Be Excellent To Each Other

So an exact parallel then, pretty much.

So what? A body performing the de facto role of regulator did discover it. A *competent* body, who, in stark contrast to Labour's entirely self-confessed gross deficiencies in that regard, actually knew their shit, and were thus equipped to deal with the situation. Unlike, say, a really shit, misconceived government body like the FSA, who didn't know what they were looking at, or for, and in fact weren't even looking at the right things, or the bigger picture, again by subsequent candid admission.
Still, semantics etc., bravo. Way to miss the point, there.

Yes, "pretty much" as in "not at all".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna ... sportation

Bravo indeed

I mean, unless you’re suggesting that Help the Aged and stafford polytechnic not noticing the banking crash and telling the FCA about it underlines a failing in Gordon Browns watch.

I think you need a good, strong, milky cup of tea.

No cup of tea is strong when it's had milk added

Very true.

Remember that remix of Clegg's apology? That was good fun.

So the fact that no 'competent body', governmental or private, in 20+ different countries didn't discover the underlying risk is Labour's fault? And every educated financier and economist on earth is stupider than your six year old nephew?

Bored with this now. If you want to know where they (Labour) went wrong, re-read Gordon Brown's apology where he talks very specifically about all the really stupid things that they - Labour - did (or rather, didn't do). You know, all that stuff about not knowing the first clue what the financiers were up to (which even you can't seriously claim is some amazing, unforeseeable error - if you don't have a scooby of the thing you're supposed to be policing, you're fucked, as my grandson will no doubt confirm for you), not to mention how shit, ineffectual and misdirected the FSA was, how they didn't realise how interconnected banks were (like, fucking DUH) and all the rest. You know, all that. (Assuming you don't *really* think Gordon Brown didn't actually mean any of it... )

Oh, and please don't start going on about what other people failed to do either. Like I've said a dozen times now, and to be fair as Brown specifically apologised for this very thing, if you're so stupid as to think you actually don't need to know stuff about that which you're supposed to be regulating, irrespective of what others were and were not doing (I could not give a shit about them, it wasn't their governmental duty to regulate the UK financial sector), well, you shouldn't be entrusted with a debit card, let alone the banks.

It's just always someone else's fault with the Left isn't it; "misplaced self-belief" doesn't even begin to cover it. But then, that was the core problem in this case wasn't it; I'm still just amazed any (belated) apology was even forthcoming at all.

All I can really do is repeat the exact same thing, to be honest. Every single regulator failed to predict or prevent the crisis. Regulators under left wing government, right wing governments, fiscally liberal governments, and fiscally conservative governments. The underlying bad behaviour in the banks was almost exclusively rooted in banks in the US, with the other countries institution mostly suffering the fallout as a result of the inter-trading of asset backed loan books for which the assets were a myth.
There was specific US legislation in place (therefore de-facto global legislation, because that's how banking works) that would have prevented what happened. It was called Glass-Steagall, and it was enacted after the Great Depression. It was repealed in 1999 by a Republican Congress and a Republican Senate. That was the direct cause of the failure to regulate the banks in the leadup to 1999. Not the FSA because the UK could not possibly in any way impose unilateral legislation on the global banking industry.

I have no issues with saying Labour/GB should have done better. But to say that they, or left wing politics, are directly to blame is outright bonkers. I'm sorry, but it's outright falsehood.

There's no politician's mea culpa that's going to change that in any way whatsoever.

Well, all I can do is to (yet again) redirect you to the absolute specifics of what Gordon Brown said - about "big mistakes" on his government's part; caving in to pressure from the Banks; a complete failure to understand the interconnected nature of modern banking/practices; a total ignorance of how things worked and what it actually was they were supposed to be policing. You can try your usual schtik at this point and attempt to widen the debate by pointing out that other important players also did very badly, but absolutely none of this in any way deflects what *I* am saying about the UK government whose express task it was to regulate the City of London, ergo a *huge* chunk of the world's total financial sector and transactions, and upon which the entire fate of this country of 70 million souls very much depended.

