I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
You have to be clever and concialiatory in the talks. I would be polite and respectful at all times and suggest a deal in line with Norway as a starting point! Rather than negotiate from zero, it will be harder for the EU negotiators to argue why they offer a deal to one nation and not a similar deal to another.
What we need to understand is that they don't want to because they want us to be a lesson to others in these turbulant times. That is why May's outburst was so damaging! The issue with a deal like Norway or Switzerland is going to be around free movement. I do think this could be overcome though. Especially as it has been benefitting our economy for years! We have to understand how important the single market is. Businessmen like me do, not because we are cleverer than others, but because we experience the benefits at first hand.
We have been in this market for 30 years and our economy is geared around it. We have a lot of investment from other countries - we produce more cars for instance than any other European nation, but we do so for foreign owners. One of the benefits for a comapny like Nissan in Sunderland, is the access they have as a result to the European markets. An angry Europe simply needs to lob some tariffs on our cars and the industry will be greatly affected.
They have more power to damage us than we have to damage them. Yes, if the EU decided to embrace us and let us do what we want, it would probably be the best for all parties, if it were not for one thing. That the more successful we are, the more other countries will want to follow suit. If you want to take the line, well we don't want to be part of such a malicious EU, well your high position will come at a great cost!
Even though Corbyn would be a useless PM, he would be a better negotiator because he is in a better position to gain EU co-operation. But he can't win the election realistically. So we have to send a message to May that we want to continue in the single market - hopefully a reduced majority would cause her to resign and we get a softer position in talks from a new Conservative leader. Who knows, we might even be able to keep Scotland.
But why are people voting for this damaging Chaos? Can't they see where it is going?
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Again you're trying to give the Tories a free pass. Labour got their regulatory balance wrong, no doubt. But that should be seen in a political context that any attempt to control the markets, etc would be exploited by the opposition as unnecessary interference, removal of choice, burdens on business, state control, red tape getting in the way of growth, etc. The Tories were pushing for further deregulation were they not?
The exploitation of the public we saw with financial products in the 80's, 90's and 2000's is soon to be repeated in other areas due to the removal of the controls agreed by the EU.
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Again you're trying to give the Tories a free pass. Labour got their regulatory balance wrong, no doubt. But that should be seen in a political context that any attempt to control the markets, etc would be exploited by the opposition as unnecessary interference, removal of choice state control, red tape getting in the way of growth, etc. The Tories were pushing for further deregulation were they not?
The exploitation of the public we saw with financial products in the 80's, 90's and 2000's is soon to be repeated in other areas due to the removal of the controls agreed by the EU.
This is massively true and had Labour regulated more, they would have got a hammering from the Tories and the Tory press for being anti markets and business. Very few people at home or abroad saw it coming. Vince Cable can claim to have got in with a warning - but no Conservative can. They are a vile opportunistic party who have (rich) mates in the gutter press. They are incompetent when it comes to economics - far more so IMO than Labour have been.
Deep thought doesn't seem to occupy people these days. If you can't explain yourself in 30 seconds to a minute, you lose people's attention. You need to stereo type, tap into anger and fear and you have to use power to manipulate. And you need to simplify everything, like comparing the nation's finances to our household finances- which is frankly ridiculous - but there will be people reading this who don't understand why! The Tories have become good at this. Labour were unfortunate enough to be in power when the crunch happened. I say unfortunate, because the same crunch would have happened had the Tories been in power - it isn't a defence of Labour per se.
How Darling and Brown (who I don't like much) responded to the crisis, was praised globally and we do need to be grateful for it. It was an expensive propping up of the capitalist system and the Tories took the point it was over as the point of where Labour have messed up the country. The amazing thing is, the money spent that got us into a staggering level of debt, was well spent in the circumstances. We were lucky Labour were in power when the crunch happened because, whilst we can never be sure how well the Tories would have dealt with the crisis, it would have been hard for them to be more decisive and effective!
So we have one poster saying that poor people are too thick to deserve welfare and should be encouraged to get private insurance.
And then in the very next post the same poster warns that the most heavily advertised products on the markets are not good value for money and that poor people ought to pay for a financial adviser to help them choose what life insurance they should get.
I got my car insurance renewal documents last week. The company intended to raise it by £190! I rang them to say I was going to shop around and they reduced it back to where it was immediately. There is a dishonesty in the insurance industry and it is all a bit of a minefield. You take out a policy and there will be all sorts of stipulations in the small print! You need a financial adviser FFS! It has tones of let them eat cake - but sadly it is the attitude of many.
