|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 11, 2023 9:32:10 GMT
Why can't we just have an emotional wreck as leader of the Labour party, Suzy represents everything you are, emotionally unstable and confused by everything. Which has obviously already been introduced.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 11, 2023 10:08:41 GMT
You're full of these vague threats to democracy, but always short on detail. Loads of what you don't want, but nought of what you'd replace it with. Democracy is more held together by an understanding (a promise) rather than a procedure. Getting your way by breaking that promise damages democracy. If you can do it to get your way, why shouldn't others? Another vague utterance . how exactly has democracy been damaged. What specific things are you referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 11, 2023 11:48:09 GMT
Person debt, not government debt. Labour turned a blind eye to the huge rise in personal debt, and the handing out of credit and mortgages with total disregard to affordability. This left us more prone to financial damage than countries with tighter credit control. It is literally the same argument that the Tories weren't prepared for a pandemic when everybody was warning we would get one... Labour ignored all the warnings about the massive rise in high risk loans and mortgages. The rise in home ownership was encouraged by NL, it in no way caused the international financial meltdown (IFM) which threw all previous economic plans out of the window. That was caused by a totally American cock-up which not only hit without warning but was the worst economic crisis for 60 years. Part of the problem was the deregulation in the 1980s which meant that Building Societies and Banks could do both. Your claim of "total disregard to affordability" is a piece of opinionated nonsense. Everything was based upon the money flowing into the Banks, no knew that all that money in the Banks was actually worthles until the IFM struck. Northern Rock introduced the 125% mortgage and allowed mortgage multiples of 6 times income in the years running up to the Financial Crisis. After the collapse of NR the FSA who had been created by Gordon Brown to regulate the banking sector admitted that their supervision of the bank had not been carried out to a standard that is acceptable. Had the regulation in the UK been of the required standard the Financial Crisis would not have affected the UK as much as it did. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 11, 2023 11:55:31 GMT
The rise in home ownership was encouraged by NL, it in no way caused the international financial meltdown (IFM) which threw all previous economic plans out of the window. That was caused by a totally American cock-up which not only hit without warning but was the worst economic crisis for 60 years. Part of the problem was the deregulation in the 1980s which meant that Building Societies and Banks could do both. Your claim of "total disregard to affordability" is a piece of opinionated nonsense. Everything was based upon the money flowing into the Banks, no knew that all that money in the Banks was actually worthles until the IFM struck. Northern Rock introduced the 125% mortgage and allowed mortgage multiples of 6 times income in the years running up to the Financial Crisis. After the collapse of NR the FSA who had been created by Gordon Brown to regulate the banking sector admitted that their supervision of the bank had not been carried out to a standard that is acceptable. Had the regulation in the UK been of the required standard the Financial Crisis would not have affected the UK as much as it did. It started in America where self-cert mortgages were being passed without thoroughly checking out the affordability, obviously they were after the commission.
It caught on here, hence the reason people were being granted mortgages on the flimsiest of financial evidence, then leading to mass repossessions, there is supposedly measures in place so that can't happen again ...
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 11, 2023 12:06:57 GMT
The rise in home ownership was encouraged by NL, it in no way caused the international financial meltdown (IFM) which threw all previous economic plans out of the window. That was caused by a totally American cock-up which not only hit without warning but was the worst economic crisis for 60 years. Part of the problem was the deregulation in the 1980s which meant that Building Societies and Banks could do both. Your claim of "total disregard to affordability" is a piece of opinionated nonsense. Everything was based upon the money flowing into the Banks, no knew that all that money in the Banks was actually worthles until the IFM struck. Northern Rock introduced the 125% mortgage and allowed mortgage multiples of 6 times income in the years running up to the Financial Crisis. After the collapse of NR the FSA who had been created by Gordon Brown to regulate the banking sector admitted that their supervision of the bank had not been carried out to a standard that is acceptable. Had the regulation in the UK been of the required standard the Financial Crisis would not have affected the UK as much as it did. As much as it did is not quantifiable. Are you suggesting the government should impose tighter controls on the banking industry including telling Northern rock how much they can lend? I didn't have you down as a lover of big government. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 11, 2023 12:11:24 GMT
Northern Rock introduced the 125% mortgage and allowed mortgage multiples of 6 times income in the years running up to the Financial Crisis. After the collapse of NR the FSA who had been created by Gordon Brown to regulate the banking sector admitted that their supervision of the bank had not been carried out to a standard that is acceptable. Had the regulation in the UK been of the required standard the Financial Crisis would not have affected the UK as much as it did. It started in America where self-cert mortgages were being passed without thoroughly checking out the affordability, obviously they were after the commission.