Let's be honest, Cras, it's just the same old straw man nonsense, eh. No-one, least of all me, is denying that other governments were also rubbish, but, given the scale and influence of the City of London, in this specific (financial) sphere, you simply cannot claim it was all the Americans guv, even in the face of Gordon Brown's confirmation that they didn't have a clue what they were doing and were acting in total ignorance, and looking in the wrong direction.

It's not even so much a Left and Right thing (albeit it's true to say that post-war left wing governments of the UK have an utterly sorry fiscal outcome record, whatever else they may have achieved, with an almighty great fiscal mess to be cleaned up (by the Tories) every time - and the Blair/Brown government's demise was the worst example of the lot). I don't believe that to be a left wing government is to be *inherently* incompetent and/or negligent; it is quite possible to hold to this ideology and pursue left wing policies and *still* have a good knowledge about matters of governance, and, specifically in this case, full knowledge of that which you seek to regulate (and are required to regulate).What I'm suggesting, in fact, that the whole business of not knowing what they were regulating and not understanding how any of it worked etc. is not a function of being left wing at all, but actually a function of being the Labour Party, and therefore incompetent. I mean seriously, what did Labour ever run well? Even their sacred NHS is in tatters in Labour-controlled Wales; they're just bloody useless.

As for your writing the whole thing off as "one politician's mea culpa", I did have a chuckle at that. The guy is not "some politician" but was the Prime Minister at the time - and more importantly, Chancellor of the Exchequer for the 10 years leading up to the whole sorry debacle (and to a large extent, Architect of those exact failing institutions like the FSA). I realise it makes for awkward reading but try to rise above the programming as it were, old chap? This is a rare and candid insight into just how complacent and useless that government *really* was, and it serves as a salient lesson as to how things can go badly wrong (current in-fighting Conservative Party take note). Perhaps if there had been less of the "Blairites" vs. "Brownites" briefings, counter-briefings and ridiculous office politics shite that so characterized and engulfed that sorry administration for years leading up to the crash, they may have had at least half an eye on the ball.

Vince Cable saw it coming.

I actually think Vince Cable is ace. Seriously.
I've long been a fan, and at this rate I'm voting for him.

He did very well with the Royal Mail.

Just as well the present government isn't embarking on policies that might massively raise prices, reduce trade, and move major industries overseas.

Cavey, not poking a stick, but how do you think Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling responded to the crisis? Some accounts I've read seem very complementary about their decisiveness compared to the US government's.

Also Obama's decision to stimulate growth with spending after the crash is widely accepted as the reason America's economy recovered much better than ours did under austerity.

Indeed, they also framed a much better bailout deal than we did. The US made a tidy profit out of the bailout loans in a reasonable timeframe. Which we obviously did not.

Quality work by the equality dude, I see.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... aloud-orgy

Still, it's tricky to find someone whiter than white (you know what I mean) for any position, especially one that can be ruined by an off-hand quip when you were a teenager. I can't find anything about whether or not he did a good job while on the committee (but I should probably read the whole article).

This is likely to happen more and more. Everyone was a dick and said cringy things at some point in their youth. Unfortunately, people aren't going to accept the 'I was an ignorant teenager/edgy 20-something but have grown up and moved on a heck of a lot' line, and it's only ever going to be an easy way to remove someone.

I have some sympathy. In the internet age almost everything you say is recorded for posterity.

This is why I'd never run for public office. Too many skeletons from my younger years!

Yeah it's like when a youthful 60 year old Trump said about grabbing women by the pussy and then he never became president. Imagine the clusterfuck that would be happening now if that tape hadn't come out?

oh.

Outrage only really works with the left as they turn on themselves along with the right with a "Pile on" mentality, whereas the right close ranks or go into damage limitation mode. None of those fuckers ever says sorry.