I have had house and contents insurance all my life and never claimed, yet I expect that if the time comes and I really need it the insurance company will wriggle out of it, I keep paying the premiums more in hope than expectation.
Indeed. The insurance market is a massive scam. The idea we should cut welfare to the point where people will suffer or die and then trust the Tories to clean up the insurance market is almost beyond words. Callous comes to mind. What a time to be alive when people are so open about how much they hate the poor. Clearly they never read Dickens at school.
If Abbott hadn't made that stupid, amateurish gaffe in her nth radio interview yesterday morning, how many voters would know that Labour intends to recruit 10,000 more police?
When it comes to 8 June, voters interested in increased police numbers will remember the pledge and forget the gaffe.
I won't forget that it would cost £500m to hire the 10,000, who pays for them after that? (Already £200m more than labour said)
It's good that you won't forget it. Because then, if police numbers is important to you, you can choose between the party that has pledged to recruit 10,000 more police and the parties that haven't.
Pledging it and putting it into practice are a country mile apart
You can choose between an amazing equal society where everyone is nice to each other all the time or one that's not. You're obviously a horrible selfish person if you don't vote for the nice one.
- socialist logic.
Stand on your own two feet or fuck off and die, Tory logic?
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Again you're trying to give the Tories a free pass. Labour got their regulatory balance wrong, no doubt. But that should be seen in a political context that any attempt to control the markets, etc would be exploited by the opposition as unnecessary interference, removal of choice state control, red tape getting in the way of growth, etc. The Tories were pushing for further deregulation were they not?
The exploitation of the public we saw with financial products in the 80's, 90's and 2000's is soon to be repeated in other areas due to the removal of the controls agreed by the EU.
Not really a free pass. Have I not just said I believe regulation needs to be turned on its head with more, better consumer protection?
The reference to Gordon Brown was merely to counterbalance Prague's argument that everything was the fault of the Tories. It needs to be said that there were ample and sufficient regulations that went through parliament in the FSMA 2000 But that the regulators were not allowed by Brown to do their job.
Nonetheless, it is my view that George Osborn's split of the FSA into the PRA (controlled by the BoE), and the entirely separate FCA was mere political posturing and has nothing much to do at all with good, joined-up regulation.
I am fairly convinced that the next regulatory disaster is just around the corner. But, to an extent, this is not the fault of the politicians but the never-ending churn of the people in charge of regulation. Each new broom believes they know better and more than the last and changes everything, sweeping away all the connections (including staff) to the previous regime. And with it, the corporate memory. I'm old enough to remember Slater Walker and the secondary banking crisis in the 70s, BCCI in the 80s, Barings Bank and Equitable Life in the 90s, and of course, Northern Rock, Lehman Brothers, inter alia, in the 00s. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The only remarkable thing is that there has yet to be a banking crisis of some sort in this decade! So, with it being extremely likely that some bank somewhere will fall on its arse, what better thing to do than just not worry about it but to instead focus on regulating the products rather than the entities?
FWIW, with futures trading at record levels, and shorting of GBP to have been a major feature of that, it is possible that a lot of people will be getting a very bloody nose if the GBP to $/Euro rates tick up much further. We shall see. In any event financial derivatives seem to be a prime candidate for a crisis some time.
FWIW, with futures trading at record levels, and shorting of GBP to have been a major feature of that, it is possible that a lot of people will be getting a very bloody nose if the GBP to $/Euro rates tick up much further. We shall see. In any event financial derivatives seem to be a prime candidate for a crisis some time.
Poor old bookmakers get the blame for encouraging problem gambling - at least we don't risk wrecking the economy!
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
I take your point, up to a point. But take the German approach to their health system. I've been trying to get to grips with it with my niece who is a junior doctor there. It is "insurance based". There are a lot of competing companies offering such insurance. However, there is a basic level of healthcare which all Germans are entitled to, free of charge. The insurance companies allow you to top that up with enhanced care offers according to what you deem it might be worth protecting yourself for/against, but they are all operating in a tight framework. The products are regul;ated in the context of minimum and maximum delivery the electorate agrees to be necessary.There is a basic level of care for everyone in Germany which seems to me (based on what I learn from my niece) to want for nothing compared to that basic level in the UK. Nobody falls through the floor. That is surely the principle we all ought to agree on as decent people regardless of our political instincts. Not least because the Germans understand and manage it without any serious person branding it a 'socialist' country.
