading your disdain for using history is the irony in your statement. You are actually using history as a tool to spin your narrative. Without history you couldn't even talk about Blair & Brown. It was so funny when you then go back further and mention Thatcher. Funny, funny, funny haha, what next? Understanding Math is shite for economic theory... maybe. Mrs x You say an awful lot on what you believe is relevant or more likely what you’ve misunderstood. This is why I leave these topics, I’m not going to get drawn into never ending posts that are missing relevance. Not a fan of Billy Ocean then? Mrs x Does Billy Ocean like posting long quotes?He just likes to get going, Mrs x Only when the going gets tough!" That's why I thought I'd ask. He doesn't appear to be a fan though, never mind, Mrs x | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. You make me giggle with some of your posts. It's as if you just say something without thinking about what you are actually saying, just choosing random stuff to suit your narrative rather than things that will support the actual argument you try to propose. Take your "history" position and how would that help with economic understanding. Well history is extremely important in understanding most things. How can you understand things that went well or didn't without looking back at the results. Analysis of anything is extremely important in moving forward in most fields. This is the part that history plays in planning for the future, without it we'd be rushing forward in the dark. It seem quite silly when you say "...Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding." In economics studying history is so important so we can see what led to, played a part in and triggered economic disasters, with thr South Sea Bubble and Great Depression of the 30's being such examples. The only reason, I can think of you thinking studying history is of no use is because it means you don't want anyone to look further back than Blair & Brown to Thatcher, who you quite openly say set us on the trail of this kind of economy. You don't want anyone to do this because as you say there were "vulnerabilities", within this system, and it required a "governance framework" both of which Thatcher ignored and didn't remedy. So you say that Blair "capialised" upon this system and place all subsequent negative issues, and blame, upon Blair & Brown using this economic model. The silly thing with this notion is that you admit Thatcher started this model through deregulation. You go on further and point out the faults with this broken system and yet you refuse to put any blame at the feet of the Tories under Thatcher at this time. Blair & Brown did have the longest continuous period of economic growth in modern political history, which was brought to an end by the Global Crash, which originated in the US and their market practices. You go on to say that Blair & Brown were also responsible for this mess. However that may be backed up if other economies were following the same economic model as the UK but they weren't. This crash affected the whole globe, clue in the title Global Crash and so what the US did affected everyone. So if what happened in the US didn't happen, or happened after Labout left office, this period would be seen as a glorious economic age. What I giggled about mostly when reading your disdain for using history is the irony in your statement. You are actually using history as a tool to spin your narrative. Without history you couldn't even talk about Blair & Brown. It was so funny when you then go back further and mention Thatcher. Funny, funny, funny haha, what next? Understanding Math is shite for economic theory... maybe. Mrs x You say an awful lot on what you believe is relevant or more likely what you’ve misunderstood. This is why I leave these topics, I’m not going to get drawn into never ending posts that are missing relevance. Not a fan of Billy Ocean then? Mrs x Does Billy Ocean like posting long quotes?He just likes to get going, Mrs x Only when the going gets tough!That's why I thought I'd ask. He doesn't appear to be a fan though, never mind, Mrs x" If you are discussing me not wanting to continue posting on a thread that I pointed out lacked relevance, this really does emphasise my point. I would also kindly ask that you remain on topic, which isn’t me…  | |||
"Deregulation, privatisation, and a free-market economy, are the Conservative policies that laid out the foundation for economic growth. Blair capitalised on the growth but did not understand that a governance framework was needed, that allowed vulnerabilities to take hold. Blair and Brown basically followed the conservative run book, they also benefited from Major's cutbacks and fiscal management which again they followed but only for 3 years, until it gave Blair money to spend on public services but he over spent.. He increased public spending on health, education, and infrastructure, he used PFI and PPP schemes, which have created us longterm debt liabilities. He was also caught out on his dependence on tax revenues from the financial sector, which collapsed. Bringing this back on topic, during labours governance and lack of financial controls, house prices tripled in 7 years from 2000 - 2007, mortgages being given out like confetti and buy to let exploded. I agree with some of this (eg PFI) but trying to blame Labour for the financial crisis is, well, meh… Ah the Gove attack lines, ie the IEA attack lines, ie the Neo-Liberal think tank based in Tufton St! The Janet & John story goes something like this: Neo Liberals (NL): “We need financial markets deregulated to unlock investment and economic activity that Govt just hampers..” Thatcher/Reagan Govts: “Sounds good let’s do it” NL: “See we told you it would be great, the money is rolling in, look at that global economy, pop the champagne!” Govts: “And tax receipts look brilliant so we have loads more money to invest, and the confidence if we borrow we