Shared publicly  - 
Politicians investigating bankers will not convince the British people. We will continue to argue for a full and open inquiry.
Joan Smith's profile photoSkye Broadwith's profile photomagdy Mohanna's profile photoMark Duggan's profile photo
It definitely will not convince me. We need a Leveson style inquiry and nothing less.
Come on Ed, lets have some support for Europe and UK in Europe. The looney right are having a field day in the media. Oh and don't take a spotlight off the Bankers until they have cleaned their companies from top to bottom. If being honest and trustworthy is too hard for them here in the UK/Europe then I for one give them permission to leave.
It's sad that labour gave in to the thinly veiled threats from banking to let them play fast and loose. Hope you've learned a lesson and call their bluff next time
Yes! Yes we shall! Good call Eddie!
Quite right Ed. We don't trust politicians any more than we trust bankers to fiddle the economy. Might have guessed they'd been up to no good all along. BTW how come Mr King didn't suspect this was going on years ago? I think he did - so ok, lets haul 'em all in front of Leveson and let them look us all in the eye and say what they thought was going on. And you too Mr Milliband, did you even care what a Libor was until last week? Anything else being fiddled while we're at it? Best check now eh!
On the other hand we do trust the police, at least we trust them when they are arresting bankers.
What a stupid man. We do not need an enquiry. I am just going to move my business account elsewhere. Fed up with stupid politicians thinking enquiries solve anything. Leveson will not sort out the press. Stopping buying the papers would.
To quote BBC "As early as 2005 there was evidence Barclays had tried to manipulate dollar Libor and Euribor (the euro equivalent of Libor) rates at the request of its derivatives traders and other banks." By all accounts this corruption has spread right across the global banking system. So we have the BoE setting interest rates on the one hand and corrupt bankers, fiddling the rates to their advantage on the other. Barclays is simply top of the list of banks fiddling the inter-bank lending rates. It seems everyone in the banking industry knew about it while the politicians stood by and pretended it wasn't happening. Just as with the irresponsible high-risk inter-bank lending that got the world's economies in a mess in the first place. Incredibly, the police took no action because under the misapplication of UK law the bankers were considered to have committed no crimes! It's now up to US to bring criminal charges. UK politicians needed to change the law years ago to make sure the 2006 Fraud Act applied equally to bankers. So why didn't they do that? Makes you question just who is really running the country!
"What a stupid man. We do not need an enquiry. I am just going to move my business account elsewhere."

+Kevin Davis  Are you suggesting everyone moves their business banking accounts away from the UK?
Obviously as a Chief Executive and politician you're better placed to understand economic matters better than working class schmucks like myself, but surely that would be one of the most retarded acts of fuckwittery witnessed since the dark ages.
You don't think bringing facts to light in order that sound decisions can be made is worthwhile? You are a beacon of light for democracy, I salute you.
Breaking News: Bob Diamond resigns from Barclays Bank with immediate effect.
@kevindavies "one of the most retarded acts of fuckwittery witnessed since the dark ages"