You know, I'm not sure that's the biggest barrier to your election.

You would say that, centrist scum

The left need to do that as there is competition to show who is the most ideologically pure.

It's because they aren't sorry. They're only sorry that their attempt to maintain the facade of not being a bunch of massive arseholes has failed on that occasion.

If only you'd been less into necrophilia.

SPLITTERS

This is one of the issues I have with The Left (and The Right). It's binary, very much "for or against", "our way or wrong". In NuNuLabLand, this manifests as faith in the one true saviour as "he's the right side of history". Any critiscm of ideas, policies or actions is met with a wave of hostility. This is even directed against journalists (also, I suspect Laura K gets more as she's a woman) who are part of the mainstream media plot against The Left. It's silo'd cult thinking with very little room for course correction, with a reluctance to hold a mirror up to themselves, instead needing a 2 minute hate against anyone with a nuance of doubt of the effectiveness of The Plan who isn't in The Club. The reverence and "he can do no wrong" attitude sits uncomfortably with me as there is no critical thinking, just "wouldn't it be great...?".

There was originally a point, but I've lost it somewhere but it is something like building a country on memes, slogans and skipping the hard questions isn't a great idea.

Myp and I align in wanting a fair and just society for all, for example, but we differ in what happens next. I view it as the state should provide opportunities for people to learn and develop (whilst keeping them safe and secure), and encourage them to do their best to get optimum results. This basis (a well run welfare and support system) would would then let people pursue jobs and careers in an efficient economy with the state only acting as a guiding hand in severe circunstances. Private enterprise will be rewarded as this funds the basic services of societybthrough taxation.

Myp wants everyone to work in a bakery on the same wage producing slightly less bread than is needed whilst smog from the tractor factories gives everyone asbestosis and it rains all the time.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... -17/108255

Interesting tidbit: DoE expects 40-45% of student loans to never be repaid.



They should sack loans off and replace it with a proper graduate tax. It'd be clearer.

Or just stick a percentage point on the higher rate of income tax and be done with it.

The same is true of Tories as well, Mali, and in fact 99% of humanity. Most people aren't intrinsically bad, and most people genuinely want a fairer, nicer, more equitable society.
As ever, the (sole) disagreement arises from how best to execute this/the required methology - but not the objective.

Sure, but I think there's a pretty big extent to which some people are attracted to methodologies which benefit them first and foremost.

I read somewhere that less well off people (skilfully avoiding a judgmental term, good work MaliA) vote tory as they see themselves as soon to be rich so the policies that negatively change their current position were thought to be less important.

Yeah, and often it is about making the least bad decision.

That is very much the case in the US. The ethos of the American dream means that the less well off see themselves as temporarily disadvantaged, and thus disapprove of things like taxation of the wealthy because it could affect them some day.

In a break from our planning Utopia, read about an aeroplane that has been keeping a watchful eye over Baltimore.

Mrs T's logic behind selling off the council houses was to make the occupants homeowners and thus more likely to be Tory now they were property owners too.

I'm assuming you accept Boris, Gove and JRM all fall into that 1% of people only out to further their own career?

I would say there's a fair few more Tories with naked, untrammelled ambition as their key driver rather than a fairer society.

I even thought Thatcher was at least doing what she thought was right - there's far too many of the current mob just looking out for number one.

Call me naive but I think Thatcher was for the most part driven by a simple, genuine desire to provide a serious catalyst and game changing, new found upwards mobility for the masses, as distinct from row upon row of decaying, state controlled housing.

I seriously doubt it was all some evil plot to create Tory voters.

Sadly, I no longer think that's true for any of the parties.

Objective #1 is to stay in power - all other things are secondary.

Of course. If you believe Labour are feckless idiots who cannot be trusted to run a bath, you must, at all costs, keep them out of power to prevent the harm they'd do.

Why, I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!

Bakery jobs for all, comrades!

Let them eat cake!