Brilliant banking speech by Miliband

(149 Posts)
claig Mon 09-Jul-12 11:03:44

Miliband wants a British Investment Bank and tighter regulation of banking and separation of high street and investment banking. He is addressing the elephant in the room, the real scandal that the public wants addressed. He has real integrity and wants the banks to have integrity again.

Miliband is an excellent Labour leader. I think he will win the next election if he carries on like this. Love the new logo too - a British flag with "realchange" as the logo - no Tory party green tree image, no polar bears, no global warming, no more "building a progressive future", no more spin - just simple, true, "real change". Brilliant

CogitoErgoSometimes Mon 09-Jul-12 11:43:38

Five years ago when the banking crisis first hit and Brown opted to prop up the industry, that was the golden opportunity for Labour to introduce tighter regulation as a condition of state support. Those supposedly in charge, the very people Milliband has around him today, were clearly out of their depth and too easily hoodwinked by the financiers. Just two years down the track after being voted out for fiddling while Rome burned and we're supposed to believe that the same people have suddenly found integrity?

Dropdeadfred Mon 09-Jul-12 11:45:37

Milliband and brilliant on same sentence??? hmm

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 11:54:50

I think that Miliband is not denying Labour errors and mistakes. He acknowledges that they did do things wrong, but he still wants a judge-led public inquiry to get to the bottom of it all, even though it will possibly highlight lots of Labour mistakes. I think he has integrity because he rises above petty party political considerations and considers the real interests of the country and all of the public. I think he believes that we need "real change", that things can't go on as before, that this is too important to be swept under the political carpet.

NicholasTeakozy Mon 09-Jul-12 12:07:27

I agree it's a step in the right direction. The problem I have with the two new banks he is proposing is that they are to be run by the private sector, and therefore will have to charge more than, say, a building society or credit union due to existing laws on shareholder returns.

I would have preferred him to have gone further. See those banks successive governments bailed out? We own them, yet they continue to rip us off. Nationalise them, get rid of the top management and run them for the good of the customers. Reform banking laws so that there is immediate and total separation of investment and retail banking. Stop rewarding short term profit and start rewarding long term investment.

Stop quantitative easing, in fact order those banks who accepted this new fake money to repay it. Any QE measures to be made by the newly nationalised banks to aid industry, large and small, as making stuff is what makes real money, not shoving large amounts of pretend money around.

In the future, any bank that requires saving should be allowed to fail.

MrJudgeyPants Mon 09-Jul-12 12:12:00

As I've said elsewhere, if you think Miliband has said something sensible, you've probably misheard him. It's exactly the same with this. When he says that he wants a British Investment Bank what he means is that he wants a bank that uses yours and mines savings to 'invest' in British infrastructure. What this really, really means is that he wants a bank to give commercial loans to the government to spend on flagship projects that otherwise wouldn't attract investment. What this really, really, really means is that your money will be on the hook to pay for the grandiose schemes of the government - usually these schemes have no sensible business case or any hope of returning a profit (If this sounds remarkably like HS2 there's a reason for that) but are built by the financially incompetent who don't know what they are doing. Would I put Miliband in charge of my savings and/or pension pot? Would I hell!

Amazingly, we have experience from across the EU where these very businesses are set up. Spain has a lot of regional, mutually owned, co-operative banks known as Casas. These are often run by the local councils to pay for capital build projects. Incidentally, they are also the biggest problem with the Spanish banking system and the reason why Spain is under so much pressure from the money markets. So, Spain has 50% youth unemployment, 25% general unemployment, pays many orders of magnitude more than the UK for borrowing and is threatening to default and be kicked out of the Euro - Ed's response is to copy one of the causes of the problem!

It's been a while since I've had a chance to say it, but Ed is crap!

flatpackhamster Mon 09-Jul-12 12:13:53

I suppose it's possible Miliband will still be in charge of the Labour party by the time of the next election. I wouldn't get too comfortable with him. The old Militant Tendency is pushing its way back, and I doubt that Ed is far enough to the authoritarian left for them.

EdithWeston Mon 09-Jul-12 12:22:52

I thougt it was a very Thatcherite speech - forced sell off to introduce more competition in the hope this will lead to a better service.

And can anyone explain why the separation of retail and 'casino' banking has become the Holy Grail? Northern Rock had no 'casino' arm.

flatpackhamster Mon 09-Jul-12 12:24:11

Piece in the Telegraph about his speech - "He wasn’t taking risks with his own money. He was taking it with other people’s," he said, adding that to change this culture an ordinary bank employee should be on every bank remuneration committee.

That quote was delivered without a shred of irony by the man whose government spent more than it took in taxes from 2001 onwards.

flatpackhamster Mon 09-Jul-12 12:26:43

EdithWeston

I thougt it was a very Thatcherite speech - forced sell off to introduce more competition in the hope this will lead to a better service.

And can anyone explain why the separation of retail and 'casino' banking has become the Holy Grail? Northern Rock had no 'casino' arm.

The thinking is to ensure that retail depositors' savings aren't at risk if the investment wing of the bank goes buns up. That was how it was from the 1930s until 1997. IIRC, the rules on that were shredded by a Mr G Brown, who was chancellor at the time. One of his advisers at the time was a Mr E Miliband.

Cheery fact of the day - Google's predictive search, when you type in 'Ed Miliband' produces as its first hit 'Ed Miliband Gay'.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 12:28:36

'Would I put Miliband in charge of my savings and/or pension pot? Would I hell!'