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Again you're trying to give the Tories a free pass. Labour got their regulatory balance wrong, no doubt. But that should be seen in a political context that any attempt to control the markets, etc would be exploited by the opposition as unnecessary interference, removal of choice state control, red tape getting in the way of growth, etc. The Tories were pushing for further deregulation were they not?
The exploitation of the public we saw with financial products in the 80's, 90's and 2000's is soon to be repeated in other areas due to the removal of the controls agreed by the EU.
How Darling and Brown (who I don't like much) responded to the crisis, was praised globally and we do need to be grateful for it. It was an expensive propping up of the capitalist system and the Tories took the point it was over as the point of where Labour have messed up the country. The amazing thing is, the money spent that got us into a staggering level of debt, was well spent in the circumstances. We were lucky Labour were in power when the crunch happened because, whilst we can never be sure how well the Tories would have dealt with the crisis, it would have been hard for them to be more decisive and effective!
This is a widely held belief but it's not quite true. The Bank of England told the Govt. what to do. Brown (in particular) and Darling dithered on making a decision on the BoE's plan for a crucial two weeks at the height of the crisis. Eventually they caved in to the Bank's pleadings to get a grip. So, while there was praise for those two for the way the crisis was handled, it does not come from those who knew what was going on behind the scenes. The delays from Brown and Darling were nearly catastrophic. Of course that did not stop then for taking the credit.
BTW, there is no staggering levels of debt nor (much) money spent on the crisis. For example, QE's full name is the Quantitative Easing Asset Swap Programme. So QE is a swap of one asset (bank reserves) for another (bonds); this has no direct effect on the national debt. It is just swapping liquid assets for illiquid ones. QE indirectly shrinks the national debt by reducing interest payments and by strengthening economic activity, which raises tax revenue.
So we have one poster saying that poor people are too thick to deserve welfare and should be encouraged to get private insurance.
And then in the very next post the same poster warns that the most heavily advertised products on the markets are not good value for money and that poor people ought to pay for a financial adviser to help them choose what life insurance they should get.
Is this what life is like on Planet Tory?
Now, you are just talking bollocks. Nowhere did I say that poor people do not deserve help. And what, precisley is wrong with the whole concept of looking after your own. If the welfare budget morphs into anything other than a safety net it quickly becomes totally unaffordable. That is the point.
I also never suggested poor people should pay for financial advice. rather that while they have the opportunity, that is when they are young, healthy and in work, individuals should make better decisions about what they spend their money on.
You appear to have become some sort of irrational being recently lacking in clarity of thought. How did that happen?
As you are doubtless aware, the UK economy went into a far deeper recession than its major EU partners after the crisis broke. I am not sure, but I don't think the ECB applied QE to the same extent as the BoE. So, IYO, was this deeper recession (from which ordinary people have still not recovered in earnings terms) as a result of
- the alleged dithering of Brown and Darling - the inappropriate use of QE - some other reason(s)
*Frantically starts editing old posts on 2015 thread*
Im only joking mate, but you got some vicious abuse 2 years ago when you were on the other side and probably got more flags than likes even though you spoke a lot of sense then and now
So we have one poster saying that poor people are too thick to deserve welfare and should be encouraged to get private insurance.
And then in the very next post the same poster warns that the most heavily advertised products on the markets are not good value for money and that poor people ought to pay for a financial adviser to help them choose what life insurance they should get.
Is this what life is like on Planet Tory?
Now, you are just talking bollocks. Nowhere did I say that poor people do not deserve help. And what, precisley is wrong with the whole concept of looking after your own. If the welfare budget morphs into anything other than a safety net it quickly becomes totally unaffordable. That is the point.
I also never suggested poor people should pay for financial advice. rather that while they have the opportunity, that is when they are young, healthy and in work, individuals should make better decisions about what they spend their money on.
You appear to have become some sort of irrational being recently lacking in clarity of thought. How did that happen?
No lapse of rationality here. Your post, using some risible methodology, suggested that more people bought satellite TV than life insurance and that this alone was evidence that welfare needs to be cut as people who can afford TV don't deserve welfare. You have completely sidestepped the issue of people falling ill or never being in a position to afford life insurance as this was a relatively small number of people. Relative to you maybe, perhaps not so relative to the over one million British families relying on foodbanks in 21st century Britain.