It caught on here, hence the reason people were being granted mortgages on the flimsiest of financial evidence, then leading to mass repossessions, there is supposedly measures in place so that can't happen again ...
Sub prime lending in America was unfettered. The scam worked by creating loans supposedly well checked but with 9 or 10% interest rates. These were then bundled and sold on, each time a buyer looked into what they had bought they saw the ticking time bomb and sold them on again. Eventually there were so many of these that no one dare admit to them as the whole market would collapse. (As it inevitably did) We even had Lloyds and others fiddling the LIBOR rate to create the illusion that banks were doing OK. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 11, 2023 18:05:00 GMT
Northern Rock introduced the 125% mortgage and allowed mortgage multiples of 6 times income in the years running up to the Financial Crisis. After the collapse of NR the FSA who had been created by Gordon Brown to regulate the banking sector admitted that their supervision of the bank had not been carried out to a standard that is acceptable. Had the regulation in the UK been of the required standard the Financial Crisis would not have affected the UK as much as it did. As much as it did is not quantifiable. Are you suggesting the government should impose tighter controls on the banking industry including telling Northern rock how much they can lend? I didn't have you down as a lover of big government. Is that not the purpose of banking regulation?. Canada did exactly what you suggested and had very little impact from the Financial crisis. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 11, 2023 18:26:14 GMT
As much as it did is not quantifiable. Are you suggesting the government should impose tighter controls on the banking industry including telling Northern rock how much they can lend? I didn't have you down as a lover of big government. Is that not the purpose of banking regulation?. Canada did exactly what you suggested and had very little impact from the Financial crisis. Because Canada has very little financial services. The damage done to our banks was from their lending in the U.S. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 11, 2023 18:34:31 GMT
Is that not the purpose of banking regulation?. Canada did exactly what you suggested and had very little impact from the Financial crisis. Because Canada has very little financial services. The damage done to our banks was from their lending in the U.S. Canada was also exposed to the US subprime lending, but because more conservative lending criteria was mandated by their regulator they did not see the crisis that we did. If you create a regulatory system and then that system fails at the first sign of stress you cannot claim that it had nothing to do with the crisis that the UK suffered. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Mar 11, 2023 18:43:52 GMT
Person debt, not government debt. Labour turned a blind eye to the huge rise in personal debt, and the handing out of credit and mortgages with total disregard to affordability. This left us more prone to financial damage than countries with tighter credit control. It is literally the same argument that the Tories weren't prepared for a pandemic when everybody was warning we would get one... Labour ignored all the warnings about the massive rise in high risk loans and mortgages. The rise in home ownership was encouraged by NL, it in no way caused the international financial meltdown (IFM) which threw all previous economic plans out of the window. That was caused by a totally American cock-up which not only hit without warning but was the worst economic crisis for 60 years. Part of the problem was the deregulation in the 1980s which meant that Building Societies and Banks could do both. Your claim of "total disregard to affordability" is a piece of opinionated nonsense. Everything was based upon the money flowing into the Banks, no knew that all that money in the Banks was actually worthles until the IFM struck. You keep saying the same thing time after time. Nobody said they caused the financial crisis. What people are saying, and what numerous reports into the matter concluded, is that massive personal debt and irresponsible lending DURING THE TIME LABOUR WHERE IN POWER left us vulnerable. I liked Blair, I voted for him three times, but they did fuck up on financial regulation, even Brown admitted that. Claiming Labour have no responsibility would as stupid as claiming the Tories did nothing wrong with their handling of COVID because "it started in China" lol. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 11, 2023 18:45:07 GMT