I would rather have Ed in charge than some of these spivs with their billion dollar derivative bets gone belly up.

I can't remember exactly, but I think Labour in the past did have a National Investment Bank. I think they invested in companies like Acorn, which I think was the originator of the ARM chip that is used in so many tablets and phones today. Britain has the potential to be a world leader in so many areas. Our universities and brain power are second to none, in spite of the educational dumbing down that has occurred.

Britain needs investment. As Miliband said in teh speech, something like only 2.5% of lending went to manufacturing industry, the vast majority went to financial and property companies. Vince Cable also said something yesterday about the banks not investing enough in British industry.

I think we need another National Investment Bank. I think our money and savings should be directed to our people and industries and away from the spivs. We have been ripped off and mis-sold; it's time our money was used for investment and our interest rather than paying spivs' interest.

I agree with NicholasTeaKozy; we should nationalize the banks we majority own, cut bonuses and change the culture.

MrJudgeyPants Mon 09-Jul-12 12:34:31

NicholasTeakozy "See those banks successive governments bailed out? We own them, yet they continue to rip us off. Nationalise them, get rid of the top management and run them for the good of the customers. Reform banking laws so that there is immediate and total separation of investment and retail banking."

The current scandal about LIBOR refers to events that occured immediately prior to the banks being bailed out - unfortunatley any ripping off that they might be doing is purely systematic and not exceptional!

Secondly, they are currently nationalised - the taxpayer has a majority stake in RBS and Northern Rock and a minority stake of around 40% in Lloyds/TSB/HBOS - or whatever they are called this week. Barclays was never owned by the taxpayer. The management structure that was in place at all the nationalised banks have been sacked - remember Fred the Shred and his golden handshake?

Thirdly, this splitting of banks into investment and retail arms is a red herring. The failure of the banks was nothing to do with the 'casino' element of banking. HBOS and Northern Rock got into trouble because they lent out too much money to too many people and then got caught out when the price of borrowing money shot up. RBS got into trouble primarily because it spent to much money on its ABN Amro and Nat West aquisitions. Lloyds would have been fine if wasn't forced into a shotgun marriage with HBOS to try and keep the plates spinning. None of this is casino banking by any stretch of the imagination.

How can we expect the banks to repay QE money without bankrupting themselves? Unfortunately, stupid government policy has made matters much worse.

"In the future, any bank that requires saving should be allowed to fail."

Amen to that - bailing out the banks was the equivalent to our economy of original sin! All evil flowed from there.

flatpackhamster Mon 09-Jul-12 12:42:05

claig

I can't remember exactly, but I think Labour in the past did have a National Investment Bank. I think they invested in companies like Acorn, which I think was the originator of the ARM chip that is used in so many tablets and phones today.

That tortuous logic is the same one used by the Argentinians to assert sovereignty over the Falklands. Acorn went bust, and it went bust because it misjudged the market and couldn't supply its product to the market. ARM holdings is not Acorn.

Britain needs investment. As Miliband said in teh speech, something like only 2.5% of lending went to manufacturing industry, the vast majority went to financial and property companies. Vince Cable also said something yesterday about the banks not investing enough in British industry.

What British business needs is less regulation and fewer stupid taxes, not more lending. The number 1 and 2 complaints from businesses isn't 'Oh, I can't get a loan', it's complaints about paperwork and tax.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 12:43:22

'HBOS and Northern Rock got into trouble because they lent out too much money to too many people and then got caught out when the price of borrowing money shot up'

But this should have been properly regulated. The interbank lending market seized up because banks didn't trust other banks anymore due to the fear of what some casino elements might be sitting on and teh fear that they could not be paid back.

There was a systemic failure in regulation and particularly a failure to regulate the casino players with their bad bets, bluffs, big bonuses and bottles of Bollinger. They took us for a ride, came crashing down, walked away and asked us to pay their bills.

MrJudgeyPants Mon 09-Jul-12 13:01:46

"The interbank lending market seized up because banks didn't trust other banks anymore due to the fear of what some casino elements might be sitting on and the fear that they could not be paid back."

Not true, the reason for the problems you speak about was stupid bankers over lending money to people who clearly couldn't afford to pay it back. However, what compounded the problem and made it so destructive was that the loans and mortgages had been bundled up and sold off in packages. No one knew whether the debts in those packages would be paid back or not, hence no one knew the value of their own assets or any one else’s. When that happens, the safest thing to do is to stop trading while you figure out who has what. Worse than this was that those assets (mostly house prices) also started to fall.

To give an example, Bank A approves a mortgage for a family for £100k. Over the course of the next 25 years this family should repay a grand total of £200k. Bank A doesn't want to wait 25 years for all its money but it knows it can make some money by selling the debt to Bank B for somewhere between the two figures - let's say £150k. Bank A is now £50k up on the deal just for approving a mortgage. Bank B is also up on the deal because it has just bought £150k for £200k. The problem becomes evident if the family get into difficulties and can no longer afford to repay their mortgage. In the years running up to the crash this wasn't a major problem as the asset (the house) would have most likely gone up in value anyway. Bank B makes its profit (or at least most of its money back) when it evicts the family and sells the house.

The danger for Bank B comes when the house gets repossessed and the housing market is in decline. Now it is trying to sell its asset into a falling market and it loses out twice over. Under these conditions, the safest thing it can do is to stop buying debts from Bank A - it is those banks that went bust / had problems.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 13:02:14

I think Miliband is in touch with the public who have had enough of Labour 'light touch' regulation and have had enough of being a soft touch for the spivs.