I'm not denying that welfare spending is a non-trivial part of our expenditure, but I do not agree with your approach of blanket cuts to welfare and trusting the private market to self-regulate. You say it's unaffordable, yet several other European nations have far superior welfare states to our own and don't break the bank by doing so. There is an argument that a healthier, happier and well looked after population is more productive, has less crime and is more efficient. The Tory approach is The Devil Take the Hindmost, that the poor and frail dying off is just a natural part of the free market working perfectly fine. You seem to have little idea what it means to be truly poor in Modern Britain, or the causes of poverty, which are largely factors outside of a person's control. Those who are born poor or fall onto hard times are far less likely to be self-sufficient in their lifetimes, largely thanks to the unscrupulous private market and the cycle of debt.
Perhaps instead of blaming poor people for their poverty and punishing them for it, we need to look at unethical employers paying their workers subsistence wages that need to be topped up by benefits, or insurance companies that scam unwitting people out of what little money they have.
I have zero confidence that any of the major party policies on our future relationship with the EU, Public Services or Economic Policies will not cause long term damage to our prosperity.
Whilst I think Caroline Lucas is an absolute tool, I like the idea of being able to breath cleaner air whilst being shafted.
As you are doubtless aware, the UK economy went into a far deeper recession than its major EU partners after the crisis broke. I am not sure, but I don't think the ECB applied QE to the same extent as the BoE. So, IYO, was this deeper recession (from which ordinary people have still not recovered in earnings terms) as a result of
- the alleged dithering of Brown and Darling - the inappropriate use of QE - some other reason(s)
Could Austerity (a Tory policy, opposed by practically everyone else) be the reason ordinary people have still not recovered?
As you are doubtless aware, the UK economy went into a far deeper recession than its major EU partners after the crisis broke. I am not sure, but I don't think the ECB applied QE to the same extent as the BoE. So, IYO, was this deeper recession (from which ordinary people have still not recovered in earnings terms) as a result of
- the alleged dithering of Brown and Darling - the inappropriate use of QE - some other reason(s)
I don't now remember how long the recession (as defined) lasted. But as you say, it is true that in terms of earnings people (I still don't like the term ordinary) aren't really any better off than they were in say, 2007.
To answer your question though I'd say it was some other reason(s). There's probably a large list isn't there? Our propensity to want to own our own homes compared with the situation in Continental Europe. Again I'm not looking it up but isn't rented accommodation more the norm in France, Germany and Italy? That adds a great deal to the very high personal levels of debt anyway. The trend for buying new cars (car sales in the UK have been at record levels in recent years) on some form of credit deal when you don't end up owning the vehicle is an example. Again I don't know what that kind of deal is called is it PCP or something? Our lack of productivity. (Not really the workers' fault, mainly a lack of proper investment strategies I guess). The lack of proper interest rates on savings. And therefore the lowering of the already very low levels of personal savings? Employers taking advantage of things like zero hours contracts? Flexibility in the labour market? Government's continued high levels of control on public sector salaries. It's probably endless. Of course, partially offsetting the lack of pay rises generally, have been very low inflation rates (now rising of course), the basic tax personal allowance rising from £6,475 for 2010/11 to £11,500 in the current year and the increases to the minimum wage. Up to £7.50 from £5.80 in 2009, under the last Labour Government. By comparison inflation would have taken £5.80 to £7.11. (BTW the last change to the minimum wage by the last Labour Govt. was to increase it by a massive 7p.)
Here's some other interesting, random and perhaps surprising stuff from the ONS:
Employees aged 21 in 1995 earned 40% more after adjusting for inflation by the age of 39 than those aged 21 in 1975 did up to the age of 39. The difference in earnings between the 1975 and latter cohorts means that those who started work in 1975 had to work between three and four years longer than those who started in 1985 to accumulate the same amount of earnings and between five and six years longer than those who started in 1995. Since 2011 the top 10% of full-time earners have had the largest falls in wages after adjusting for inflation. Since 1975 average earnings for full-time employees have more than doubled after accounting for inflation. Since the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, wage growth at the bottom of the earnings distribution has been strong for both full and part-time employees. And finally: Since 2009 all three groups have seen earnings fall in real terms. Earnings have fallen by 10% (-3.2% per year) for those who started in 1995, by 11% (-2.7% per year) for those who started in 1985 and by 12% (-2.6% per year) for those who started in 1975. Some of the decline for the 1975 cohort may be explained by people in their late fifties beginning to consider retirement, with the highest earners often retiring early. This would bring down average pay before any consideration is taken of the wider economic conditions. There is some evidence of this happening as pay for the 1975 group peaks in 2007, slightly earlier than for the other cohorts.
