Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[DarloRich]

I think the opposite. It would have been great whole policy which has proved to be a disaster as a half policy.

Of course there is great inequality in the housing market and the solution (neglected by Tories and Labour alike) is to build more houses. However the fact remains that the majority of people in the U.K. live in the private sector and policies like reversing the "bedroom tax" are simply not going to cut any ice with the the vast majority of the electorate.

I don't disagree at all.

However in areas where Labour should be strong there is great resentment at this and other benefit policies. It should be easy, for a competent leadership, to harness this unhappiness.

 

[Bromley boy]

This table (from my above link) is better than the rough graph in your link.

Which confirms:
1. The Conservatives didn't have the books balanced before they lost the 1997 election.
2. Lamont is statistically the worst Chancellor between April 1991 and April 2009 not Darling.
3. There was not one year when Brown had a bigger deficit than the one in the last finincial year under the Mayor government, so no evidence that he overspent unless the argument is also that the Conservatives also overspent.

These figures, and mine, show that Gordon Brown inherited finances on the trajectory to a surplus which was achieved during the early years of them Blair/Brown Government. This was then reversed when he abandoned his "prudence" policy and increased public spending during the boom.

This was made worse by the enormous drop in tax revenues during the 2008/09 recession but it's not correct, as per a previous poster, to claim that the deficit is largely due to the decision to bail out the banks.

 

[northwichcat]

These figures, and mine, show that Gordon Brown inherited finances on the trajectory to a surplus which was achieved during the early years of them Blair/Brown Government. This was then reversed when he abandoned his "prudence" policy and increased public spending during the boom.

Like I've already said - Lamont was an awful Chancellor who created a massive deficit. Clarke started the repair process but the process hadn't finished when the Conservatives lost the election so it needed Brown to finish it off to get to a surplus. If Labour always overspent, as some claim, the deficit would have started increasing again, once they won the 1997 election but it didn't.

This was made worse by the enormous drop in tax revenues during the 2008/09 recession but it's not correct, as per a previous poster, to claim that the deficit is largely due to the decision to bail out the banks.

Look again at the table. Labour invested on some big projects but started cutting the deficit again once that process was complete. The deficit fell every year between 04/05 and 07/08, if it wasn't for the recession caused by the bankers Labour would have balanced the books and gone in to a general election with any deficit cleared.

 

[Bromley boy]

Like I've already said - Lamont was an awful Chancellor who created a massive deficit. Clarke started the repair process but the process hadn't finished when the Conservatives lost the election so it needed Brown to finish it off to get to a surplus. If Labour always overspent, as some claim, the deficit would have started increasing again, once they won the 1997 election but it didn't.



Look again at the table. Labour invested on some big projects but started cutting the deficit again once that process was complete. The deficit fell every year between 04/05 and 07/08, if it wasn't for the recession caused by the bankers Labour would have balanced the books and gone in to a general election with any deficit cleared.

It could be argued that the more prudent policy would have been to concentrate on getting the public finances into a surplus during the economic boom. In fairness to Brown, nobody knew the recession was ahead but his boast during the early naughties to have "abolished boom and bust" has been proven false by subsequent events.

It's a gross simplification to say the recession was "caused by the bankers". Banks exist to make money, it's down to the government to regulate them. This lack of regulation, particularly in the US and the UK, was what led to the collapse of the mortgage backed securities market and the resulting contagion.

Lessons clearly haven't been learned as, in the UK, we still have an economy driven by extremely high levels of personal debt.

EDIT: I don't disagree that Lamont was dreadful but the figures also show that the deficit built up around the time of the early 90s recession, ERM etc. was reversed in short order by the Major Govt from 7.2% of GDP in 93/94 to 3.3% in 96/97. This sharp downward trajectory was Brown's inheritance.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Corbyn has signalled he intends to remain in post as Labour leader regardless of the result of the GE next month...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-sound-of-leamington-spa?utm_term=.djY5LkwxA#.wpdrDZnB0

To be fair, what else could he say? It is pretty much a no win question, because if he says he would stand down then that will be spun as a "he knows he will lose" and further the "weak leader" mantra.

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't disagree at all.

However in areas where Labour should be strong there is great resentment at this and other benefit policies. It should be easy, for a competent leadership, to harness this unhappiness.