Miliband wants to take the lid off the can of worms and look inside and he wants some of teh crooks to be canned and put inside, he is on the public's not the spivs' side. He wants to do some spring cleaning to stop the spivs springing more surprises and walking away with their pockets stuffed full of their bonus prizes.

Labour has a new slogan - "real change" - and that is what the public expect.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 13:14:11

'Four in ten small firms are being turned down for bank loans in a sign of the continuing crisis facing entrepreneurs, a report reveals today.
The Federation of Small Businesses warns: ‘The ongoing credit squeeze is becoming critical.’

Research based on interviews with around 2,850 small businesses found 41 per cent which asked for finance were ‘refused’ over the past three months.'

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2160935/Banks-lending-small-firms-report-turned-loans.html

Miliband is talking about stopping banks mis-selling products like risky swaps to small businesses.

CogitoErgoSometimes Mon 09-Jul-12 13:17:09

"And can anyone explain why the separation of retail and 'casino' banking has become the Holy Grail? "

It's the dumbed-down shorthand that's being used by people that have no clue how it works. Parliamentarians and civil servants are totally in the dark about high finance. Ironically, the CEOs of banks seem not to fully understand what's going on either. So there's no point putting MPs and bank CEOs together in an inquiry because they won't ask the right questions and we won't get the right answers. It's the blokes in the middle that work out the complicated transactions that make all the cash. So all of this grandstanding about 'we need to get to the bottom of it' is rather redundant because we're asking the wrong people.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 13:22:08

I don't think the lawyers in the Levenson inquiry have previously worked in newspapers, but they are capable of asking searching questions that unearth what has been going on.

We have judges and lawyers and economists and market commentators and ex-market members that are capable of questioning some spivs under oath and finding out what has been going on. It is an excuse to say that nobody knows what has been going on apart from the spivs.

flatpackhamster Mon 09-Jul-12 13:25:44

claig

But this should have been properly regulated. The interbank lending market seized up because banks didn't trust other banks anymore due to the fear of what some casino elements might be sitting on and teh fear that they could not be paid back.

It was properly regulated until 1997. Maybe Saint Ed could explain to you why he now wants to regulate the stuff he didn't want to regulate in 1997.

There was a systemic failure in regulation and particularly a failure to regulate the casino players with their bad bets, bluffs, big bonuses and bottles of Bollinger. They took us for a ride, came crashing down, walked away and asked us to pay their bills.

And, had we had a sensible government in charge, the answer would have been 'no'. There was no reason to bail out the banks, except that those banks were based in Labour constituencies.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 13:26:32

'"And can anyone explain why the separation of retail and 'casino' banking has become the Holy Grail? "

Because the casino elelment has teh potential to infect teh entire system and bring it down as being "too big to fail", which inevitably means that the public has to bail the gamblers out.

A separation of retail banking from the casino element means that we can ringfence the losses and that the public will not be liable for the losses of the gamblers. If they want to go on a boozed-filled Bollinger betting binge, then the public will no longer have to pick up their bar bill.

CogitoErgoSometimes Mon 09-Jul-12 13:28:56

Be serious. Newspapers are 100x easier to understand than the slippery ins and outs of high finance. It's why fraud trials go on for years, often end up collapsing, and why there have been recent calls for them to be held without a jury. HMRC are always one step behind the tax experts that find loopholes. Even a well-briefed parliamentarian will be given the runaround.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 13:34:10

'Be serious.'

I think Ed is being serious. Of course we as a country have the ability to hold an inquiry on the banking scandals and are able to hold the bankers to account. It is not as complicated as they make out. People like Stiglitz and others would easily be able to expose what has been going on.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 13:40:13

This stuff is not rocket science. It's child's play compared to the science that Professor Higgs and our inventors and scientists are involved in every single day.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 13:41:51

'Big Boy' and his Bollinger buddies are minnows compared to our eminent scientists.

JuliaScurr Mon 09-Jul-12 13:42:02

flatpack 'Militant Tendency pushing it's way back' - I think you got your Trots mixed up. The Socialist Party (inc D Nellist) is in TUSC. We like them. They aim to stop the cuts (made to pay for bank bail out). Why would they want to 'push back' in to Labour which also supports cuts, just slower?
If you must talk nonsense, please base it in logic.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 14:03:37

'Newspapers are 100x easier to understand than the slippery ins and outs of high finance.'

Have you ever read one of the Guardian's articles on sustainability and the 'carbon footprint'?

I defy anyone to come away from that with an inkling of understanding or sense - collateralised interest rate swap portfolios are far easier to grasp.

niceguy2 Mon 09-Jul-12 14:06:52

* I think he believes that we need "real change", that things can't go on as before,*

Dur! I think we can all agree upon that one. The harder question is what does real change look like? And can Labour be trusted to deliver it.

Right now they've completely failed to convince me that they would do anything significantly different, let alone better.

Sorry I just can't take Milliband seriously.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 14:09:44

'Right now they've completely failed to convince me that they would do anything significantly different, let alone better.'

Well, Miliband has asked for a full-scale judge-led public inquiry into the issues. He doesn't yet know all the answers, but he is asking the questions.

Hopefullyrecovering Mon 09-Jul-12 14:11:42

I find it unlikely that Ed Milliband has anything intelligent to say about the banking crisis, but do please link and let's have a read.