If I've read that right, that last bit suggests that average pay may have stagnated because more high earners have retired early and thus dragged down the mean. But that might be misleading or a red herring.
I suspect though that public sector pay has been a particular drag on wage increases. In terms of supply and demand, the Conservatives would have been in a strong position to reign in public sector pay while they also chose to unwind the additional 1mn public sector hires under the previous regime. The threat of redundancy would have put then in a strong position to resist wage claims.
I referred to life assurance, which is term assurance. You pay a premium for a fixed amount of cover and if you die it gets paid out. It's cheap as chips and you have cover for one year ten years or whatever.
It is NOT a regulated product as it is not an investment, there are no risks. So wailing about being screwed by financial services is irrelevant, for this purpose anyway.
I take your point about the "man from the Pru" era. I think you have rather avoided mine. That is, that Thatcher swept away that reasonable, regulated, and self-disciplined approach. Building societies were changed into banks and their entire character and modus operandi with it. Estate agents started flogging mortgages with life insurance attached, as opposed to the more traditional repayment one. I took chose the new one, in 1985, attracted by the lower monthly repayments and totally unaware of the drawbacks. Nobody warned me. I wasn't the only one because in the 90s I was successfully compensated for mis-selling, and I was one of millions. (Were you not?)
You know better than most that vast tracts of the financial services industry are leeching a living by offering products of dubious value, to millions of us who find it difficult to evaluate such things. That's my worry.
If I thought this private provision were to be strictly regulated, then I might be more comfortable with the idea. But we have a dreadful record of installing such regulation. That's down to the politics. Such private provision is mainly proposed by the Tories. But many Tories also hate regulation, of anything. So you get watered down, toothless regulation, until it all goes tits up. Then our justice system swings in,not to mention the Consumers Association and, to be fair, people do get compensation, more so than in other countries. But the perpetrators are not held to account. They get off scot free with their riches, a small proportion of which finds its way back into Conservative party coffers. Or, nowadays, UKIP.
The Germans don't and won't stand for that kind of nonsense. And it does not seem like its economy is collapsing under the burden.
For what it's worth, and as someone who used to work in regulation, I think the system is a little wrong-headed. All the concentration (at least since Gordon Brown's disastrous "light-touch regulation" was swept away - yes it was he not the Conservatives who was responsible for that shambles) is upon regulating the firm. As long as it's within the rules, a firm can offer any old dodgy product it likes. I refer you to the aforementioned no questions asked "Over 50 Plans". Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
Interesting reading, especially after the HSBC allegations, that they were also calling for less money laundering checks...
Comments
Instead, would it not be better if the products rather than the firms were heavily regulated? With the dross advertised by the likes of Michael Parkinson and "the old bird on Countdown" just outright banned.
What we need to understand is that they don't want to because they want us to be a lesson to others in these turbulant times. That is why May's outburst was so damaging! The issue with a deal like Norway or Switzerland is going to be around free movement. I do think this could be overcome though. Especially as it has been benefitting our economy for years! We have to understand how important the single market is. Businessmen like me do, not because we are cleverer than others, but because we experience the benefits at first hand.
We have been in this market for 30 years and our economy is geared around it. We have a lot of investment from other countries - we produce more cars for instance than any other European nation, but we do so for foreign owners. One of the benefits for a comapny like Nissan in Sunderland, is the access they have as a result to the European markets. An angry Europe simply needs to lob some tariffs on our cars and the industry will be greatly affected.
They have more power to damage us than we have to damage them. Yes, if the EU decided to embrace us and let us do what we want, it would probably be the best for all parties, if it were not for one thing. That the more successful we are, the more other countries will want to follow suit. If you want to take the line, well we don't want to be part of such a malicious EU, well your high position will come at a great cost!