That's a great line...
Breaking News: Bob Diamond resigns from Barclays Bank with immediate effect.
If Mr Diamond had been in charge of a blood bank or an organ bank, millions of flk living nearby would of mysteriously disappeared.....
As Bob Diamond is now gone lets have a full Leveson style inquiry to see what has happened and what can be done to get confidence back in the square mile if that's possible after this debacle.
+Daniel Sandercock I imagine there will be too much resistance from the Conservatives given the demographic of their party sponsors. Hope I'm wrong though.
Ultimately we need to consider what place this type of banking has in society. That we hand over Billions of pounds in bail outs to prop up their lifestyles when they screw up is incomprehensible, and is the very reason why domestic/high street banking needs to be separated. Finally allowing failing banks to fail without the massive cost to the tax payer.
So Ed, what exactly do the the British people need convincing of? It is pretty clear the British people want their tax "investment" in banks protected and their money properly managed, not to mention money lent to businesses to create jobs etc. The best way to restore confidence is to make sure the Police SFO is on the case to pull out every individual involved in this serious fraud. In the meantime government politicians and the BoE going back at least to 2005 need to face the public gallery to explain what they knew and what they were doing about it. The sort of inquiry you are talking about Mr Miliband will just create a smokescreen for your politician cronies to hide behind - by all means do that long-term if it makes you happy but  FGS lets get on and deal with the matter in hand. The British people are looking forward to next Monday's Crimewatch UK and are on the look out for suspects. So Ed, as they say "Have you seen anything suspicious?".
This is massive treasonous fraud. Seize their assets, and jail them.
I don't care about who investigates them, but if they've broken the law, it should be the poilce!
I know I shouldn't but it's easy to be cynical. I tend to ignore a lot of what politicians say, either accidentally (they don't half drone on) or deliberately (culling the chaff from the wheat - or the spin from the substance). I ended up with this:

Politicians....<snip>....will not convince the British people. We will continue....<snip>
Stop blathering about enquiries. Demand arrests of those suspected of fraud. Otherwise you are letting the twit Cameron set your agenda.
The debate, and a hollow one in the grand scheme of things, is centred around "money well spent". The Parliamentary Inquiry will cost less and be completed more quickly. The full inquiry will cost much more and take more time to set up and then be longer in gathering and assessing the evidence.

I believe the wrongdoing in this matter is relatively clear-cut (once the evidence is gathered up) and can be dealt with by the criminal courts or the regulators (don't laught too hard at that).

Whether it is dealt with is another matter, but a solution is essential. I believe the Parliamentary Inquiry will have as much impact as a full inquiry - ie it will put pressure on SFO, FSA and Government to do something. Neither option guarantees success, so why spend more money and more time on it.

Save energy and resources for the implementation of changes in the industry, rather than investing heavily on inspecting the past. Lessons must be learnt, but the process must be cost-effective too.
The Police Should Also Carry Out A Full Investigation Of The #Libor  Fraud Manipulation That Barclays Bank Has Carried Out & Possibly Another 15-20 Bank In The Uk Too :/

I Don't See How Bankers Working In The #Libor  Departments, Aren't All Be Arrested By The Uk Police & Those Who Can Be Charged For #Libor  Fraud Manipulation, Should Be Charged & Sentenced To Prison Or Big Community Services & Fines, & No Longer Able To Work In Banks Or Financial Services In The Uk.


More People Must Be Arrested & Sentenced, Compared To Those Within Media News & Mobile,E-Mail,Voice Mail, Hacking & Then Publishing Stories On The Information The Fraudulently Came Across By Illegal Ways & Means :/

We Need A Full Judge Lead Public Enquiry/Inquiry, Like Leveson Enquiry/Inquiry, But Much More Better & More Powerful When Freezing & Accessing Computer,Laptop,Tablet,E-Mail Account/s,Landline Voice Messages & Call Records, Along With Text Messages & Mobile Voice Messages, & Call Logs, Even Getting ISP's & Mobile Companies, Landline Companies, Accessing Their Servers & Supplying The Lead Judge Public Investigation's & Publicly Heal In Front Of BBC News (Red Button BBC News Live) Every Text Message Sent & Received, Saved & Deleted, Every Voice Mail Received,Saved,& Deleted, On The Mobile/s, Every Voice Mail Received,Saved, & Deleted, On The Landline/s, & ALL SAVED,DRAFTS/DRAFTED,SENT,RECEIVED,FORWARDED, E-MAILS, BUSINESSES E-MAIL ADDRESSES, PERSONAL E-MAIL ADDRESSES, & POSSIBLE SPARE/HIDDEN MOBILE ACCOUNTS, E-MAIL ACCOUNTS, & LANDLINE ACCOUNTS.

