according to my rather limited research the repeal of the Glass Seagall act was proposed by Phil Gramm a republican (although signed into law by B Clinton) and heavily lobbied for by the banks – is this true or are my facts wrong

 

could be - it doesnt really matter, the left dont have a monopoly on doing stupid things

 

in any society you will always get a hard core percentage that do fvck all - I think they are beyond help

but isn't it a role of government to create an aspirational society, to try and get the rest of their ***** and working

it's a cripplingly sad fact that thru both tory and labour governments whole generations have never worked

 

 

While accepting the gross errors associated with the ERM mistake, how do you think our economy compares now compared with it in 1997 Martin?

Les ?

 

Les, that is a devisive question as well you know. After years and years of economic mismamagement the Tories finally put Ken Clark in charge of the exchequer and what a great chancellor he was. You may of course revise that opinion when you realise he was actually very supportive of the fiscal policies employed by Gordon Brown in his own time as Chancellor.

I think a better question would be how do the last 12 years overall compare with the previous 12.

I know both made mistakes but things did to me overall seem genuinely worse under the Tories (until Ken Clark arrived) with higher interest rates and for much of the time higher inflation etc. as well as a boom bust cycle like nothing seen in the last 10 years until now of course.

The trouble is we will never know what percentage of the current situation is down to the glocal recession/collapse compared to that caused by our own economic policies. It isn't as simple as saying look how much more affected we are as we are also more reliant on the financial services sector for our economy and hence were bound to get hit harder. Oh and that last bit was down to Margaret and her dislike of those nasty dirty manufacturing industries just in case we forget that small fact

 

Not sure what you want me to say?

A flippant answer might be...

Our economy is about 25% bigger?

or...

We are in the brown and sticky stuff?

Can you tell me why you asked me a question that was compleley unrelated to the point I was making?

 

Whatever anyone says seems to be divisive . Yes Clark was a good chancellor, just a pity that like Heath he is so pro the Eu.

The reason that the years previous to the big TU by the banks seemed to be good was that Flash was overborrowing like mad and feeding the cash in to support the economy which was in truth going down hill even if it did not show at the time. He borrowed £10 billion in one month at one time, as well as flogging our reserves off! When the crunch came, we were in a far more parlous situation because there was nothing left in the kitty.

Its a perfectly fair question Martin in view of your own statements.

Les

 

Much as I personally believe that Blair and then Brown have to carry a lot of responsbility for the current state of financial and moral play in the uk, I suggest we all stop trying to apportion blame, and wake up to he fundimental point that "UK Plc" is basically bankrupt. That situation would have existed with or without the whole "banking crisis/credit crunch" call it what you will. Its just a little bit worse on paper as a result.

The only way to address that will be to cut public spending and increase revenue.

That should help UK plc's balance sheet, but the downside is that cuts in spending (public or private) only act to compound a poor economic position.

Whoever is in power is looking at a very difficult fix. Be that Cameron or Brown.

But I feel we need change. New labour has been in power too long and as a result can't see the wood from the trees. Its become blinkered to its own failings. Its developed an arrogance that its position is the only one.

And for those reasons alone, we need change. But there will be no quick fix. If Cameron has the ***** to do the job properly, we will undoubtably feel more pain.

 

Quite right.

Les

 

This is certainly what Labour want you to believe but is, in reality, a non sequitur. By cutting wasteful activity (say a whole department of paper pushers) that reduces costs and ultimately can be passed on the public as a tax cut, increasing economic activity. Ergo, cuts stimulate the economy (if done correctly)