Even though Corbyn would be a useless PM, he would be a better negotiator because he is in a better position to gain EU co-operation. But he can't win the election realistically. So we have to send a message to May that we want to continue in the single market - hopefully a reduced majority would cause her to resign and we get a softer position in talks from a new Conservative leader. Who knows, we might even be able to keep Scotland.
But why are people voting for this damaging Chaos? Can't they see where it is going?
The exploitation of the public we saw with financial products in the 80's, 90's and 2000's is soon to be repeated in other areas due to the removal of the controls agreed by the EU.
Deep thought doesn't seem to occupy people these days. If you can't explain yourself in 30 seconds to a minute, you lose people's attention. You need to stereo type, tap into anger and fear and you have to use power to manipulate. And you need to simplify everything, like comparing the nation's finances to our household finances- which is frankly ridiculous - but there will be people reading this who don't understand why! The Tories have become good at this. Labour were unfortunate enough to be in power when the crunch happened. I say unfortunate, because the same crunch would have happened had the Tories been in power - it isn't a defence of Labour per se.
How Darling and Brown (who I don't like much) responded to the crisis, was praised globally and we do need to be grateful for it. It was an expensive propping up of the capitalist system and the Tories took the point it was over as the point of where Labour have messed up the country. The amazing thing is, the money spent that got us into a staggering level of debt, was well spent in the circumstances. We were lucky Labour were in power when the crunch happened because, whilst we can never be sure how well the Tories would have dealt with the crisis, it would have been hard for them to be more decisive and effective!
And then in the very next post the same poster warns that the most heavily advertised products on the markets are not good value for money and that poor people ought to pay for a financial adviser to help them choose what life insurance they should get.
Is this what life is like on Planet Tory?
The reference to Gordon Brown was merely to counterbalance Prague's argument that everything was the fault of the Tories. It needs to be said that there were ample and sufficient regulations that went through parliament in the FSMA 2000 But that the regulators were not allowed by Brown to do their job.
Nonetheless, it is my view that George Osborn's split of the FSA into the PRA (controlled by the BoE), and the entirely separate FCA was mere political posturing and has nothing much to do at all with good, joined-up regulation.
I am fairly convinced that the next regulatory disaster is just around the corner. But, to an extent, this is not the fault of the politicians but the never-ending churn of the people in charge of regulation. Each new broom believes they know better and more than the last and changes everything, sweeping away all the connections (including staff) to the previous regime. And with it, the corporate memory. I'm old enough to remember Slater Walker and the secondary banking crisis in the 70s, BCCI in the 80s, Barings Bank and Equitable Life in the 90s, and of course, Northern Rock, Lehman Brothers, inter alia, in the 00s. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The only remarkable thing is that there has yet to be a banking crisis of some sort in this decade! So, with it being extremely likely that some bank somewhere will fall on its arse, what better thing to do than just not worry about it but to instead focus on regulating the products rather than the entities?
FWIW, with futures trading at record levels, and shorting of GBP to have been a major feature of that, it is possible that a lot of people will be getting a very bloody nose if the GBP to $/Euro rates tick up much further. We shall see. In any event financial derivatives seem to be a prime candidate for a crisis some time.
BTW, there is no staggering levels of debt nor (much) money spent on the crisis. For example, QE's full name is the Quantitative Easing Asset Swap Programme. So QE is a swap of one asset (bank reserves) for another (bonds); this has no direct effect on the national debt. It is just swapping liquid assets for illiquid ones. QE indirectly shrinks the national debt by reducing interest payments and by strengthening economic activity, which raises tax revenue.
I also never suggested poor people should pay for financial advice. rather that while they have the opportunity, that is when they are young, healthy and in work, individuals should make better decisions about what they spend their money on.
You appear to have become some sort of irrational being recently lacking in clarity of thought. How did that happen?
As you are doubtless aware, the UK economy went into a far deeper recession than its major EU partners after the crisis broke. I am not sure, but I don't think the ECB applied QE to the same extent as the BoE. So, IYO, was this deeper recession (from which ordinary people have still not recovered in earnings terms) as a result of
- the alleged dithering of Brown and Darling
- the inappropriate use of QE
- some other reason(s)
Might also be worth his/her new leftie mates look at the thread at some of the personal abuse him/her was getting when him/her was a nasty old tory
What I have learnt from this thread is that if you want to build up your 'likes' slag off the Conservatives.
Got to love politics on this site..
Im only joking mate, but you got some vicious abuse 2 years ago when you were on the other side and probably got more flags than likes even though you spoke a lot of sense then and now
Funny old game.
