Where did I say that? - just because someone tells you something it doesn't mean you have to believe them. Labour were left in a no win position because they did nothing when they had the chance.

Theres probably a lot of truth in that and its probably true that Brown (and plenty of others) knew what was coming, and sat there watching the tsunami on a radar screen without daring to run for high ground in case they set a panic off.

If the UK had hit the panic button (say) in 2005 and took a tight grip of the UK finance markets, would it have made a difference ?

It may have saved the likes of Northern Rock who were left still standing without a chair when the music stopped but would any of the international banks have stuck around in a country where they couldn't breath for red tape, would they have acquiesced or simply gone elsewhere to continue with their orgy of smoke and mirrors "investing".

Brown was arogant and thought he had ended boom and bust.

Indeed. They should not have continued the neoliberal polices of the previous governments.

But they did - don't blame the Tories, no one forced Blair to turn into a Tory he did it of his own volition and no doubt you helped to vote him all three times?

The likes of Balls are in complete denial about any of this - it was all somebody else's causing. Which we all know was only part of the problem, pity he scraped in at the last election might have brought he down a peg or two.

Unlikely that Barclays, RBS and BOS would have moved and Brown basically sunk Lloyds by forcing them to bail out halifax/bos.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"But they did - don't blame the Tories, no one forced Blair to turn into a Tory he did it of his own volition and no doubt you helped to vote him all three times? The likes of Balls are in complete denial about any of this - it was all somebody else's causing. Which we all know was only part of the problem, pity he scraped in at the last election might have brought he down a peg or two.'" Exactly. This article sums it up very nicely. blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainm ... -disaster/

Quote ="Sal Paradise"But they did - don't blame the Tories, no one forced Blair to turn into a Tory he did it of his own volition and no doubt you helped to vote him all three times? The likes of Balls are in complete denial about any of this - it was all somebody else's causing. Which we all know was only part of the problem, pity he scraped in at the last election might have brought he down a peg or two.'" Exactly. This article sums it up very nicely. blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainm ... -disaster/

"Turn into a Tory"?

I don't he was ever anything other than a neoliberal. There are reasons that pretty much the first thing that he did when he became leader of the Labour Party was to remove Clause 4.

But it is also worth pointing out (not for the first time) that a substantial swath of the popular media made it pretty much impossible to present any genuinely alternative policies.

Unfortunately, we have a dumbed-down public discourse in the UK, in which some media simply present political debate on polices as front pages saying that the lights would go out. And substantial swathes of the UK populace simply believe such hyperbolic nonsense, without looking any further.



Ultimately yes, it financial crisis and subsequent recession [iwas[/i someone else's doing – the banks and big finance. On a global scale.

I agree to a point with your views on Blair, but Balls/Brown could have done more the sub prime mortgage issue was only going to end one way as was the gambling culture on the trading floors of these banks. Not regulating was a contributory factor and for that Balls must take his share of the blame

They wouldn't have moved lock stock and barrel but they would have relocated their "investment" (sharking) departments to less stringent areas of the world, and then still shot themselves in the foot.

That would have been ok let the Cayman Isles bail them out or just let the investment arm fail by the way side ala Lehman

That's naive in the absolute extreme.

You saw what happened when NatWest had a computer glitch for a weekend (it went on for much longer with Ulster Bank). Now imagine the panic that would've ensued if people realised that their Northern Rock and RBS cards no longer worked. Not only that, all those employed by companies that banked with those two couldn't process payments, leading to a very real knock-on effect among all of the rest of the banking sector.

We would have seen civil unrest not known since Cromwell's time, last year's riots would've seemed like a vicar's tea party in comparison.

You can blame Brown & Balls all you like but those fooking bankers were hiding the scale of the problem from their ferllow bankers and in some circumstances, even from their own colleagues. It's no wonder the FSA didn't flag the problem, so deep-seated was the scale and scope of the corrupt activities.

It was meant as a flippant remark, the fact still remains if the main stream banking was separated form the gambling and the monies in the main stream ring fenced then the riskier investment gambling could be let go bust and thus avoiding your armageddon senario. Brown didn't need to compound matters with how he treated Lloyds.

The potential issues of sub prime were well known and the potential catastrophe discussed by numerous luminaries well before it happened. Government knew how leveraged the banks were they just thought they would continue lending to each other indefinitely. Northern Rock were offering 125% mortgages, that was an unsustainable position, Labour had ample opportunity to do something but did nothing - the fsa has been shown to be not fit for purpose - Balls & Brown were part of the problem not all of it but not without blame

On this I absolutely agree that a lack of regulation was a massive problem – although I suspect that, by the time Ed had any say in anything, it was far too late in terms of the 2008 crisis. Hardly anyone saw it coming – Dean Baker (US macroeconomist and co-founder of the for Economic and Policy Research) is one of a very rare number of exceptions.