EdithWeston Mon 09-Jul-12 14:14:31

But RBS didn't have a casino arm. It's retail only, and still got itself into one of the worst over-extended bad debt situations, which would (without intervention) have ruined its ordinary customers.

Separation may be a desirable step, but it's not the Holy Grail panacea that sound bite politicians would have us believe.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 14:14:59

This is from teh newspaper that has been right, is right and always will be right on nearly every issue facing the country.

'This paper, which can rarely be accused of supporting Labour, commends Ed Miliband’s bravery in calling for a full judicial inquiry into the conduct and ethics of the City.

His demand is right because, as the Mail argued yesterday, the token Parliamentary inquiry ordered by the Government into the single issue of the interest rate-rigging scam is so clearly inadequate, in the light of the huge crimes bankers committed against society over the past decade.

But it is courageous, too, because he knows his own party has far more to lose than the Tories from public disclosure of all the facts about the run-up to the credit crunch of 2008 and its aftermath.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2168404/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Ed-Milibands-brave-example-Tories.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 14:18:32

'By calling for a full inquiry, no matter how much damage it may do his party, Mr Miliband has stolen a moral march on the Tories, leaving them vulnerable to accusations that they are protecting their powerful plutocratic friends.

After all, the Coalition was quick enough to call the Leveson Inquiry into the Press, following the voicemail hacking at the News of the World. So why this refusal to demand a similar investigation of a sector whose crimes have damaged the prospects of everyone in Britain?'

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 14:21:29

Ed Miliband is a great man and a great leader, and Labour are lucky to have such a leader. He rises above party allegiance in his allegiance to the public and the country. He has integrity in spades. It is a shame we don't have many more like him.

flatpackhamster Mon 09-Jul-12 14:24:30

JuliaScurr

flatpack 'Militant Tendency pushing it's way back' - I think you got your Trots mixed up. The Socialist Party (inc D Nellist) is in TUSC.

It's so hard to keep track of whether you're in the People's Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front.

We like them. They aim to stop the cuts (made to pay for bank bail out). Why would they want to 'push back' in to Labour which also supports cuts, just slower?

Because that's their way back in to power.

If you must talk nonsense, please base it in logic.

This, from a socialist. snort

niceguy2 Mon 09-Jul-12 17:41:00

I haven't given the idea of a judicial review much thought. I am not sure if it's a good thing or bad. My immediate thought is that it would be like asking for a judicial review on whether or not Fred West is a bad man. Of course he is and you don't need to spend millions on it to figure that out.

The more I think about it, the more it sounds like a political booby trap which the Tories have been surprised with. If they now announce one, Labour can look all smug. If they don't, they can accuse the Tories of protecting their rich mates. It sounds like the 50p tax all over again. It's quite cunning really.

As for Milliband being a great man, he doesn't really come across like that. Each time I hear him, he seems to say all the right words...ask the right questions but on the all important question of what would Labour do differently the silence is deafening.

The few policies that Labour have actually announced are weak, populistic and do not stand up to any real scrutiny. It's not even close to a comprehensive solution.

Shame really. Right now we really need a credible opposition to make the coalition fear and pull their socks up.

ContinentalKat Mon 09-Jul-12 17:55:32

Claig, Ed should count himself very lucky to have such a devoted supporter behind him who applaudes every platitude he utters...

CogitoErgoSometimes Mon 09-Jul-12 18:12:33

"Of course we as a country have the ability to hold an inquiry on the banking scandals and are able to hold the bankers to account."

If fraud has been going on at banks we need individuals to be prosecuted and not just amiable inquiries where various people in suits sit about saying 'isn't it awful' and 'we must learn lessons'. The Leverson inquiry has provided lots of newsprint but I predict it won't achieve very much that's tangible. The bent coppers, reporters and PIs up before the courts, on the other hand, will get dealt with properly.

EdithWeston Mon 09-Jul-12 18:15:40

"commends Ed Miliband’s bravery"

If you think that's a compliment, then you've never watched "Yes, Minister"

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 18:23:33

' it would be like asking for a judicial review on whether or not Fred West is a bad man. Of course he is and you don't need to spend millions on it to figure that out.'

The point of a judicial review is to find out exactly what went on, who was involved and to create new rules and regulations and laws to stop it ever happening again.

When there is a plane crash, every avenue is investigated, the black box is recovered, and every possible cause is investigated in order to make sure that it does not happen again. It is not good enough to say that aciidents are bad things.

What the banks have done to us is created a financial crash of huge proportions that nearly destroyed our entire economy and which has cost the jobs of thousands of people. This is why a judicial review is important, in order to ensure that it can never happen again.

The MPs questioning Paul Tucker right now on our TV screens are doing an excellent job. It is a shame these excellent MPs aren't seen by us more often on Newsnight and Question Time etc. They are all doing an excellent job, and most of us will probably never have heard of any of them. That is a shame.

But Ed Miliband is courageous and right to call for a full judicial review on the entire conduct of our banking industry.

There is an article written by someone or something called "Daily Mail Comment". When "Daily Mail Comment" speaks, the world listens, and this is part of what "Daily Mail Comment" says

"it is no exaggeration to say that the banks stand accused of a series of crimes against society itself."

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2167956/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-This-token-inquiry-restore-trust.html

As something that I have never heard of called 'Prime' says

'“[T]he systemic corruption in the City goes so much deeper – and affects so many millions of livelihoods around the world – that the case for a separate, Leveson-style judicial inquiry into the conduct and ethics of the financial sector is quite simply unanswerable”.