Just Because Barclays Bank Didn't Borrow Money/Monies From The Uk Government/Tax Payers,

It Doesn't Mean Barclays Bank Can Get Away With #Libor Fraud Manipulation's Of #Libor Lending, Also Nor Does It Mean The Other 15-20 Banks In The Uk Can Get Away With #Libor  Fraud Manipulation/s :( :/
I suspect the politicians (as usual) are in the middle of this business. Politicians are arrogant and consumnate liars. You can be sure that Milliband wants a full enquiry in order to ensure that No.11 is brought into it and Cameron wants an enquiry by politicians whom he can control and direct... and do his bidding. It is obvious that Cameron came straight out of posh boys school straight into a slot arranged by daddy for a political career leading to a Lordship. Let's get UKIP into office right now.
We need an independant police branch inside the Houses of parliament .......they are all crooks and their officials.
UKIP? Your having a laugh right? There just far-right wingnuts that are too loud for the Tory party. Getting them in would solve sod all and create more problems in terms of xenophobia and turn this country into something none of us want.
I hate to say it Politicians are there with Estate Agents and DG salesmen. Perceived as being economical with the truth. Public enquiry is the only way to keep the Lord Weasel from yrt another cover up!
HUH ! Promises are like snowballs easy to make hard to keep!!!!!!!
Well these all high profiled, posh ,self proclaimed Gods classifies themselves as Politicians, Bankers, editors are thick as thieves with each others ending their days by sending 'LOL' texts to each others well the real Justice will be done when the victims( Barclays customers) will get a a full refund each n every penny over charged from day one to the last day then it can be said some one do have Balls other wise ya know these chums(politicians& bankers) they come n go just like a bunch of mosquitoes who comes in swarms, buzz buzz and drink ya blood spread diseases and gone and the poor sick effected people just left in misery
While I acknowledge the many sentiments expressed regarding politicians and their flaws, I'm surprised so few have noted that +Ed Miliband is not just any old politician, but a leader of a political party. Surely if +Ed Miliband believes his statement about public perceptions of him and his political peers then he should be conducting an inquiry himself into how to inject some integrity into Labour MPs behaviour, conduct, and work.

At one time a Parliamentary Inquiry would be respected and add weight to proposals for changes in policy and legislation.

Sad times indeed when the leader of the opposition speaks so openly against the elected House of Commons, and nobody flinches.
well I agree with what ya said but they lost their respects because of the difference between their actions n words 
+Steve Farr And you think that a Judge led inquiry wouldn't bring that up? The real reason that Cameroon does not want a Judge led inquiry is because of the shit storm he created by allowing the last one into press ethics. It's widely known that he never anticipated it going and digging as deep into Politicians as it did.

"Once bitten, twice shy" comes to mind.
+Daniel Sandercock I've got no problem with a Judge led inquiry so long as its done later down the line, then it can drag on forever at politicians leisure.

In the immediate term we just need the Police to get in there and do their job. So far we haven't even heard if Police are even involved, all the while politicians are stalling because they and the BoE have known about it since at least 2008, and there is evidence going back to 2005. There is clearly blood on everyone's hands and i'm suspicious that the sort of inquiry Ed wants will just put a smoke screen over the whole affair.

But while the Serious Fraud Squad get on with it, yes it would be nice to have a few politicians and the BoE, as well as other banks execs grilled in front of a public gallery. The British people i trust are capable of judging character when given the opportunity to look 'em in the eye. The next general election is not that far away - i say lets deal with it at the ballot box! What we need now from politicians are solutions.
My point is that unless there is an open enquiry the thieving money grabbing scum will get away with it! Unless the Police have a specific mandate nothing will happen! Take their bonuses and retirement plans and plug them back into the people who actually work. £30m for the NHS for Diamonds retirement plan fair trade. I'll be fair on the Politicians perceptions thing I like my MP not his politics. Every letter, email, or petition he has received from me has had a reply.  
+Joe Murtagh  Better than my local MP. I wrote to the goon two weeks ago about Richard O'Dwyer and have still yet to receive a reply.
"Leveson Style Inquiry"? Yes lets poor millions of pounds into a inquiry which will achieve the same as a parliamentary inquiry just to appease the masses. Typical populist drivel.
+Dan Poulton Typical populist drivel? Please enlighten me as to how a Leveson style inquiry is "Typical Populist Drivel". Without it we would not have found out even a fraction of the shenanigans that were being carried out, the Politicians and Police had swept it under the carpet and we all know why they did that after Leveson and Jay dragged them up into the dock. The Commons Committee was shown to have had no power or teeth to get to the bottom of it and I hold little hope that they will with the Bankers.