Agreed. There is plenty of scope for Labour to take the fight to the Tories and they are singularly failing to do so!

Sadly it's a leadership which seems intent on sticking around, irrespective of the election result, as per my link to Buzzfeed.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-sound-of-leamington-spa?utm_term=.djY5LkwxA#.wpdrDZnB0

 

[northwichcat]

It's a gross simplification to say the recession was "caused by the bankers". Banks exist to make money, it's down to the government to regulate them. This lack of regulation, particularly in the US and the UK, was what led to the collapse of the mortgage backed securities market and the resulting contagion.

While Labour could have done something while they had a large majority between 1997-2001, they did eventually have a vote on banking regulations but all the Conservatives opposed it and it didn't have the full support of their own MPs so it never happened.

 

[northwichcat]

To be fair, what else could he say? It is pretty much a no win question, because if he says he would stand down then that will be spun as a "he knows he will lose" and further the "weak leader" mantra.

I also imagine like Cameron he doesn't want his future plans to influence how people vote, so doesn't want to make public under what circumstances he would resign until after the election.

 

[Bromley boy]

While Labour could have done something while they had a large majority between 1997-2001, they did eventually have a vote on banking regulations but all the Conservatives opposed it and it didn't have the full support of their own MPs so it never happened.

That's true, much like the housing crisis, it's the fault of a long line of Labour and Tory governments.

However it misses the point, and rather plays into the hands of politicians, to simply blame the financial crisis on bankers.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes I sure you're correct that the period surplus was, in fact, actually immediately after GB took over in no. 11. However this was based on his inheritance of a sharp downward trend of the deficit leading to a surplus, which he then reversed, so I'm not sure it's fair to say he created it.

I think it is, and I don't wish to underestimate Kenneth Clarke's work before him. Clarke was a very good Chancellor; ironic, really, that most of his own party despised him.

I think the Tories would have done exactly the same re bailing out the banks. Of course it was enormously expensive but what people often forget is that much of that money is in the process of being repaid as shareholdings in the affected banks are sold off.

And what more people forget is that the selling of these stocks has the effect of artificially reducing the deficit. When we bought the stocks it went as a capital expenditure, increasing the deficit. When we sell them, it comes back in as capital income, decreasing the deficit.

It's great for the Tories. They get to sell these shareholdings off at significantly underneath the market value to their mates (look at Royal Mail: the biggest buyer of Royal Mail stocks was Gideon's Best Man!) and get to look like they're reducing the deficit.

They're not. That's the thing with selling off the family silver: you can only do it once. The structural deficit has worsened under the Tories.

From the figures in the linked docs is does seem that the majority's of the deficit is accounted for by GB's inflated public spending

An anonymous author who identifies as a "libertarian"? Hmm. I wouldn't be relying on that as a primary source.

The first source is a lot better, and shows the truth: that spending during the 2000s stayed around the 40% of GDP level, and was lower in percentage terms than the Tories in the 80s (even during the boom years spending was nearly 50% GDP) and in the 90s. What caused the issue at the end of the 2000s was the way GDP plummeted at the same time as the government had to spend more because of bailing out the banks and because of the poor state of the economy (and not just on benefits: look how spending on the Pension Protection Fund shot up).

 

[Tetchytyke]

However it misses the point, and rather plays into the hands of politicians, to simply blame the financial crisis on bankers.

The bankers were able to get away with what they did because politicians abdicated their responsibilities to regulate them. Politicians faced huge pressure to be "good for business", and that meant "getting rid of red tape". That's why you ended up with these massive mis-selling scandals- and the bundling of sub-prime mortgages into financial derivatives was as big a mis-selling scandal as it gets- and that's why you ended up with the financial services sector facing bankruptcy.

As an aside, Brown's "selling off of gold on the cheap" was as a result of Goldman Sachs betting against the price of gold rising; Brown dumped the gold to bring the price down, to prevent huge financial failure. Again, we can argue whether he was right or wrong to do it, but let's not pretend Clarke or Lawson wouldn't have done the exact same thing.

It's not as simple as "blaming the bankers" but, equally, not enough bankers got enough of a kicking after they almost bankrupted the country.

 

[Bromley boy]

And what more people forget is that the selling of these stocks has the effect of artificially reducing the deficit. When we bought the stocks it went as a capital expenditure, increasing the deficit. When we sell them, it comes back in as capital income, decreasing the deficit.

