Why does everyone blame labour for the financial mess?

[cunning fergus]

Yes you could be correct.........but the next Tory regime did not repay the debt.......The labour administration did........Mmmm history to repeat itself?

What bit of history do you think will repeat itself? I presume you mean the UK will have to go to the IMF again because of a Labour Government?

Incidently the UK recently paid off our war debt to the US, (not sure if this is what you were referring too). We borrowed billions from the US in WW2. Unfortunately we defaulted a few times on our repayments to the US; 1976, 1968, 1965 and 1964 being the most recent...........guess who was in charge?

Clue: It wasn't Brown.

 

[vulture]

if brown had been voted in he would not be as unpopular as he is now.The fact he is squating in number ten now is a disgrace.Even with a lib-lab pact they are still eleven seats short off forming a goverment.He would have to have the snp,green,welsh nats and irish nats to get over the 326 figure and yet the twat claims it would be a strong goverment.

 

[webbyson]

What bit of history do you think will repeat itself? I presume you mean the UK will have to go to the IMF again because of a Labour Government?

Incidently the UK recently paid off our war debt to the US, (not sure if this is what you were referring too). We borrowed billions from the US in WW2. Unfortunately we defaulted a few times on our repayments to the US; 1976, 1968, 1965 and 1964 being the most recent...........guess who was in charge?

Clue: It wasn't Brown.

No no no The Tories failing to pay off the huge debt, who ever caused it and still cut public spending like they pledged in their recent manefesto. I sure it was a loan from the IMF, but i do recall the WW2 debt as well.

 

[cunning fergus]

No no no The Tories failing to pay off the huge debt, who ever caused it and still cut public spending like they pledged in their recent manefesto. I sure it was a loan from the IMF, but i do recall the WW2 debt as well.

The IMF bailout in 1976 was 2.3bn, which is not that huge given the UK had to borrow 4.5bn in January this year alone to 'maintain' spending commitments.

Not certain why you consider the repayment of the loan by Labour is somehow more important than why the UK had to go to the IMF in the first place?

The fact that Labour was in charge at the end of the 20 year repayment term (or whatever it was) is hardly a matter of deft political strategy.

 

[brunswick]

its not a bailout.

its a loan with interest, and usually with utilities thrown in.

"bailout" is just a media term.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

What I want to know is why we only paid off the WW2 debt to the Yanks more than 50 years after the war finished when other Allied countries had their debts wiped out.

 

[BLOCK F]

Adrian and Glasfryn....having read the reasons here,do you now understand?

 

[Grendel]

The same people saying it's Labours fault for not regulating financial institutions more heavily would probably have been whining about restriction of the free market had there been more regulation.

 

[cunning fergus]

its not a bailout.

its a loan with interest, and usually with utilities thrown in.

"bailout" is just a media term.

Do you think so?

I would look at this way, a loan (with interest) is a lending mechanism that is available for individuals and private companies. It is an optional arrangement for borrower and lender.

Sovereign states raise money through the issue of debt stock into the financial market (check out the UK's Debt Managment Office). All the while investors are comfortable that a sovereign state can repay on their borrowings, they can borrow as much as they wish to.

Once a sovereign state is in danger of defaulting on its debt repayments it will be unable to borrow more money and therefore it has no other option but to go to the IMF. The IMF would lend the sovereign state money however to refer to this arrangement as the same as a loan is like saying WW2 was merely a diplomatic incident.

 

[webbyson]

The IMF bailout in 1976 was 2.3bn, which is not that huge given the UK had to borrow 4.5bn in January this year alone to 'maintain' spending commitments.

Not certain why you consider the repayment of the loan by Labour is somehow more important than why the UK had to go to the IMF in the first place?

The fact that Labour was in charge at the end of the 20 year repayment term (or whatever it was) is hardly a matter of deft political strategy.

Only reason being the Tories promise to pay off the debt this time by slashing public funding and hence saving the worlds economic woes in the process............only they will not achieve this.......we all know its easy to shout from rthe opposition benches only to find out when reality hits home another excuse will be rumbled out............."the Debt was far larger han we were lead to believe" blah blah blah............hence history will repeat itself.