But the ethos of deregulation doesn't stand on its own: it's part of a wider political/economic ideology – specifically in terms of the times we're living though, neoliberalism. Which also includes deindustrialisation and privatisation. Both of those were also continued by Blair's governments.

Deregulation is a key aspect of small statism. There's a reason the Tories' own current crop of Tea Partiers want even more deregulation, even knowing what happened in terms of finance, and even when there is not a jot of evidence that deregulation in other sectors would create jobs, for instance. It's an obsession with nothing to support it – and indeed, with much against it.

The government - both parties are equally guilty - seem intimidated by the bankers, doesn't help when you have so many eggs in that basket. You would have thought their arrogance would have been dented by their abject failure to run their businesses properly, but no their self esteem knows no bounds. As usual when business really needs them to step up to the plate they ensure they look after their own first.

I can understand the large scale deindustralisation for mass produced basic products - we simply cannot compete with the BRIC countries, but for small run highly technical products we are as good as anywhere and this should be encouraged. From a skill retention basis if nothing else

Agreed, certainly on the latter point – to an extent on the first. My own interpretation would be that, ideologically speaking, the current government (not the Conservative Party in its entirety, perhaps) but the Parliamentary Party, certainly, have little problem with the power of big finance – and, indeed, big business.

A number of them have financial interests with just such companies.

I think it's more a case of intimidation with Labour and a feeling that nothing can be done; they'll threaten to leave etc etc. Although I'd equally say that (my own interpretation again) that some of them are ideologically not far from a similar view.



Which raises the need for regulation. But it needs to be done properly and with proper legislation to back it up and proper penalties too. It's not just the banks: I'm just reading Ben Goldacre's [iBad Pharma[/i, about how big pharmaceutical corporations behave, and it's pretty shocking. You cannot escape from the view that, at core, their ultimate priority is making money (a legal obligation for a company, of course) but that that frequently comes well above patient wellbeing. But it's also a story of cack-handed regulation with no real clout behind it.



Did you see Sally C's comment about engineering graduates ending up working in the City, because of the money?

Skills retention, certainly.

I'm think I'm correct in saying that we lose many researchers too, because of a lack of investment in research, and because jobs abroad, and other lines of work, pay better.

We have expertise and excellence in a number of fields – and we need to look for more. But at the risk of repeating myself, they won't happen overnight. What is clearly unsustainable, though, is a general population, with dwindling income levels, in a country that needs people to spend for the sake of the economy. And that's without considering the human aspect of that.

My son has just taken a job in Australia, he is 21 a qualified mechanical engineer, he sees not future career path in this country, which is really sad indeed.

This country has never valued mechanical engineers. In Germany, anyone with "Ing" as a prefix to his name is held in reverence. Here, even an "I Mech E" is viewed as little more than a grease monkey

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/graph-cameron-wants-shrink-state?CMP=twt_fdCameron determined to win the race to the bottom of public expenditure[/url

Time to plan my emigration to a civilised country methinks.

Is this what [iCall Me Dave[/i meant by 'Big Society?'

[urlhttp://uk.news.yahoo.com/hungry-pupils-being-fed-teachers-225528172.html[/url

I don't doubt the veracity of the core finding of the survey (other research supports it), but it is worth noting who sponsored it – Kellogg's. No vested interested in promoting certain kinds of breakfast foods – even those stuffed with sugar and salt – then.

I'm just casting my thoughts back to my Primary School days in the '70's.
We had fook all but I can't remember anyone being hungry at school.

Fast forward nearly 40 years and look how society has progressed.
'There is no such thing as society.'
Her legacy has certainly made sure of that.

Fooking bitch!

Just seen on Twitter that Osborne got on a train with a standard ticket and sat in first class, refused to move when asked by the revenue protection officer (his aide apparently suggested that he could't possibly sit in standard) and eventually stumped up the ticket price, whether out of his pocket or from the taxpayer's wallet is not revealed.

We're all in this together you know....

It's quite staggering.

I heard yesterday about a breakfast club at a school in a very poor area of Greater Manchester that has been saved from closure by a combination of Greggs (donating some food, apparently) and Etihad.

Equally, I was laying out an article today explaining how reps can point people to UNISON's own charity for help with winter fuel bills, since many members are part-time workers on low wages, which have reduced further over the pay freezes for several years. There's another grant system in place to help with school uniforms.

It just beggars belief that we're in this sort of situation.