But do please as I said, enlighten me...
Stupid idea let's finance this by taking the thieving bankers bonuses. Anyone who has played straight gets let off scott free. Any dodgy dealing 100% tax plus a fine! 
+Daniel Sandercock 
I thought it was pretty obvious for my post that the Leveson inquiry itself is not populist drivel. The clamour led by the Labour party to bring about a Leveson style inquiry into the banking industry is populist drivel. 

+Ed Miliband (or his intern) is simply playing to masses who clamour to burn effigies of bankers from lampposts in lemmingesque move which is worryingly similar to the idiocy the cerebrally impaired masses threw at David Beckham post France 98.

The facts are that a parliamentary inquiry would find out the same facts and faults and identify the same issues and cost a fraction of the £6m that Leveson inquiry is projected to cost the taxpayer by its conclusion. 

However this is of no consideration (and never has been) when Labour are looking at their public appeal and flies in the face of their desperation to position themselves as the party of realpolitik.
+Dan Poulton That's better Dan, at least I can now see where you stand and what you meant by "Populist Drivel" even though I don't agree.
+Dan Poulton "The facts are that a parliamentary inquiry would find out the same facts and faults and identify the same issues".

I love it when people make bold sweeping statements without a shred of evidence to support their pet theories :-)
So you have no way of claiming you're right and I'm wrong +Jorge Miguel Oliveira e Silva and your position is based on POV, or a pet theory as you would call it? Sounds like pedantry seems to be infecting your clamour to be contrary.

There have been numerous parliamentary inquiries which have achieved the desired results in an open and transparent manner. My "pet theory", based on these past results, is that this would be the case again and deliver more "value for money" than the Levesonesque piffle we've had to endure.

Of course I've no way of being as certain of its outcome as you are, given that the inquiry (in whatever form) hasn't even happened yet. 
I have had this Bitching for a few days usually on the Iphone. Hello Data costs! Stupid idea from someone who cannot be bothered to read the full transcript! People in work pay taxes those on benefits do not! Create universal tax equity and get people back to work! 
+Dan Poulton I've not made a claim, you have. I've just pointed out your claim is based on a premise for which you have but anecdotal evidence for. That is an unassailable fact. You're basically asserting that judicial enquiries and parliamentary enquiries have equal odds of finding the truth. Or at least, parliamentary enquiries are better "value for money", whatever that means. Where's your evidence?
You're claiming your view is right and mine wrong are you not? 

However I suspected, given previous encounters with your MO that this would lower itself into a vacuous exercise in hair splitting, so please count me out +Jorge Miguel Oliveira e Silva.
I had already done so previously when I said "there have been numerous parliamentary inquiries which have achieved the desired results in an open and transparent manner"
That does not help in assessing the effectiveness of parliamentary enquiries vs judicial enquiries. You claimed that parliamentary enquiries are better value for money and just as good as judicial enquiries. Where is the evidence to substantiate that?
The "evidence" is in that the results of previous parliamentary inquiries having achieved their goals at a lower cost to equivalent judicial inquiries. 

However I get the feeling you're trying to be obtuse and ask for a like for like comparison. Is this correct? 
How can you make a comparison if it's not a like for like comparison?

