GazChap wrote:
Let's face it, Cavey, regardless of whether people agree or disagree on Labour screwing up on that point, will you at least admit that there is no fucking way on God's green Earth that the Tories would have regulated any differently? They admitted as much at the time, and given how many prominent Tory donors (and members too, no doubt) are involved in the financial sector, there's no way in hell that the Tories would have done anything that impacted negatively on their mates.
This, coupled with the fact that the economic crisis in the UK was as a "side effect" to the worldwide economic crisis, which Labour were in no way at fault, means that a Tory government would have basically had exactly the same outcome. The only practical difference is that the Tories now would not be able to constantly moan about Labour's mismanaging of the economy, despite everything still being shit after 7 years of Tory rule.
+++ THE EVIL TORREEES WOULD'VE DONE THE SAME KLAXON +++
Oh for fuck's sake, back into the UK, only to read this ridiculous shite yet again.
First things first: it isn't (or shouldn't be, if you can read the plain English that constitutes Gordon Brown's apology) a case of whether or not people agree whether Labour screwed up: they absolutely did, fact, as expressly admitted. For the
nth time, here are the salient elements (er, from one page back):
Quote:
Gordon Brown has admitted he made a "big mistake" over the handling of financial regulation in the run-up to the banking crisis of 2008.
The former prime minister told a US conference he had not realised the "entanglements" of global institutions.
He said: "We set up the FSA [the City regulator] believing the problem would come from the failure of an individual institution. That was the big mistake.
"We didn't understand just how entangled things were."
Addressing the Institute for New Economic Thinking in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, Mr Brown he had come under "relentless pressure" from the City not to over-regulate.
"We know in retrospect what we missed. We set up the Financial Services Authority (FSA) believing that the problem would come from the failure of an individual institution," he said.
"So we created a monitoring system which was looking at individual institutions. That was the big mistake.
"We didn't understand how risk was spread across the system, we didn't understand the entanglements of different institutions with the other and we didn't understand even though we talked about it just how global things were, including a shadow banking system as well as a banking system.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013So basically, and as a matter of admitted plain fact, Labour failed to regulate due to "relentless pressure" from those whose duty it was to regulate (imagine the Police bowing to "relentless pressure" from motorists not to enforce speed limits, except the consequences of which would cost less than a trillion or so quid).
By their own crystal clear, specific admission, they created a demonstrably critically flawed monitoring and regulatory system of entirely of their own design (FSA), itself working on an entirely misguided methodology and Brief of their own making (looking at individual institutions and ignoring the plainly fucking obvious inter-connectivity of the the Banks - which they didn't even understand. (How the fuck can you regulate and police something that you don't have the first clue about (after 11 years)? It's not a matter of hindsight, it's plainly obvious that this is a recipe for absolute disaster!)
So, swivel-eyed thick cultists aside, no-one - absolutely NO-ONE - could deny that culpability rests with Labour here, not least because it is completely fucking admitted. People keep saying to me "it was the banks, not Labour", but if you don't have the first clue about whatever it is you have a statutory duty to police, you can hardly be surprised when the bunch of crooks you're supposed to be policing shaft you and everyone else? If the government of the day takes all the police off the streets and anarchy ensues, simply saying "it wasn't us, guv, it was the terrible criminals" would be a little stupid, yes? Would it not be equally pathetic to say, that in the event of switching all speed cameras off, the ensuing speeding epidemic would be wholly the fault of those motorists who are speeding?
Look, bankers will be bankers, that's why it is such a desperately important *UK* governmental duty, given the scale and size of the City of London (financial sector) relative to the UK economy and the entire world, and their need to be kept on a very "short leash" (Thatcher's words, not mine
). With the exception of New York (perhaps), the City of London (in 2008) was a financial services superpower, so it really isn't valid to be talking about the crash affecting Sweden, Belgium or Denmark too. The UK was (and still is) an absolute giant of that world and it is thus disproportionately important that WE get it right, far more so than anywhere else.
So your comment that we (the City of London) were some "side effect" and Labour were "in no way at fault" is laughably, demonstrably false bollocks, sorry. Get a grip.
As for the old Tories would've done the same blah blah, done to death a million times. Great defence Gaz: next time you get pulled up before the judge for speeding, just tell him your neighbour would've done exactly the same, sure that'll get you off. I mean seriously, how pathetic can this get? It's fucking irrelevant what you or I think the Tories may or may not have done. I could point to the fact that they spent 19 years in government and 13 years since the big bang, and through two recessions (remember "you can't buy your way out of recession"... ring any bells?
), and on that basis claim, with good justification, that unlike Labour's admitted clueless fuckwittery about not having the first idea what the financial sector was up to, the Conservative Party is demonstrably far more successful at keeping it under sufficient control whilst allowing it to grow and thrive. It would be almost as stupid as your entirely groundless claim that they would have been just as utterly absurdly incompetent, though, because (a) it is unknowable, we don't have a crystal ball at our disposal, and more importantly (b) it doesn't matter - see my earlier example about the validity of the "the other bloke would've done just the same, guv!" defence. Fuck, what are we here, 5-year olds? Labour_were_in_government (for 11 years) and as hard as it is for lefties everywhere to comprehend matters of governmental responsibility, restraint and efficacy, it was their absolute duty to firstly understand what was going on, and to regulate accordingly, what was uniquely for the UK an enormous proportion of its economy. Fucks sake, honestly.
tl;dr: Labour were weak, clueless, ignorant, confident without any basis of fact or underpinning expertise (or even basic understanding) on their part, and stupid, and they demonstrably fucked it, by their own admission.
(As for everything still being shit after 7 years of Tory government, well, that just about sums up your critical faculties eh Gaz. At least 2 million people more in work, an unrecognisably better shape economy, FTSE250 British Companies valued at 400% what they were in 2009-10. Yeah, it's all gone to ratshit in 7 years huh. Fuck, why do I bother
)