I'm not denying that welfare spending is a non-trivial part of our expenditure, but I do not agree with your approach of blanket cuts to welfare and trusting the private market to self-regulate. You say it's unaffordable, yet several other European nations have far superior welfare states to our own and don't break the bank by doing so. There is an argument that a healthier, happier and well looked after population is more productive, has less crime and is more efficient. The Tory approach is The Devil Take the Hindmost, that the poor and frail dying off is just a natural part of the free market working perfectly fine. You seem to have little idea what it means to be truly poor in Modern Britain, or the causes of poverty, which are largely factors outside of a person's control. Those who are born poor or fall onto hard times are far less likely to be self-sufficient in their lifetimes, largely thanks to the unscrupulous private market and the cycle of debt.
Perhaps instead of blaming poor people for their poverty and punishing them for it, we need to look at unethical employers paying their workers subsistence wages that need to be topped up by benefits, or insurance companies that scam unwitting people out of what little money they have.
I have zero confidence that any of the major party policies on our future relationship with the EU, Public Services or Economic Policies will not cause long term damage to our prosperity.
Whilst I think Caroline Lucas is an absolute tool, I like the idea of being able to breath cleaner air whilst being shafted.
To answer your question though I'd say it was some other reason(s). There's probably a large list isn't there? Our propensity to want to own our own homes compared with the situation in Continental Europe. Again I'm not looking it up but isn't rented accommodation more the norm in France, Germany and Italy? That adds a great deal to the very high personal levels of debt anyway. The trend for buying new cars (car sales in the UK have been at record levels in recent years) on some form of credit deal when you don't end up owning the vehicle is an example. Again I don't know what that kind of deal is called is it PCP or something? Our lack of productivity. (Not really the workers' fault, mainly a lack of proper investment strategies I guess). The lack of proper interest rates on savings. And therefore the lowering of the already very low levels of personal savings? Employers taking advantage of things like zero hours contracts? Flexibility in the labour market? Government's continued high levels of control on public sector salaries. It's probably endless.
Of course, partially offsetting the lack of pay rises generally, have been very low inflation rates (now rising of course), the basic tax personal allowance rising from £6,475 for 2010/11 to £11,500 in the current year and the increases to the minimum wage. Up to £7.50 from £5.80 in 2009, under the last Labour Government. By comparison inflation would have taken £5.80 to £7.11. (BTW the last change to the minimum wage by the last Labour Govt. was to increase it by a massive 7p.)
Here's some other interesting, random and perhaps surprising stuff from the ONS:
Employees aged 21 in 1995 earned 40% more after adjusting for inflation by the age of 39 than
those aged 21 in 1975 did up to the age of 39.
The difference in earnings between the 1975 and latter cohorts means that those who started
work in 1975 had to work between three and four years longer than those who started in 1985 to
accumulate the same amount of earnings and between five and six years longer than those who
started in 1995.
Since 2011 the top 10% of full-time earners have had the largest falls in wages after adjusting for
inflation.
Since 1975 average earnings for full-time employees have more than doubled after accounting
for inflation.
Since the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, wage growth at the bottom of the earnings
distribution has been strong for both full and part-time employees.
And finally: Since 2009 all three groups have seen earnings fall in real terms. Earnings have fallen by 10%
(-3.2% per year) for those who started in 1995, by 11% (-2.7% per year) for those who started in
1985 and by 12% (-2.6% per year) for those who started in 1975. Some of the decline for the 1975
cohort may be explained by people in their late fifties beginning to consider retirement, with the
highest earners often retiring early. This would bring down average pay before any consideration is
taken of the wider economic conditions. There is some evidence of this happening as pay for the
1975 group peaks in 2007, slightly earlier than for the other cohorts.
If I've read that right, that last bit suggests that average pay may have stagnated because more high earners have retired early and thus dragged down the mean. But that might be misleading or a red herring.
I suspect though that public sector pay has been a particular drag on wage increases. In terms of supply and demand, the Conservatives would have been in a strong position to reign in public sector pay while they also chose to unwind the additional 1mn public sector hires under the previous regime. The threat of redundancy would have put then in a strong position to resist wage claims.
It is NOT a regulated product as it is not an investment, there are no risks. So wailing about being screwed by financial services is irrelevant, for this purpose anyway.
telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html