Incompetence or Malice?

10 Responses to Incompetence or Malice?

1. John P says:

   January 26, 2013 at 11:00 pm

   Yes, spending loads of government money is the classic solution to getting out of a recession. However, to do that you have to be in a decent state at the start of the recession. We entered the recession of the early 90′s with a small surplus and so there was plenty of scope to borrow and spend. This time we started with a huge deficit so we didn’t have that room to manouvre. Not absolutely sure of the numbers but in the 90′s I think it was something like +1-2% at the start and finished at about -20%. This time we started at about -40%. So, whatever the politics, we started with a s*** hand and so we’ve got to make the best of it. If Labour had salted money away during the boom years then we’d be in a much better place.

   Most nations are going to have to face up to the reality of the same situation and, painful as it is, it should mean we’re ahead of the pack if we tackle it now. Which in theory means we should pull out of it all that bit sooner. But who believes economists anyway?
2. Tim Hall says:

   January 28, 2013 at 10:52 pm

   Problem is Osborne is cutting too fast and too deep, and it’s shrinking the econony, and this the tax base, making it harder to pay off the debt. Which is precisely what everyone said would happen.

   Not that I’m going to let Gordon Brown off the hook, but the bankers ain’t entirely innocent either.
3. Michael Orton says:

   January 29, 2013 at 11:02 am

   How about the Bank of England providing a basic current account to all UK citizens? No extras, no overdraft at all, debit card but no credit card, and no cheque guarantee card either (can’t have one because the account cannot go overdrawn).
   Having made personal banking available to everyone, you then abolish the underwriting of current accounts at comercial banks. If they fail they fail. That way banks have to provide a service for the money they borrow from depositors and there is a free market.
4. Tim Hall says:

   January 30, 2013 at 3:13 pm

   The banking crisis is the elephant in the room here. I wish a few more countries had the political courage to do what Iceland did, which was to start prosecuting and jailing bankers for fraud.

   We should have done the same, except the electorate made the same mistake as it made in 1974. Back then the unions had got too powerful, and we went and elected a government in the unions’ pocket. Now we have a government owned by the bankers.
5. Michael Orton says:

   January 30, 2013 at 9:28 pm

   Just out of interest, which political parties are not so in debt that they are owned by their bank?
6. Tim Hall says:

   January 31, 2013 at 12:21 pm

   The Tory party get too much of their funding from the same financial institutions that got us into this mess. Therefore we can’t expect them to pass regulations to rein in the reckless speculation and fraudulent Ponzi schemes that caused the 2008 financial crash.
7. Michael Orton says:

   February 1, 2013 at 9:32 pm

   I do not dispute your point on the conflict of interest when it comes to the Conservatives and the banks. However, I would observe that it was (New) Labour who let them off the leash in the first place.
8. Tim Hall says:

   February 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm

   Indeed. If they’re going to as much in thrall to the city as the Tories, exactly what is the point of the Labour party?
9. John P says:

   February 2, 2013 at 10:11 pm

   Groucho Marx said that he wouldn’t want to join any club that would have him as a member. I tend to feel the same about career politicians – I’m not sure anyone who wants the job should have it.

   How about banning all political parties and making everyone stand as an independent?
   Or “election by lottery” – one person from each constituency is selected by lottery?
   We probably wouldn’t do any worse than the present motley collection.
10. Michael Orton says:

    February 7, 2013 at 12:33 am

    I have reflected on the idea of abolishing political parties, but the closest aproximation to that in the real world is probably Isreal, and I’m not really convinced their system works better than ours.

    The biggest problem stems from the fact that anyone who wants to be an MP is probably axiomatically unfit for the job. I find this the best justification for the old style House of Lords. Most of the hereditary peers only took part in debates when they knew what they were talking about. When they knew they didn’t know they did not feel obliged to take part just to keep in the public eye so they could get re-elected.

    Churchill was right: democracy is the worst system of government apart from all the others!