 

[cunning fergus]

Only reason being the Tories promise to pay off the debt this time by slashing public funding and hence saving the worlds economic woes in the process............only they will not achieve this.......we all know its easy to shout from rthe opposition benches only to find out when reality hits home another excuse will be rumbled out............."the Debt was far larger han we were lead to believe" blah blah blah............hence history will repeat itself.

Not sure if you get it.....................in April 2010 total government debt stood at £890bn equivalent to 62% of GDP.

This included £163.4bn borrowed in financial year 2009-10 which is equivalent to 11.6% of GDP.

Labour have indicated they can be reduce the borrowing rate to around 4% of GDP by 2015.

These generous forecasts are based on growth rates of 3-4% and predicated on the basis that with economic growth so tax revenues will rise, ergo borrowing can be reduced.

That will not be enough though so, now wait for it...........even Labour will be slashing public funding too.

As for the debt being larger then we know, that is a good point as the hundreds of PFI arrangements the taxpayer is now saddled with and Public Pensions the taxpayer will be saddled with remain scandalously off the books at the moment.

 

[vulture]

brown going to scotland now and his mps saying for him to quit and let the tories form a goverment

 

[NMH]

Who's idea was it not to regulate the banks, was it labour who just let them off and do there own thing?

You're not listening are you?

I blame Thatcher. There's a clue in there somewhere.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Not sure if you get it.....................in April 2010 total government debt stood at £890bn equivalent to 62% of GDP.

This included £163.4bn borrowed in financial year 2009-10 which is equivalent to 11.6% of GDP.

Labour have indicated they can be reduce the borrowing rate to around 4% of GDP by 2015.

These generous forecasts are based on growth rates of 3-4% and predicated on the basis that with economic growth so tax revenues will rise, ergo borrowing can be reduced.

That will not be enough though so, now wait for it...........even Labour will be slashing public funding too.

As for the debt being larger then we know, that is a good point as the hundreds of PFI arrangements the taxpayer is now saddled with and Public Pensions the taxpayer will be saddled with remain scandalously off the books at the moment.

Thats all very true but you make it sound like its just the UK that has borrowed those sorts of sums.

Most countries have done the same but the Uk has also funded a small war with more funds than most other countries. Of course you can blame Blair for that but I bet the tories would have done the same and probably with more money.

The question you should be asking is why did we bail out the banks and again if you think the tories would have done anything different you are kidding yourself.

As for selling the gold - if we had it now would you sell it now?
The problem with keeping gold is that its costs a lot of money to keep it safe. When the price is low the cost to protect it is enormous and when it is high the cost of security goes even higher.

I understand we did'nt sell it all and what we kept has done well

 

[cunning fergus]

Thats all very true but you make it sound like its just the UK that has borrowed those sorts of sums.

Most countries have done the same but the Uk has also funded a small war with more funds than most other countries. Of course you can blame Blair for that but I bet the tories would have done the same and probably with more money.

The question you should be asking is why did we bail out the banks and again if you think the tories would have done anything different you are kidding yourself.

As for selling the gold - if we had it now would you sell it now?
The problem with keeping gold is that its costs a lot of money to keep it safe. When the price is low the cost to protect it is enormous and when it is high the cost of security goes even higher.

I understand we did'nt sell it all and what we kept has done well

So we are in the shit financially because of Labour and Brown's decisions but you are OK with that because you think other countries and the tories would have done the same thing anyway?

In addition we are only worse off than other countries because we are funding a war, but that's Blair's fault and nothing to do with Brown?

As for the Gold issue you think because we needed to pay for a f*** off cellar to keep it in it was a better move (financially speaking) to sell 60% of it? In any event its OK because the 40% we kept has gained 300%.

Chicken Runner you are either Gordon Brown or Ed Balls? Come on tell us?

 

[Napper]

Global crisis which all leaders round the world acknowledge Brown was doing a good job

 

[cunning fergus]

Global crisis which all leaders round the world acknowledge Brown was doing a good job

If I was the leader of another country I would say the Gordon Brown was doing a good job? It's not like they're going to be voted out by the British electorate is it?

