No.
I was, as Mintball said, referring to the banking meltdown of 2008.

As it happens, your description doesn't appear to tie in with Abbey's [uagreement[/u to merge with Santander in an £8bn deal in 2004 or Santander's [utakeover[/u of Alliance & Leicester's for £1.3bn in 2008 or the £150m that Santander paid for B&B's savings accounts and branches after B&B went absobloodylutelytitsup.
It sounds like you would argue that the valuations that were made were less than they were worth ... but those were the deals and share values can go down as well as up.
I'd suggest that's worthy of a thread of its own if you want to debate it.

Why shouldn't we blame banks and financial institutions for a banking and financial crisis?
Will you please answer the question, do you think the Labour governments policies caused Lehmann Brothers to fail?




no it doesn't.

it really doesn't.


the yield rates ARE the cost of borrowing. All debt to GDP ratios and credit ratings are are indicators for those willing to lend.


I didnt avoid it at all. In fact I specifically mentioned that rates had risen. Talking about not suiting your argument, when was the last time before 2012 that rates were at or lower than 3%?


Ok. From Q2 2010 to Q2 2013 public sector employment fell by roughly 650,000.
The percentage of people in employment who work in the public sector is at the lowest since records began.


In the regard that the economy grew significantly, retail sales went through the roof. As did industrial production, business confidence, exports, balance of trade, and wages. Whilst unemployment has fallen by around a third.



The demand gap in, partly, consumer spending. Post crash consumer spending fell by around $200bn. It is now $700bn higher. It also helps bridge the gap for businesses. Post crash capacity utilisation fell by 15%.


Why? Because it doesn't back up your argument?
It's similarity to the UK is that it's a first world, developed, democratic, capitalist country with an economy that suffered from the financial crash and is largely dependent on consumer spending that took a radically different approach to the crisis.


If the net effect was zero how did it cost £12bn in receipts?


A tax on consumption in a consumer economy? A VAT rise during a recession is economic madness.


It's not brilliant. It's basic economics in a recession. Ask FDR.
It's also exactly what the US did.

Brown got it badly wrong all round. His dismantling of the regulatory framework & taking away control of interest rate from Bof E created the disaster. He doubled public spending on the back of tax receipts from the banks he cut loose. He then spent our money trying to cover his mess up when the crash hit.

No actual facts in there. Just a survey from the TUC.

The housing benefit bill is £24bn a year & costs each & every taxpayer £700 a year.

The spare room subsidy exists in private rented accommodation. There is a fixed amount of housing stock that needs to be allocated according need & to ensure taxpayers money isn't spent unnecessarily.

No it doesn't.

Which framework? We were talking about Lehmann Brothers. If you mean the UK then it was successive UK governments of both parties.
Can you answer the question please? This is the third time of asking. Which Labour government policy or decision caused Lehmann Brothers to fail?


No-one. The Bank of England sets the interest rate. They had no need to rise. The economy wasn't out of control. The financial sector was.


Not necessarily. As I said, they are indicators for investors nothing more. Plus you're not taking into account the relative effect compared to other countries. The UK had warnings and negative outlooks from credit rating agencies in 2009 and 2010. The UK's debt to GDP ratio and borrowing to GDP ratio both increased over this time. Yet the yield rates went down.


So you don't know then? If you don't know why do you think a rate of 3% is bad? If you do know then just tell us.


Why do you say that? Do you dispute the figures? What do you think the official figures actually are then? Because those figures come from what I would describe as a reputable source.


What are you on about? You really are getting confused aren't you? We were talking about the US economy.


Why do you say it's garbage? Do you dispute the figures? Or do you not understand them?




Well I know that debt to GDP isn't the cost of borrowing. So that's something eh

I also know that you're frantically stumbling your way around this like a wasted Stevie Wonder in the middle of an earthquake.
If those points aren't relevant, then what points would be in determining relative similarity between nations economies?
Try answering a question for a change.


You didn't say that. You said the net effect was zero. Which it can't have been if it cost £12bn in receipts. Which is it? Or did you mess that up too?
Either way the IFS, CEBR, CRR and plenty of businesses and directors disagree with you about the effects of VAT reductions and rises.


Consumer spending decreased. It depressed growth by around 0.3% and cost jobs.


Excuse me? I didn't compare the USA with any other nation in that quote. You were saying expansionary fiscal policy in a time of recession wasn't a good idea. I was saying it is but backing it up with 2 examples.

As predicted.




You deny official stats, don't know that yield rate is the cost of borrowing, refuse to accept that stimulus pulled the US out of the mire, think that the entire Western banking crisis was Brown's fault, deny the reductions in public sector staffing, don't accept that supply versus demand affects price, cover your lack of insight with irrelevant questions but ignore questions asked of you ... etc etc ... and, when proved utterly wrong, you respond with "Absolute tosh".




It's over, give it up.

So Brown was to blame for Lehman Brothers etc? And the financial crisis in the UK was completely isolated and unconnected from the global financial crisis?



Yerr ... 'cos that there TUC only got data from them there councils, and them there councils all told porkies so those aren't facts ...

Yerr ...

If you try harder, you might manage to avoid looking like such a complete twerp.

No, no: that's wrong. He never ever dodges questions. And he asserts this, so it must be true.

Is he Iain Duncan Smith?

If he believes it to be true ...

Obviously. I assume his next argument will be that Labour "overspent" and that's why the economy failed.

Well they did build up a deficit in boom years.

Since all governments run deficits, they were just following the likes of Maggie. Thus you should approve.

Not the Labour government from 1998 to 2001.

They did indeed.
To about the same level that the Major government left them with.


That's also true.
TBF the Conservative government also briefly ran a surplus 1988-89.

But, generally speaking, Mintball was correct.

She had the income from North Sea Oil (to begin with) and then the funds from selling-off British Gas, British Airways, British Aerospace, British Airports, BP, Britoil, Enterprise Oil, British Steel, the Docks, British Telecom, Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls Royce (aero engines), Cable and Wireless, 10 Water Boards, Electricity generating, Electricity distribution and Amersham International ... plus more.

And still ran a deficit.

Well, it took a lot of money to create benefit dependency in entire communities.

On the deficits – taking your point. I also remember Sally C posting some really excellent stuff on how governments in general have run deficits. He also gave (or provided links to) stats etc. Unfortunately, I don't have them.

I do have a PowerPoint presentation by a specialist in local government on data or over a century plus, but I wouldn't have the first clue about how to host it somewhere. If I work it out, I'll post a link.

It's also always worth reminding some people (not you) that when Labour took office, there was a lot of disrepair in schools and hospitals that needed dealing with.

Yes it does. It was introduced by the last Labour government. HTH

What has Lehmann bros got to do with anything? There wasn't a global financial crisis.

The TUC collected information & PROJECTED what they THINK MAY happen. They did not gather then present actual facts.

Just another knee jerk reaction from the left to a cut in public spending.

The spare room subsidy is already in use in private housing, what's the issue with extending it to save taxpayers money?

Correct, well done you. Assert? Nope, I deal in facts, not emotive scare tactics

Brilliant.

Was there no North Sea Oil revenue pre Thatcher? If yes, what was it spent on? How much was it per annum?

What was the deficit pre Thatcher?

All these industries you mention. How profitable were they? What level of subsidy did they require? What were they worth? How much were they sold for? How do they compare now to then?