“The conduct and ethics of the financial sector” – that could have been us in Prime banging on again… but it comes in fact from this morning’s Daily Mail, whose editorial is entitled “This token inquiry cannot restore trust” – a reference to Prime Minister Cameron’s “promise” of a Parliamentary inquiry. Let’s confess, we do not always see eye-to-eye with the Mail on economic policy issues, but they are right on the nail here.

And there’s more:

“No, this is also about the integrity of a system on which our whole way of life depends. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the banks stand accused of a series of crimes against society itself.”

Amen.'

and

'But we note that – unlike Prime, the Daily Mail or the Labour Party, 38 degrees have not explicitly called for a Judicial Inquiry. We think this precision is necessary not for its own sake, but to take the inquiry out of hands of the intertwined financial and political sectors.'

www.primeeconomics.org/?p=1200

Miliband is right and 'Daily Mail Comment' agrees with him. That is good enough for me!

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 18:49:58

Just clicked on About on Prime's website, and unfortunately it is quite obvious that they are way off the mark on some very important issues as shown in the quote from their website given below, but at least they are right in backing Ed Miliband and the Daily Mail on this issue.

'We note the outstanding failure of current economic policy to provide society at large with work; or with policies to deal with the gravest threat facing us all: climate change.'

EnjoyResponsibly Mon 09-Jul-12 18:52:59

Labour had 13 years to regulate the Banks, and did not.

Let's count how many Labour MPs that could have done something about that, and then let's see how many are still in the Commons and the Shadow Cabinet.

There's two ways to stop the Banks playing with Client money and it means going back to the system that was in place 20 years ago:

1. Fully segregate retail vs investment Bank funds and ensure firewalls are in place.

2. Sack the FSA and get a regulator with teeth, knowledge and balls (but not Ed)

ContinentalKat Mon 09-Jul-12 18:59:03

Sorry, but the fact that the DM backs him does not prove he's right! au contraire, mes amis..

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 19:02:57

'Labour had 13 years to regulate the Banks, and did not.'

Labour got lots of things wrong in their time and that is why the British public chucked them out of power. But, Ed Miliband recognises their mistakes and does not want to be condemned to repeat them. Labour's new logo is "real change" and that is what Miliband wants to deliver. He wants to ask questions and find solutions that deliver "real change".

Paul Tucker just said to the MPs questioning him

"can't be confident of anything after this cess pit"

That's why Labour's 'light touch regulation' is no good and Ed Miliband is not denying that. He wants to find something better; he wants "real change", no more tinkering about with small change.

EnjoyResponsibly Mon 09-Jul-12 19:04:14

Real change....He can start with his Shadow Cabinet then OP.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 19:06:32

'Real change....He can start with his Shadow Cabinet then OP.'

I wouldn't disagree with that smile

EnjoyResponsibly Mon 09-Jul-12 19:07:54

Because I simply cannot imagine he gets any traction in any changes to Banking reform whilst he has Ed Balls-up sitting on his left.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 19:13:53

Everyone makes mistakes, and Lord knows that Ed Balls has made a few, but the public is fair and just and does not hold it against Labour. They like the talk of "real change" and are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to those that repenteth. But teh public does draw the line at talk of "catastrophic climate change". They are prepared to swallow a lot, but not a whole camel.

EnjoyResponsibly Mon 09-Jul-12 19:21:13

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh God, you're serious

Hahahahhahahahahahahahaha

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 19:27:25

The public knows that Labour is not perfect and far from the Conservative dream. The public knows that it cannot have its cake and eat it (unless it buys the Daily Mail). The public knows that with New Labour it must take the rough with the smooth, the false with the true, the wrong with the right, the progressive with the positive, the camel crap and climate catastrophe with the common sense.

The public knows that along with the "real change" there may also be some "false hope", but the public is an optimist and always lives in hope.

EnjoyResponsibly Mon 09-Jul-12 19:41:19

The Public can also smell bullshit,bwhich is what this dreamt up on the back of a fag packet PR bollocks is.

Real change will means actually DOING IT, rather than crafting PowerPoint presentations.

EdgarAllenPimms Mon 09-Jul-12 19:45:53

hmm.. random points to consider

1) the reason , say, HSBC is game for separation of investment and retail divisions is that HSBC is already set up that way (due to the retail division being the Midland Bank, under the HSBC branding) ...however if HSBC Investment negged in a big way, i wouldn't think the retail division was safe. so i don't see the point in that regulation if that's all it does.
2) let's not forget the toxic assets in question were largely generated in the US sub-prime market, not the UK lending market.
3) Ed can say whatever the hell he likes, he doesn't have to do anything about it unless he got voted in. this is prole feed.
4) would an inquiry of any kind change the current situation? if the answer is no, why the fuck waste more money on it?
5) the bailout was chickenfeed next to the public sector overspend, and in some ways could be seen as a good investment. except of course it won't be, because it's being managed by a government.
6)Nationalising banks sounds like an appalling idea given the track record for nationalised anything in this country.

slug Mon 09-Jul-12 19:45:54

Hmm, I wonder how the Daily Mail reading public will take the admission that Osbourne lied about Ed Balls' involvement in the LIBOR scandal.

CogitoErgoSometimes Mon 09-Jul-12 20:02:30

"the public is fair and just and does not hold it against Labour."

I think the public's memory is a little longer than you give it credit for.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 20:24:22

The public has the memory of an elephant, the steadfastness of a lion and the sagacity of Solomon, which is why the public is not conned by claims of catastrophic climate change and voted New Labour out.