If you can compare apples and oranges... well anything goes then, you just pick whatever apples and oranges you like so the comparison goes your way.

You call it obtuseness... that's an opinion. I prefer to refer to it as intellectual rigour.
Comparisons come in many forms Jorge. Not all of them like for like………….

I wasn't making a like for like comparison - I was stating that if one event achieved a similarly satisfactory outcome as another event, yet it cost less then this can be classed as offering "value for money" even despite there being no symmetry or shared subject matter between both events.

Perhaps you've overlooked this fact in an effort to prove / project some sort of this intellectual rigour you are trying to convince us of.

Now I'm sure you have some work to do, as I have, so lets agree that you were wrong and move on.
What you are doing is comparing apples and oranges and claiming that this is just as valid as comparing apples and apples.

Fact of the matter is, you don't know if a parliamentary enquiry is as effective as a judicial one or vice versa. You have no way of knowing. It is simply a piece of rhetoric you latched on to to stop your argument falling like a pack of cards.

You're fully aware of this too but rather than admit that you cannot possibly know for sure, you tie yourself into knots trying to argue that in some cases you can compare apples and oranges and that this is just as good.

That's a total disrespect for evidence and truth.

And when you finish your comments with remarks like "lets agree that you were wrong and move on" (sic) that belong on a school playground rather than an intelligent discussion you really don't help your case at all...
Far from tying myself in knots my argument has remained constant in the face of your obtuse approach.

If you take some time to read through my past posts I've admitted that 1) one cannot be certain of the outcome as any inquiry is yet to take place, however this is based on the outcomes of previous inquiries reaching a satisfactory (and cheaper) conclusion and 2) that the subjects being compared don't need to be exactly the same for a comparison regarding the subject at hand to still be valid.

If you don't like the use of patronisation then I suggest you take a good hard look at your own MO and or "move on". 

Feel free to have the last word (if you need it). This is the last  reply you'll get from me on this matter as it's been pretty puerile and tedious trying to explain something so obvious to someone who craves the contrary.  
Fact of the matter is you made an assertion that you have no hard evidence for. Some fluffy stuff about previous enquiries reaching so called satisfactory conclusions. Nothing in there has any degree of solidity.

What you're saying is equivalent to stating that if medicine A reduces the chance of heart failure at a cheaper cost than medicine B than there is no point in using medicine B. Even if we have no idea whatsoever what the benefits of B as compared to A are. That's either a total misunderstanding of logic or pig headedness from someone who's been caught out and is trying to wriggle out of a discussion he can't possibly win.
+Joseph Fox Do you know anything about politics? Ed Miliband was an advisor to the PM back in the day when Labour were busy spending all of the money we had and ruining the country. 

Labour in its current form and with its current team can never again be trusted to run the country.
+Mark Skinner If they didn't spend money during the first recession, the banks would've collapsed and that would mean all of our money would be lost. That would cause a massive panic and Britain would enter a Depression and we would end up with a much larger deficit.... Labour did the right thing.
+Joseph Fox Labour were borrowing £30bn a year as early as 2006 (during the boom years) and had planned to borrow a further £60bn the following 2 years. So yes they did the right thing when bailing out the banks, thats without question, however it was their spend, spend, spend - tax, tax, tax policies of the previous 10 years which meant that when the FS crash impacted we were in such a vunerable position. 