It's great for the Tories. They get to sell these shareholdings off at significantly underneath the market value to their mates (look at Royal Mail: the biggest buyer of Royal Mail stocks was Gideon's Best Man!) and get to look like they're reducing the deficit.

They're not. That's the thing with selling off the family silver: you can only do it once.

I don't really understand your point here.

A lot of the original "bail out" was in the form of guarantees for inter-bank loans and was never actually advanced as cash. Some was cash investment in shareholdings or advanced as loan facilities.

What the government is now doing is reversing out of the investments made in the banks by the previous government. It's quite right they should do this. In no sense are they "selling the family silver", as the UK government isn't in the long term business of investing in banking stocks.

For example the government's investment in Lloyds Banking Group is on track to be fully disposed of in the near future.

http://www.cityam.com/256620/uk-government-no-longer-largest-shareholder-lloyds-bank

I don't think it's fair to say this is being done at below market value. Quite the opposite, the process is being carefully managed to ensure tranches of shares are offered to the market in a way that doesn't artificially deplete the market value.

This is quite different to the privatisation of nationalised public services which can indeed only be done once and can more accurately be described as "selling the family silver".

 

[northwichcat]

Labour candidate Kate Hoey shared an image in which her Liberal Democrat challenger was apparently removed from a picture taken at an event in south London.

Ms Hoey is standing to be re-elected in the south London constituency she has held since 1989. She appeared today in a photo on Twitter where an crude effort had been made to erase rival Lib Dem candidate George Turner.

Eagle-eyed viewers noticed that Mr Turner's legs could be seen in the back row of Brexit supporter Ms Hoey’s photo. However his face and upper body had vanished.

At the time the photo was taken, Mr Turner said he had been standing next to the Lib Dems’ Sarah Olney, who can be seen behind Ms Hoey in the image.

The candidates were at an event in south London campaigning for the Government to support measures for cleaner air.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...oto-but-forgets-to-edit-out-his-a3534471.html

:eek:

 

[telstarbox]

Had a look at the current bookies' favourites in a few seats according to Oddschecker:


West Aberdeenshire - Cons 1/5
Berwickshire - Cons 1/7
Sedgefield - Cons 5/6
Darlington - Cons 1/3
Oldham East - Cons 4/6
Hampstead and Kilburn - Cons 1/5
Twickenham - Lib Dems 1/2
Hove - Cons 3/10
Yeovil - Cons 2/7

 

[northwichcat]

Had a look at the current bookies' favourites in a few seats according to Oddschecker:


West Aberdeenshire - Cons 1/5
Berwickshire - Cons 1/7
Sedgefield - Cons 5/6
Darlington - Cons 1/3
Oldham East - Cons 4/6
Hampstead and Kilburn - Cons 1/5
Twickenham - Lib Dems 1/2
Hove - Cons 3/10
Yeovil - Cons 2/7

According to them chance of Greens winning Tatton is 500/1, while the chance of UKIP winning Tatton is 100/1 despite the fact UKIP don't have a Tatton candidate but the Greens do!

There also giving favourable odds for the Lib Dems replacing the SNP in Edinburgh West but favourable odds for the SNP retaining Glasgow East - the two former SNP MPs in those constituencies are both facing criminal charges.

 

[telstarbox]

Those values are aggregated from different bookmakers so the more 'extreme' values can be taken with a pinch of salt, especially where nobody has bet on the outcome in question so far...

 

[Bromley boy]

The bankers were able to get away with what they did because politicians abdicated their responsibilities to regulate them. Politicians faced huge pressure to be "good for business", and that meant "getting rid of red tape". That's why you ended up with these massive mis-selling scandals- and the bundling of sub-prime mortgages into financial derivatives was as big a mis-selling scandal as it gets- and that's why you ended up with the financial services sector facing bankruptcy.

As an aside, Brown's "selling off of gold on the cheap" was as a result of Goldman Sachs betting against the price of gold rising; Brown dumped the gold to bring the price down, to prevent huge financial failure. Again, we can argue whether he was right or wrong to do it, but let's not pretend Clarke or Lawson wouldn't have done the exact same thing.