But, the public can spot an honourable man, which is why it voted Tony Blair in with a landslide.

Ed Miliband is in tune with the public mood.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 20:29:13

It was only later that the public took to calling him Bliar. when the depths could go no lower and the exaggerations could go no higher.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 20:35:09

The public does not believe in counterfeit carbon footprints and carbon copies. The public like something genuine, something real. That is what Miliband is. He says he wants "real change" and if he keeps it up, and if the Daily Mail keeps agreeing with him, then he will gain real power.

EdgarAllenPimms Mon 09-Jul-12 20:39:14

the public has the memory of a goldfish... that's why a week is a long time in politics

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 21:03:52

Miliband sounds genuine, he doesn't sound like a person who has to be told what to wear, what to say or how to smile by the spin doctors. He's not out to fool the public, he believes in serving the public. Miliband is the real deal and he offers "real change", in a few years' time I think we will all see a real change when he wins power.

'Amid what he describes as the ‘froth and nonsense’ of ‘wear this tie, get your hair cut, get rid of the big glasses’, he believes the most important thing of all is to be true to yourself – and he’s convinced he can become Prime Minister.

‘It comes from having a set of beliefs. I’ve got absolute faith in myself. My beef with Cameron is not where he went to school; he just doesn’t show he’s somebody who understands people’s lives.

'Cameron didn’t win a majority because in the end people weren’t convinced. They fell in love with Clegg – and now they think he’s betrayed them.

‘I’m going to be the guy who doesn’t promise the earth, who’s going to say it’s hard and difficult but I’m on your side.

'I’m not going into this because people say, “Ooh, he’s good on the telly.” That’s all rubbish. In the end what matters is, do you have something to say?’

He pauses.

‘Maybe the big glasses should come back.’

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2079322/Ed-Miliband-I-think-worst-habit-excessive-seriousness.html

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 21:26:22

'the public has the memory of a goldfish'

But it won't forget about the bankers. Paul Tucker, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, said to the MPs questioning him

"can't be confident of anything after this cess pit"

This isn't going away. The public won't forget what happened and Miliband fully understands the public mood, and the Daily Mail calls him brave and courageous for his stand on this issue.

That's good enough for me and the public!

NicholasTeakozy Mon 09-Jul-12 21:38:32

6)Nationalising banks sounds like an appalling idea given the track record for nationalised anything in this country.

You're so right. All the privatised utilities and other services have reduced costs to customers massively. Oh, wait.

A plc running a utility is not in the public interest because by law they have to maximise shareholder returns, which means, in the main, reducing the level of service and increasing charges to customers.

MoreBeta Mon 09-Jul-12 21:48:45

Agree with MrJudgeyPants that we do NOT need a British Investment Bank.

What the heck would that do? Channel money on a political basis into favoured projects. A socialist dream.

Splitting investment banking from retail banking is a good idea.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 21:59:54

'Channel money on a political basis into favoured projects. A socialist dream.'

Miliband is not in power, but he is calling for a British Investment Bank now, He doesn't care who is in power, he wants to do the right thing for the country.

The Tories seem to be in favour of a Green Investment bank and even some sort of Big Society Social Enterprise Bank. What's wrong with a British Investment Bank that channels money into research and development of chips and technology that can lead the world? We have the brains, but are starved of capital - our own capital, locked away inside banks who are starving small businesses of loans. Let's invest in manufacturing and technology, not just in rusting windmill farms that give taxpayer subsidies to some of the richest landowners in the country.

Not everything the socialists do is bad. Harold Wilson invested in the Open University, a world-class institution to develop our latent potential. Even the venture capital company 3i was once I think funded by the government.

When banks don't lend to entrepreneurs, then the government should create nationalised banks that will do so.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 22:12:01

A british person cme up with teh world wide web, used by the entire planet. Alan Turing was a genuius in computing, following in the footsteps of great Britons like Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace.

Radar wasn't invented by some private company. Man didn't get to teh moon due to some private company. Governments have our savings, taxes and capital and can use it to invest in our people and companies who can develop technologies to change the world.

Blowing billions in speculative bubbles by bonus-grabbing betting bumblers has harmed the entire planet. It is time for "real change", it is time to really "save the planet" and reform and regulate the banking system.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 22:15:13

It should be game up for the gamblers, set over for the spivs, and match for the millions of people and industry.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 22:23:14

What's the cry that goes up in casinos?

Rien ne va plus

We could do with some of that for the spivs too.

EdgarAllenPimms Mon 09-Jul-12 22:33:14

"
You're so right. All the privatised utilities and other services have reduced costs to customers massively. Oh, wait."

those privatised utilities make money and pay tax rather than costing money to run.

niceguy2 Mon 09-Jul-12 22:36:13

It is time for "real change"

Any idiot can say it. What would Milliband do if he was in power though?

From memory, the only (cough) policies I've heard from Labour in over two years are:

1) One off tax on bankers....public would be happy with it but it would do absolutely nothing to help the deficit or reign in the banking sector.

2) Drop VAT temporarily by 2.5%. How many people noticed the last temporary cut? If anything this makes the deficit worse albeit on a temporary basis.

Neither of the above do a thing to tackle the root cause of the problem which is a banking sector which caused a massive problem by lending huge sums of money to many people it shouldn't have done including erm....governments like the UK!