And Gordon Brown was warned of impending issues within FS as early at 2006/2007 yet still pushed on regardless.
I dont blame Gordon Brown entirely +Mark Skinner. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were his primary advisors......
I know +Dan Poulton and yet they have the balls (pardon the pun) to try and tell the current incumbents how to run the economy. Some people in this country have very short memories!
+Dan Poulton pray tell us Dan, what was the debt to GDP ratio at the beginning of Brown's stewardship and what was it when the financial crisis hit in 2007?
When it hit or when the effects were felt +Jorge Miguel Oliveira e Silva? Because as you know the impact is really only felt years afterwards.... but I guess thats why you're asking for these figures within these timeframes
So it looks to me that up to the crisis good ol' Gordie had the debt running pretty much where he found it. Is that correct?
Well far from defending ol' Gordie I'd be so bold as to say that he should have run a tighter fiscal ship... to allow room for the slump if you know what I mean... but to say the man was profligate... well that takes a pair of very coloured partisan shades, something our danny boy is not a stranger to.
+Jorge Miguel Oliveira e Silva Brown was profligate and caught with his pants down. No wonder Clegg couldn't stomach the idea of him remaining PM in the event of a Lib-Lab coalition actually taking shape after the 2010 election.
Shall we stick to facts marky mark please. Just repeating an assertion without providing hard evidence makes you sound like a sycophantic fool. I know you can do better
Im pleased to hear your left-wing allegiance doesn't find you trying to deny facts and I agree with you. 
And the reason I now vote Tory (for all their ills).
However, if during a period of huge growth (97 GDP was $1.36tr, 07 GDP was $2.8 tr) you have to create 157 new taxes and still borrow to the extent that the G8, G20, ECB, IMF and BoE warn the Govt about their plans then I have to disagree that he wasnt wanton.
And that has nothing to do with ideological leanings (I used to vote Labour), but more to do with common sense.
+Jorge Miguel Oliveira e Silva That's Mr. Skinner to you and those are the facts. You tell me which part of my last post wasn't factual. I certainly won't be patronised by anyone. I know the facts and it's your problem if you can't stomach them.
Danny boy, facts are facts. The man should have done better than to steer the ship along the same route. If you're really interested in the causes you could do a lot worse than Simon Wren-Lewis' latest post, Google mainly macro. But to call him profligate? It's either partisanship or ignorance. Read Simon and then we can talk
+Mark Skinner dont worry about his MO. It's ever so transparent when he feels he needs to patronise. Just smile smuggly and rise above it.
You seem rather obsessed with me danny. That's not healthy. Why don't you stick to the discussion matter?
Not at all. To recognise vacuousness does not demonstrate anything akin to Stockholm Syndrome
More ad hominem? Oh please... have you read Simon's post at all? Economics is much more interesting when two people know what they're on about
Although I must say that I find it funny that you insist on facts. facts, facts yet quote academic economists as though that is proof enough.
What's wrong? Dont like the taste of your own medicine +Jorge Miguel Oliveira e Silva ?
Its also much more fun when the other person grasps that economics is a science made up of facts married to perspective rather than a purely factual science.
My A Level teacher taught me much.
And who did I quote? Do you know what quoting means? I don't think it means what you think it means you know...
Sorry Dan but I'm confused now. What exactly do you think I'm trying to prove, what facts did I not supply to corroborate and who and how did I quote?
Seriously Jorge. The hair splitting is rather embarrassing... I know you can do better
Na. Cant be arsed....Its you who are trying to claim I'm wrong so please feel free to argue against the views of the economic views of the G8, G20, IMF, ECB etc
That's alright Dan, if at any point you can and want to have an intelligent nonpartisan discussion about policy and economics give us a shout
I did make a claim danny but it was not that yo were wrong. I claimed something much more specific. Can you tell me what that claim was?
+Jorge Miguel Oliveira e Silva if you are truly here to have an open discussion then I would suggest approaching people in a different fashion.

The little interaction we've had suggests you have an ideological chip on your shoulder and are incapable of differentiating between POV and fact. 

Basically come back to me when you feel that addressing someone as "danny boy" or pooh poohing their views with blinkered requests for facts is not horribly obvious.
Oh grow some balls Danny. Your reply basically boils down to "be nice to me or I will keep making up shit to make me feel less bad when you poo poo what I think" this is the internet son and it takes no prisoners.

Now if you want to have an argument then bloody rise up to it and tell me where I've broken the rules of logic or failed to present evidence or even fallen into a fallacy.