It's not as simple as "blaming the bankers" but, equally, not enough bankers got enough of a kicking after they almost bankrupted the country.

On the contrary, the mortgage backed securities market was a lively one for several years. Most of the products were AAA rated and traded on arms-length term between sophisticated financial institutions. In no sense were they "mis-sold". The problem came when the US sub prime mortgage market collapsed, the underlying assets backing the products were seen to be worthless and certain banks were over exposed. This resulted in contagion as interbank lending dried up.

There certainly were some "sharp practices", Lehman's Repo 105 move being one of them - a method of hiding liabilities from auditors and investors - but this was perfectly legal and an accepted accounting practice of the time.

Gordon Brown's decision to sell gold when he did was handled extremely badly, particularly the decision to announce it in advance which depleted the spot price as investors expected the market to be flooded.

His biggest blunder was the abolition of the advanced corporation tax regime, preventing pension funds receiving tax credits on dividends paid to them. The cost of this has been estimated at over £100bn and largely wrecked the U.K. pensions market.

https://www.ftadviser.com/2014/05/0...ions-raid-WTQAjLW5DSRp9HUxwNZN7K/article.html

So much for "Prudence Brown"!!!

 

[northwichcat]

Those values are aggregated from different bookmakers so the more 'extreme' values can be taken with a pinch of salt, especially where nobody has bet on the outcome in question so far...

I'd question their odds for Cheshire in general. In Cheshire West local elections and the PCC election a lot of Conservative voters switched to Labour despite Corbyn, yet they are making the Conservatives favourites to win Chester (currently Labour) and to keep Weaver Vale - where the current Conservative MP has lost popularity and only has a marginal seat.

In Cheshire East we have a Conservative council which planned to put 2018/19 budget cuts out to consultation this month long before they knew Mrs May would call an election. That might not help the Conservative candidates in the General Election!

 

[Tetchytyke]

What the government is now doing is reversing out of the investments made in the banks by the previous government. It's quite right they should do this. In no sense are they "selling the family silver", as the UK government isn't in the long term business of investing in banking stocks.

I wasn't just talking about the sale of banking investments. Although I have issues with the way some of the sales have taken place, I don't disagree with the sales themselves.

The Tories have, for instance, sold the SLC loan book to Erudio (a joint venture between two hedge funds, Arrow Global and CarVal, and dogged by cockup after cockup) at an undervalue of over £700m. That money shows as a reduction of the deficit for that financial year, even though the decision has potentially cost the taxpayer the thick end of a billion quid. Royal Mail is another glorious example.

Gideon sold the family silver at a significant loss yet claims he reduced the deficit, before walking into a cushy job with the Evening Boris Johnson Standard. Hammond isn't any better.

 

[47802]

Corbyn has signalled he intends to remain in post as Labour leader regardless of the result of the GE next month...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-sound-of-leamington-spa?utm_term=.djY5LkwxA#.wpdrDZnB0

Next he will turning himself into president for life (or in this case Leader for life) Arthur Scargill style

 

[Tetchytyke]

Most of the products were AAA rated and traded on arms-length term between sophisticated financial institutions. In no sense were they "mis-sold". The problem came when the US sub prime mortgage market collapsed, the underlying assets backing the products were seen to be worthless and certain banks were over exposed. This resulted in contagion as interbank lending dried up.

There certainly were some "sharp practices", Lehman's Repo 105 move being one of them - a method of hiding liabilities from auditors and investors - but this was perfectly legal and an accepted accounting practice of the time.

The "sharp practices" were not legal and not accepted accounting practice. The litany of fines from the SEC in the US- who, unlike the SFO here, actually bothered to investigate things- proves that much. The AAA rating was always going to be worthless because of the way the securities and derivatives were misrepresented to the ratings agencies.

The "sharp practices" were at the very hub of the mis-selling.

Gordon Brown's decision to sell gold when he did was handled extremely badly, particularly the decision to announce it in advance which depleted the spot price as investors expected the market to be flooded.

You misunderstand why he did it. He did it specifically to devalue the cost of gold because several of the biggest banks in the world were dangerously short on the price of gold. We can argue about whether he should have done it, but don't claim it was done incompetently: it wasn't. It was done cleverly and deliberately.

Corbyn has signalled he intends to remain in post as Labour leader regardless of the result of the GE next month...