EdgarAllenPimms Mon 09-Jul-12 22:37:17

"A plc running a utility is not in the public interest because by law they have to maximise shareholder returns, which means, in the main, reducing the level of service and increasing charges to customers."

banks sell products. they compete with each other. reducing service level whist increasing charges = great way not to have any customers to make money out of...

the current trend in banking is to attempt to increase charges - true - but also try to really drive up the level of service. Banks have been somewhat behind other sectors in really buying into the service culture, but are catching up..

niceguy2 Mon 09-Jul-12 22:40:28

Claig. Is this the same Mr Miliband you hold in such high esteem? link

EdgarAllenPimms Mon 09-Jul-12 22:40:34

i find it worrying that people believe banks are 'unduly' risk-averse in lending to business, and believe that if the government filled that gap it wouldn't be setting itself up for massive losses.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 22:46:07

'those privatised utilities make money and pay tax rather than costing money to run.'

We are still subsidising some of them. They ramp up our prices and it gets so bad that Cameron has to call them all in for a meeting to ask them not to increase their prices in a time of extreme hardship for millions of people. They are making big profits, their fat cats get huge salaries, much higher than their state bosses used to, their bonuses and pensions go through the roof, at the same time as pensioners' bills do too.

There are hosepipe bans in the midst of monsoons, the poor pay higher charges with metering than anyone else, and they tell us it is too expensive to move water from areas with an abundance of water to areas which have a shortage, because they are all separate companies and they have to pay, unlike in nationalised days, when they were all one integrated system with all the cost benefits of scale.

There are hosepipe bans while it pisses down for months, the public is pissed and they are taking the piss.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 22:53:46

'From memory, the only (cough) policies I've heard from Labour in over two years are:'

But that's history. Miliband has moved on. He has recognised the magnitude of teh crisis and teh Daily Mail backs him and calls him brave and courageous.

He wants to create a British Investment Bank and invest in manufacturing, he wants to jail crooks and bar them from ever working anywhere in finance again, he wants to change the culture, cut the bonuses and regulate the rogues. He wants a judicial inquiry under oath, and the Daily Mail wants that too.

He has moved on. He is no longer talking about "building a progressive future", now he's talking about "real change" and now the Daily Mail agrees with his calls for a judicial inquiry.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 22:55:48

'banks sell products. they compete with each other'

as in LIBOR fixing?

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 22:58:50

'the current trend in banking is to attempt to increase charges - true - but also try to really drive up the level of service'

as in mis-selling interest swap products to small business customers who don't understand the risks?

You can't turn on your TV without being bombarded by companies offering to get your money back for mis-sold PPI schemes. You even get cold calls from companies hundreds of miles away offering you their services for that.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 23:01:59

'Is this the same Mr Miliband you hold in such high esteem?'

Miliband isn't right on everything, but he is getting better all the time. He was brave on the Murdoch thing and he is brave on the banks. He is moving in the right direction and is in tune with the public mood. Now, even the Daily Mail, which is the barometer of the public mood par excellence, calls him brave and courageous.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 23:05:25

'i find it worrying that people believe banks are 'unduly' risk-averse in lending to business, and believe that if the government filled that gap it wouldn't be setting itself up for massive losses.'

Investing in small businesses is nowhere nearly as risky as blowing billions in the derivatives markets, but it is also less profitable and earns a smaller bonus, which is why many of them prefer what Vince Cable calls "casino capitalism".

tethersend Mon 09-Jul-12 23:08:59

claig. I've not been around for a while because I did a baby.

I come back, and I find you've switched sides.

I'm worried about you, poppet.

wink

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 23:09:19

Oh and we have a shortage of reservoirs in some areas because they made money by selling the land off.

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 23:13:42

Hi tethersend, good to see you. I am slowly moving, just like the public is too. That's how it always goes. Once I was for Thatcher, then I got sick of Tory sleaze and voted for Blair. Then I got fed up with Blair and voted Tory. If they keep getting things wrong and Miliband starts getting things right, then I, along with teh public, will probably switch to Miliband. It's early days yet, but the Tories are messing a lot of things up needlessly.

JosephineCD Mon 09-Jul-12 23:18:48

Claig, all you do is post about how great Labour are. It doesn't mean anything because that's all you post about.

tethersend Mon 09-Jul-12 23:19:19

Don't get me wrong, it's a lovely surprise!

Hope you're well... And hope you're right wink

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 23:20:45

I'm fine. How is the baby? Is it a girl or a boy?

tethersend Mon 09-Jul-12 23:24:09

Baby is fine, thank you- a baby girl. Pic on profile. But TBH, she looks pretty much like every other baby ever grin

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 23:25:03

'Claig, all you do is post about how great Labour are. It doesn't mean anything because that's all you post about.'

Did you miss the bit where I mentioned that the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England said something like can't be confident about anything after learning about this cesspit, and that the Daily Mail, the best Conservative paper out there, backs Miliband for his brave and courageous stance in calling for a judicial inquiry?

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 23:27:51

She looks fantatsic smile. We'll have to wait for her to grow up and sort this whole mess out for us. She looks like she could do it in her sleep. grin

tethersend Mon 09-Jul-12 23:36:29

Good plan. You bloody socialist grin

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 23:41:41

grin

crazynanna Mon 09-Jul-12 23:44:59

Claigy? A socialist??