If you can't then fuck off, I'm through changing your nappy for today
How have I made anything up +Jorge Miguel Oliveira e Silva ?  

I don't "want to have an argument" - although it apparent that you do - and therein lies the difference. I'm here to discuss, you're here because you feel the internet allows you to flame from the safety of your keyboard ("this is the internet son and it takes no prisoners" - Oh dear. Truly embarrassing........)

There can be no other reason why a grown man should act in such a puerile fashion. 

So excuse me for not rising to your bait and feeding your need for an argument. One of us has to take the adult approach here and lets be honest, its unlikely to be you is it?
+Dan Poulton When Labour left office the economy was growing. Now it is in a double-dip recession. I'm sorry but surely that shows you that Labour's plan was working better than the current government's plan..
Yet more ad hominem danny boy... can you just let the personal attacks aside? Do you think ad hominem is a foreign pop drink? Google ffs!

Now, I'll admit to manhandling the English language and using the word argument when a 9 year old would have understood that what I really should have used discussion. Fair enough, I can admit when I'm wrong. Grown ups do that you know ;-)

Now I know I'm quickly becoming your favourite subject but I'd much rather discuss why among Brown's many sins I would not include profligacy.

Now if you want to discuss that then let's have it. If you want to discuss my motivations, character flaws, personality or sexual preferences then I'm afraid I'll have to decline. I understand how easy it may be for a young man like you to develop an infatuation but I don't really rock that way.

Stick to the politics Dan
+Jorge Miguel Oliveira e Silva LMFAO. You stutter with shock and mock awe at the use of "personal attacks" whilst ignorant of your own use within the very same sentence. You attempt to insinuate my lack of command of English whilst admitting to your own and therefore more or less admiting to your own use of logical fallacy.

My cheeks blush for you.

Go away you silly little boy. I grow more tired of interacting you with every moment of banality you serve up for all to see.

So please get over it. I'm not rising to your wish for an argument over discourse, (whatever your smoke and mirrors) I think we all know your slip was a smidge Freudian.
+Joseph Fox when Labour left office the cuts (incl their own 10% spending cuts implemented prior to the GE) had not impacted, plus we were to some extent basking in the indian summer of huge amounts of quantitative easing. 

Do you think Labour's plan would not have effected the economy? 

Liam Byrne's desk draw note should give you an indication of what they would have faced too. 

The EU crisis (just like the also unforeseen FS crisis) would still have taken place no matter who was in No10.

The difference being is that had Labour won they wouldnt have regained the market confidence that the Coalition have and we'd be servicing the debt Labour created at a much higher rate and paying the debt off more slowly.

Labour spent beyond their means. Its as simple as that. For all their positive intentions (something which drew me to the party in the mid 90s) they remain economically incompetent and that effects everyone. 

Gordon Brown once said (along these lines) that its "the poor who suffer most when a country loses control of its finances" - how very true!! 

I grew up under the shadow of Labour's mishandling of the economic crises during the 70s when we became known as the sick man of Europe and then saw the re-building of the UK in the 80s and 90s, only to see Labour ruin it again and my children born into £30k each of public debt. 

Forgive me if I dislike them with a passion and rue the day they got my X next one of their MPs.
Rather than trot out party line re GDP why not look at the reasons for this drop? 

Construction is dragging the overall GDP figures down massively. It can be seen that without this one sector that we're actually in growth.

If you look at our exports they're up (incl those to non EU), unemployment is similar to 2010 and falling and many industry sectors (incl manufacturing) are on the rise. 

These are the foundations which need to be in place for a balanced economy. No one reliant on Govt spending.
You got to love the neocons, one of my favourites is that without construction we would be growing. Growing I say, GROWING.

Well you can repeat it as much as you want but that don't make it true.

This seems to be the latest neocon trick. Just blatantly lie and repeat it so many times that people will start believing it.