will be able to pay back, yay the good times are rolling!” NL: “Oh shit those bankers over there really took advantage of the deregulation, things are turning to shit!” Govt: “Oh shit looks like we are in trouble too as we borrowed and invested too heavily because we thought this economic boom would continue! You never said deregulation could cause this?” NL: “Erm quick we need to paint this as the fault of govt!” I haven't blamed labour for the financial crisis, I said their lack of understanding allowed the vulnerabilities that led to the crash. They lapped up the moneys as you mentioned and got carried away on a tide of of big returns. It fuelled the surge in housing costs that is biting hard today, the bad decisions they made are still being paid off by the tax payer and young people can't afford to buy. I think the fault starts with Reagan and Thatcher. Once the good times started rolling the incumbent Govts (Labour in our case) continued to perpetuate the conditions that initially enabled an economic boom but ultimately led to the house of cards collapsing. But I still maintain that it would have been an exceptionally brave or ideologically driven govt to step up regulation during a boom time that everyone put down to deregulation. The bottom line is we are still paying for their terms in power, and in so many ways. Even after I have said all that, I would put Blair and his government well ahead of Starmer and his cabinet. You say the bottom line is one thing but I say it is another. I prefer to look at the root cause of an issue(s), maybe that is the historian in me? In the case of the 2008 financial crisis I say that is the big bang and changes put in place by Thatcher/Reagan govts. THAT is the bottom line. That is glorified whataboutism, but it also proves Blsir and Brown cashed in rather than getting a grip. It absolutely is not. It is root cause. As you know (I’ve said it on here before) I studied history. Everything that happened had a root cause(s) that is not necessarily (or invariably simply isn’t) the contemporary surface cause. Absolutely Blair/Brown cashed in/took advantage of an economic boom that was built on a falsehood/foundations of sand, but they did not cause the financial crisis. Blaming them is akin to saying to someone “you shouldn’t take out a mortgage because you might lose your job in the future!” You are holding on to your argument when it is clear they were in control and did nothing to manage a situation, or even try to understand it, they milked it for every penny. Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding. To be clear I have said Thatcher deregulated but the tories were not responsible for the labour government encouraging bad financial practices for the £££££££'s they were gathering. You make me giggle with some of your posts. It's as if you just say something without thinking about what you are actually saying, just choosing random stuff to suit your narrative rather than things that will support the actual argument you try to propose. Take your "history" position and how would that help with economic understanding. Well history is extremely important in understanding most things. How can you understand things that went well or didn't without looking back at the results. Analysis of anything is extremely important in moving forward in most fields. This is the part that history plays in planning for the future, without it we'd be rushing forward in the dark. It seem quite silly when you say "...Studying history, how is that helping your economic understanding." In economics studying history is so important so we can see what led to, played a part in and triggered economic disasters, with thr South Sea Bubble and Great Depression of the 30's being such examples. The only reason, I can think of you thinking studying history is of no use is because it means you don't want anyone to look further back than Blair & Brown to Thatcher, who you quite openly say set us on the trail of this kind of economy. You don't want anyone to do this because as you say there were "vulnerabilities", within this system, and it required a "governance framework" both of which Thatcher ignored and didn't remedy. So you say that Blair "capialised" upon this system and place all subsequent negative issues, and blame, upon Blair & Brown using this economic model. The silly thing with this notion is that you admit Thatcher started this model through deregulation. You go on further and point out the faults with this broken system and yet you refuse to put any blame at the feet of the Tories under Thatcher at this time. Blair & Brown did have the longest continuous period of economic growth in modern political history, which was brought to an end by the Global Crash, which originated in the US and their market practices. You go on to say that Blair & Brown were also responsible for this mess. However that may be backed up if other economies were following the same economic model as the UK but they weren't. This crash affected the whole globe, clue in the title Global Crash and so what the US did affected everyone. So if what happened in the US didn't happen, or happened after Labout left office, this period would be seen as a glorious economic age. What I giggled about mostly when reading your disdain for using history is the irony in your statement. You are actually using history as a tool to spin your narrative. Without history you couldn't even talk about Blair & Brown. It was so funny when you then go back further and mention Thatcher. Funny, funny, funny haha, what next? Understanding Math is shite for economic theory... maybe. Mrs x You say an awful lot on what you believe is relevant or more likely what you’ve misunderstood. This is why I leave these topics, I’m not going to get drawn into never ending posts that are missing relevance. Not a fan of Billy Ocean then? Mrs x Does Billy Ocean like posting long quotes?He just likes to get going, Mrs x Only when the going gets tough!That's why I thought I'd ask. He doesn't appear to be a fan though, never mind, Mrs x If you are discussing me not wanting to continue posting on a thread that I pointed out lacked relevance, this really does emphasise my point. I would also kindly ask that you remain on topic, which isn’t me… "What's that Carly Simon song again.... ? 