Anyway no doubt these global heavyweight your refer to include the leaders of Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain?

 

[Chicken Runner61]

So we are in the shit financially because of Labour and Brown's decisions but you are OK with that because you think other countries and the tories would have done the same thing anyway?

In addition we are only worse off than other countries because we are funding a war, but that's Blair's fault and nothing to do with Brown?

As for the Gold issue you think because we needed to pay for a f*** off cellar to keep it in it was a better move (financially speaking) to sell 60% of it? In any event its OK because the 40% we kept has gained 300%.

Chicken Runner you are either Gordon Brown or Ed Balls? Come on tell us?

I never said that but other countries DID do the same as us including the USA. Do you actually know what we/he did ?

The war was Blairs choice as pm and Brown was in the government but do you think that if the tories were in power we would not have gone to war? Yes or No?

Do you think that the conservatives would have done better than Brown in the WORLD FINANCIAL CRISIS? Yes or No?

Its true that we now have a very bad deficit but the financial consensus is that if the deficit does not take us out (it still might) Brown will have been right and Osborne wrong Yes or No?


So what is the advantage of having all that gold and when would YOU sell it?


If you can give a reasoned explanation of what you think we should have done on the financial crisis or how the gold would help us now I'll be impressed. If you cant you must be George Osborne who can't even get simple maths right.

BTW I'm no Brown/ blair or New Labour /old tories fan

 

[cunning fergus]

I never said that but other countries DID do the same as us including the USA. Do you actually know what we/he did ?

The war was Blairs choice as pm and Brown was in the government but do you think that if the tories were in power we would not have gone to war? Yes or No?

Do you think that the conservatives would have done better than Brown in the WORLD FINANCIAL CRISIS? Yes or No?

Its true that we now have a very bad deficit but the financial consensus is that if the deficit does not take us out (it still might) Brown will have been right and Osborne wrong Yes or No?


So what is the advantage of having all that gold and when would YOU sell it?


If you can give a reasoned explanation of what you think we should have done on the financial crisis or how the gold would help us now I'll be impressed. If you cant you must be George Osborne who can't even get simple maths right.

BTW I'm no Brown/ blair or New Labour /old tories fan

Other countries have borrowed money to deal with their difficulties but only 2 industrialised countries have borrowed more relative to their GDP than the UK. They are Ireland and Iceland and not countries we would want to align ourselves with peer group wise.

So, and this is the point, the level of sovereign debt the UK is now burdened with in order to deal with a global crisis is a lot higher than it would have been IF Brown had (a) implemented a more robust regulatory system (b) dealt with an overheating economy driven by a unsustainable housing boom and (c) not spent so irresponsibly when he was in receipt of unprecedented tax revenues.

This is why Brown is responsible for the shit state we are in, as he is for our prescence in Afganistan. Maybe if he wasn't so preoccupied with plotting against Blair he may have got his moral compass straight and opposed that policy move. Even the left wing BNP would pull the troops out.

What the Tories would have done is irrelevant, they have not been in Govt for the last 13 years.

The Gold issue, well its quite straight forward isn't it? You are in a much stronger position to borrow money when you have collateral behind you. Brown sold 400 tons at $275 an ounce. There are about 32,000 ounces in a ton and gold is now $1200 an ounce. You do the maths.

Accordingly we have lost a significant amount of sovereign collatoral thanks to Prudence, albeit in the broad scheme of things given the collossal debt we have and borrowing levels we are still planning I wouldn't argue it would have a material impact.

But that is not the point is it...................he dropped a bollock and he should be horsewhipped for ignoring the advice he recieved from the IMF not to sell it.

 

[beorhthelm]

people defend Brown and ask what the Tories would do and talk of deregulation from the 80's. Brown restructured the regulation framework, taking the responsibility away from the Bank of England, stuffed full of knowledgable economists, and placed it with the newly formed bureucracy of the FSA. history will tell us if this in fact created the conditions for the banks to lend as they did and for the Credit Default Swaps (largely traded in London i understand) to exist. even if that goes too far, he certainly weakened the regulation, in a desperate bid to be a Labour chancellor the City could accept, and then tapped them for loans.