All together now - Brown was profligate and the UK is growing! One more time - Brown was profligate and the UK is growing!

Nope... still not working
Brown WAS profligate. You'd have to be blind not to see that. Or stupid. You're NOT stupid are you, Jorge? On second thoughts....
Ps How's the economy doing in all those other recently former or current socialist government countries? I'm thinking Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy...oh wait, do you see what I see?
+Mark Skinner my point is very simple. If you take the debt to GDP ratio as a measure of fiscal profligacy (George Osborne certainly does as he's used it as THE target of fiscal policy) then one cannot reasonably call Brown profligate. Why? Because on the eve of the financial crisis this very ratio was exactly the same as when he took office. This is an indisputable fact.

Now what you may do is dispute whether the debt to GDP ratio is an adequate measure of fiscal profligacy, that's another discussion, if you do that then one would wonder what the hell is Osborne targeting it for though...

You may also talk about his responsibility in deregulating the banks but you'd have to be just as critical of the Conservatives who backed that deregulation.

You may criticise him for running pro-cyclical fiscal policies but you'd then be committing yourself to the soundness of counter-cyclical fiscal policy and would have to admit that Osborne is making the same mistake.

There's a lot to criticise about Brown, profligacy is not one of those things.

Oh and I think you'll find that there hasn't been a so called "socialist" government in Italy for a very long time, unless you're calling Berlusconi a socialist... I don't think he'd be very happy with that. In any case political leaning is not a good guide to how a country is doing out of the crisis, if for no other reason than the fact that throughout Europe the difference between left leaning and right leaning parties has greatly decreased since the mid 1980's. But that's another story
If Ed and The Labour Party are going to win the next election, they must start updating their profiles on a much more regular basis..
What would convince me would be somebody doing some jailtime for there crimes.  People commiting fraud and other deceitful acts is against the law, they goto jail.  I can't think of any surge in bankers in jail.

The fact they got a bail out and still pay silly bonus's is what is pissing everybody off, don't need an enquiry to work that one out and why it shoudl not happen.  If they can afford bonus's then they can afford to pay back early, realy that simple too us public.
+Kevin Hollingsworth Decimation of the state? The state had gotten far too big under Labour. A bit like with house prices, it's a rebalancing of the state to bring it back into line. That's why there's a deficit.
+Kevin Hollingsworth so you'd like to see the decimation of an industry which provides c£60bn pa (net of bailout) to the Treasury and employs hundred of thousands of ordinary people, 60% of which are outside of London?
+Barry Watkins 50% of all staff in the banking industry work in "The North". Most UK call centres are based in "The North". Ignore Kevin. His idiocy is ideologically driven and is in no way pragmatic. 
What myth? Sorry I've no idea what you're going on about
Over to +Ed Miliband? You've gotta be joking. The man can't decide on a "normal" policy, unless it involves poo-pooing anything the Govt do, never mind anything radical.
+Ed Miliband 
How is it that you seem to think that by simply doing the opposite of what the current government wants makes you a better choice? what is going to happen if you get into government? how are you going to make actual decisions instead of just opposing them? People need to understand that YOU are not the future and you being Leader of Labour will only keep people voting Conservative. You in short are a breeze in the wind away from being ousted by your own party. you aren't your brother and you never will be. You have made Britain look like a coward shirking its responsibilities with your actions against military intervention. you have no ideas on international credibility and upholding democracy and people around the world's right to be free of tyrant dictators if they so wish.
Don't lie you Zionist scumbag. We want British politicians, not Jewish one's. Not wanted. 
I really admire Ed Miliband, I wish he  had become prime minister. Such a sad time for such a great man, he stood up to Cameron every Wednesday, how Cameron has become prime minister I do not know God help us, who need care for our love ones.
+Dan Poulton Because his loyalties lie with Israel not the UK. No Zionist should represent the British people. They stole a homeland go live their!
Add a comment...