Of course he has: what else can he say? Interesting how they've not asked Saint Theresa if she'll step down if she doesn't get the supermajority everyone is expecting...

 

[HSTEd]

Also what is the point of a gold reserve in the modern day and age.

I am not precisely sure.
Gold has numerous industrial and chemical uses that are uneconomic because huge percentages of it are kept locked in a vault doing nothing of use.

 

[Bromley boy]

The "sharp practices" were not legal and not accepted accounting practice. The litany of fines from the SEC in the US- who, unlike the SFO here, actually bothered to investigate things- proves that much. The AAA rating was always going to be worthless because of the way the securities and derivatives were misrepresented to the ratings agencies.

The "sharp practices" were at the very hub of the mis-selling.

Taking the repo 105 transaction, the legal and accounting treatment was signed off by Linklaters and EY respectively. Therefore, as far as the technical transaction was concerned, the bank was doing nothing wrong. Nobody from the bank has been prosecuted either in the UK or the US. I believe EY was sued in the US by the New York regulator but ended up settling out of court for a great deal less than the amount of the lawsuit.

This is the way the world of financial services operates. A product will be developed by a bank and then signed off by its legal advisors, its accountants, it's auditors and will be given an appropriate rating by a rating agency. It will then be sold to sophisticated buy-side investors in funds of various kinds. This is in no way fraudulent or similar to the criminality displayed in a number of other corporate scandal such as ENRON etc.

It's totally different to, for instance, the misselling of PPI to unsophisticated private individuals who lack knowledge and may not have taken appropriate advice.

Remember the banks who developed this stuff were active in the market and were buying lots of it themselves, as well as selling.

With respect I think you misunderstand the role of ratings agencies. They aren't supposed to simply rubber stamp a financial product being offered. No matter what sales pitch they are given they are supposed to do a "deep dive" into the mechanics of the product and the financials of the organisation that has created it, in order to come to a considered view on the risk of default. Therefore they arguably weren't doing their jobs properly with regards to mortgage backed securities.

 

[backontrack]

My school's going to have a mock election soon. That means lots of posters on the History Wall - everything ranging from serious political points to dank, dank memes. I'm looking forward to it, even if the result is pretty much clear already.

 

[Bromley boy]

You misunderstand why he did it. He did it specifically to devalue the cost of gold because several of the biggest banks in the world were dangerously short on the price of gold. We can argue about whether he should have done it, but don't claim it was done incompetently: it wasn't. It was done cleverly and deliberately.
..

I'll concede that one, having read a bit more around it (it was rather before my time ).

https://www.ft.com/content/5788dbac-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0

Nevertheless his decision with regard to pension tax credits was extremely damaging and has cost the UK public very dearly indeed.

 

[Groningen]

So fox hunting is back according to Theresa May.

 

[ExRes]

So fox hunting is back according to Theresa May.

I think you'll find that what she actually said was that a free vote would be held in the next parliament in line with the Conservative party commitment

 

[Bromley boy]

I think you'll find that what she actually said was that a free vote would be held in the next parliament in line with the Conservative party commitment

This is one of the areas where I seriously part ways with the Tories...

It's worrying any government would want to devote time to this. It's an irrelevant issue, other than to the landed gentry. It's also an appalling bloodsport with no place in a civilised country.

I suppose with an enormous Tory majority it will probably be waved through.

 

[ExRes]

This is one of the areas where I seriously part ways with the Tories...

It's worrying any government would want to devote time to this. It's an irrelevant issue, other than to the landed gentry. It's also an appalling bloodsport with no place in a civilised country.

I suppose with an enormous Tory majority it will probably be waved through.

I'm 100% with you, but you just knew that the media would put the question just to see her have to answer rather than hear the answer, that's the basis of the media v politics (of all parties) relationship

 

[northwichcat]

This is one of the areas where I seriously part ways with the Tories...

It's worrying any government would want to devote time to this. It's an irrelevant issue, other than to the landed gentry. It's also an appalling bloodsport with no place in a civilised country.

I suppose with an enormous Tory majority it will probably be waved through.

Hopefully she's shot herself in the foot as the majority of the public don't want fox hunting (and certainly not the Labour supporters she wants to switch sides) so she could now get a smaller majority which won't let her do whatever she wants.