😄 Mrs x | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. Same answer." What’s the answer then? A year? 5 years? | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. Same answer. What’s the answer then? A year? 5 years? " Has to be more than 5 years, surely, Mrs x | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. Same answer. What’s the answer then? A year? 5 years? Has to be more than 5 years, surely, Mrs x" They don’t get more than five years, next election they will be out on their arses. Reform UK will be the next government. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. Same answer. What’s the answer then? A year? 5 years? Has to be more than 5 years, surely, Mrs x They don’t get more than five years, next election they will be out on their arses. Reform UK will be the next government." Have you seen the latest by election results? I’m afraid your beloved Reform party peaked at the last election. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. Same answer. What’s the answer then? A year? 5 years? Has to be more than 5 years, surely, Mrs x They don’t get more than five years, next election they will be out on their arses. Reform UK will be the next government. Have you seen the latest by election results? I’m afraid your beloved Reform party peaked at the last election." The plan has always been for 2029. It doesn’t matter how things are now. Everything is developing exactly as planned. Nigel will be in No 10. Like it or lump it! | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. Same answer. What’s the answer then? A year? 5 years? Has to be more than 5 years, surely, Mrs x They don’t get more than five years, next election they will be out on their arses. Reform UK will be the next government. Have you seen the latest by election results? I’m afraid your beloved Reform party peaked at the last election. The plan has always been for 2029. It doesn’t matter how things are now. Everything is developing exactly as planned. Nigel will be in No 10. Like it or lump it!" lol Farage won’t even be in Clacton never mind No 10 | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. Same answer. What’s the answer then? A year? 5 years? Has to be more than 5 years, surely, Mrs x They don’t get more than five years, next election they will be out on their arses. Reform UK will be the next government. Have you seen the latest by election results? I’m afraid your beloved Reform party peaked at the last election. The plan has always been for 2029. It doesn’t matter how things are now. Everything is developing exactly as planned. Nigel will be in No 10. Like it or lump it! lol Farage won’t even be in Clacton never mind No 10" You won’t be laughing when we take power. But i will. The last laugh and all that. Project 2029 is well on the way. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? " 14 | |||
"Who to blame for this …. …the nimbys, second home owners, the air bnb’ers, the house builders, the planners, the ex pat buyers, the right to buyer’s, the single person households, or the ageing population. Westminster won’t be accepting any responsibility Capitalism and marker forces surely. Socialism worked great for housing? You just have to look at cities that enforced rent controls." You don't need socialism for fair rents just string regulation designed to protect tenants not landlords. Like Ejari here, probably the best regulated private rental market in the world is far from socialist. Blame is clearly with government , housing is one of thier man jobs. | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. Same answer. What’s the answer then? A year? 5 years? Has to be more than 5 years, surely, Mrs x They don’t get more than five years, next election they will be out on their arses. Reform UK will be the next government." Hahaha haha please stop my ribs can't take it, Mrs x | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. Same answer. What’s the answer then? A year? 5 years? Has to be more than 5 years, surely, Mrs x They don’t get more than five years, next election they will be out on their arses. Reform UK will be the next government.Hahaha haha please stop my ribs can't take it, Mrs x" He who laughs last, laughs longest. I will be the one trying very hard not to say ‘I told you so.’ | |||
"This will end up being another thread critical of the current governments plans to try and address the problem, whilst offering no alternative and failing to criticise the previous government who had 14 years to turn it around. Maybe. I see it slightly differently. Labour sat in opposition, saying it’s easy to fix. They produced headline-grabbing policies saying they would build millions of homes. They are now finding out that that is easier said than done, and my guess is that they will miss their own promises building targets. How long do you plan to blame the previous lot? A year? 2 years? 5 years? Surely it depends on what the previous lot have done. Certain things can be absolved quite quickly, others are unforgiveable. Same with all walks of life. Mrs x Hi. I was asking the question of a different poster. Same answer. What’s the answer then? A year? 5 years? Has to be more than 5 years, surely, Mrs x They don’t get more than five years, next election they will be out on their arses. Reform UK will be the next government.Hahaha haha please stop my ribs can't take it, Mrs x He who laughs last, laughs longest. I will be the one trying very hard not to say ‘I told you so.’" Bet SDP supporters thought the same thing, see how that went. Farage is a nut, made everyone poorer and has taken decades to become an MP. Flash in the pan, at best. Mrs x | |||