Because Canada has very little financial services. The damage done to our banks was from their lending in the U.S. Canada was also exposed to the US subprime lending, but because more conservative lending criteria was mandated by their regulator they did not see the crisis that we did. If you create a regulatory system and then that system fails at the first sign of stress you cannot claim that it had nothing to do with the crisis that the UK suffered. Yes but their financial sector is a much smaller part of their economy than ours. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 11, 2023 22:31:11 GMT
Canada was also exposed to the US subprime lending, but because more conservative lending criteria was mandated by their regulator they did not see the crisis that we did. If you create a regulatory system and then that system fails at the first sign of stress you cannot claim that it had nothing to do with the crisis that the UK suffered. Yes but their financial sector is a much smaller part of their economy than ours. and it survived intact because it was better regulated - size is not a measure of the quality of regulation. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 12, 2023 11:31:46 GMT
The rise in home ownership was encouraged by NL, it in no way caused the international financial meltdown (IFM) which threw all previous economic plans out of the window. That was caused by a totally American cock-up which not only hit without warning but was the worst economic crisis for 60 years. Part of the problem was the deregulation in the 1980s which meant that Building Societies and Banks could do both. Your claim of "total disregard to affordability" is a piece of opinionated nonsense. Everything was based upon the money flowing into the Banks, no knew that all that money in the Banks was actually worthles until the IFM struck. Northern Rock introduced the 125% mortgage and allowed mortgage multiples of 6 times income in the years running up to the Financial Crisis. After the collapse of NR the FSA who had been created by Gordon Brown to regulate the banking sector admitted that their supervision of the bank had not been carried out to a standard that is acceptable. Had the regulation in the UK been of the required standard the Financial Crisis would not have affected the UK as much as it did. Even an idiot could work out that there is no such thing as a 125% mortgage, clearly that is a mortgage plus a loan. All based upon the excesses of cash flowing through the Banks at that time. In hindsight i.e. post meltdown, Brown accepted that he could / should have done things differently. But all the slime thrown at Brown after money in the Banks across the Western economies disappeared due to the IFM are based upon nothing more than the hysterical need for anti-Brown propaganda from the Right of politics. And lets not forget that before the IFM no one shouted more for dropping red-tape than the Tories and Industrial leaders. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 12, 2023 11:37:37 GMT
Because Canada has very little financial services. The damage done to our banks was from their lending in the U.S. Canada was also exposed to the US subprime lending, but because more conservative lending criteria was mandated by their regulator they did not see the crisis that we did. If you create a regulatory system and then that system fails at the first sign of stress you cannot claim that it had nothing to do with the crisis that the UK suffered. Well not exactly, the Canadian chancellor had his fingers on the pulse of his next door neighbour. Lets not forget Sub Prime was an American problem, they allowed it to become an international problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 12, 2023 11:37:43 GMT
Northern Rock introduced the 125% mortgage and allowed mortgage multiples of 6 times income in the years running up to the Financial Crisis. After the collapse of NR the FSA who had been created by Gordon Brown to regulate the banking sector admitted that their supervision of the bank had not been carried out to a standard that is acceptable. Had the regulation in the UK been of the required standard the Financial Crisis would not have affected the UK as much as it did. that there is no such thing as a 125% mortgage, clearly that is a mortgage plus a loan. All based upon the excesses of cash flowing through the Banks at that time. In hindsight i.e. post meltdown, Brown accepted that he could / should have done things differently. But all the slime thrown at Brown after money in the Banks across the Western economies disappeared due to the IFM are based upon nothing more than the hysterical need for anti-Brown propaganda from the Right of politics. And lets not forget that before the IFM no one shouted more for dropping red-tape than the Tories and Industrial leaders. Yup, well done.  |
|