[sock]

crazynanna Mon 09-Jul-12 23:45:43

oh lordy that was meant to be shock not [sock] blush

or was it?.....grin

claig Mon 09-Jul-12 23:51:52

Not fully yet. But I am beginning to agree with more and more socialist policies. I am getting tired of hearing about pensioners' benefit cuts and benefit cuts for everybody while banks are not lending and have been fixing LIBOR and mis-selling products and wrecked the economy. It is atarting to look like the biggest ripoff in history.

tethersend Mon 09-Jul-12 23:54:48

<weeps with joy>

crazynanna Mon 09-Jul-12 23:55:21

<dances around room>

NicholasTeakozy Tue 10-Jul-12 08:19:00

those privatised utilities make money and pay tax rather than costing money to run.

How many billions do we pay in subsidies to the rail companies?

NicholasTeakozy Tue 10-Jul-12 08:21:29

Claig has been kidnapped and been replaced with a human being with a real soul. That's the only explanation.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 08:54:21

'Claig has been kidnapped and been replaced with a human being with a real soul.'

No, I'm just the same ole, full of soul, average Daily Mail reader, now that's rock'n'roll. LOL.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 10:00:23

You only have to listen to Niall Ferguson's Reith Lectures 2012 to realise that the Conservative rule is going to be very short-lived. So much bullshit by Ferguson, so much unclear and wrong-headed thinking. He says the problem is we don't have enough private schools, he says not enough of us are volunteering. He champions Big Society and Civil Society and says we are not doing enough and preaches big bullshit.

It's the type of message that says everything about the state is bad and everything private is good. Ths State isn't bad. The problem is there is a difference between a bad State and a good State. The problem is to make sure we have a good State that is on the side of the people and that regulates the rogues, lobbyists and bankers.

The State can take us into space, the State can clear up our shores, the State can educate all our people, the State can pay for medical care that private insurance will never cover.

The State can do good and Niall Ferguson's ideas don't rate.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 10:11:42

He mentions Beveridge and says what would Beveridge think of the sink estates in our cities, and implies that it is the fault of left-wing thinking and state and welfare dependency. It has got nothing to do with left-wing thinking and everything to do with globalisation and the removal of jobs from communities and the opening of factories in cheaper locations abroad. It has everything to do with short-term financial markets and banks who won't invest in small businesses locally but prefer to spend our money on market speculation in derivative instruments in order to earn stratospheric bonuses.

Beveridge didn't know that all of this would happen. Niall Ferguson looks back in time and is trapped in old ways of thinking. The world has moved on and the sovereign state has lost its control to the spivs and market stall traders who gamble with the nation's savings and demand to be bailed out because they are too big to fail.

Ferguson tells us that we aren't doing enough, but he says little about what the spivs are doing.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 10:17:57

In fact Niall Ferguson is a historian. He looks back to the past, he is trapped in the past. He is learned and has studied de Tocqueville, he is full of opinions about the past, but he fails to see what is happening now in the present right before our eyes.

He needs to put his books down, put his finger on today's pulse and pick up the paper of the people - the Daily Mail.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 10:57:25

Ferguson brings up the example of a voluntary organisation clearing up the beach near where he lives. They all got together and cleared up the plastic bottles. Those are the sort of Big Society plastic policies that he preaches. He thinks that is what is wrong with the world, that we aren't doing our bit. He hasn't got a clue.

While people are clearing up the beaches, crooks are clearing out our cupboards, robbing our retirement funds and pilfering our pension funds. We can volunteer until the cows come home, but that won't fix the fixers. That can only be done by our State, and Miliband is right to call for it before it is too late.

flatpackhamster Tue 10-Jul-12 11:19:57

Yes, yes, we get the idea. You love Red Ed and his Cracking Inventions to deal with the bankers.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 11:36:25

'You love Red Ed and his Cracking Inventions'

Ed yes, but not all of the Shadow Cabinet

NicholasTeakozy Tue 10-Jul-12 11:56:51

It has got nothing to do with left-wing thinking and everything to do with globalisation and the removal of jobs from communities and the opening of factories in cheaper locations abroad

That.

amicissimma Tue 10-Jul-12 18:50:08

"The State can take us into space, the State can clear up our shores, the State can educate all our people, the State can pay for medical care that private insurance will never cover. "

Erm, I think you'll find it's the Taxpayer who provides all this largesse. The State mechanism simply spends money that its citizens earn. Unfortunately, in the last 15 years, the government has spent rather more than its citizens earned, despite these years including a period of growth.

BTW, do you have any information on when "all our people" are going to be educated? Last I heard not even 60% of pupils achieved a basic 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths in 2011.

EdgarAllenPimms Tue 10-Jul-12 18:55:22

How many billions do we pay in subsidies to the rail companies?

rail companies have always worked like that. even in the 'golden age of steam'.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 19:24:32

'Erm, I think you'll find it's the Taxpayer who provides all this largesse.'

Erm, I think that taxpayers Mr & Mrs Jones can run a whelk stall, but not a space programme. The State is an extension of the citizens; it can achieve what individuals on their own cannot.

'BTW, do you have any information on when "all our people" are going to be educated? Last I heard not even 60% of pupils achieved a basic 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths in 2011.'

All our young people are in education, and the State educates most of them. The level of education they receive can vary, but is likely to improve under Gove's reforms.

tomverlaine Tue 10-Jul-12 19:41:24

I don't think he's offering anything new or thoughtout. Everyone supports tighter regulation ....now just like everyone supported light touch 10 years ago. Uk investment bank- what does he mean- to raise cash fir infrastructure projects - this is what pfi does ..and has been derided by press recently.
I personally think the division of investment banking and retail is a good idea but this wasn't the direct cause of the crisis ( I find it ironic that bad lending is blamed fir the crisis but now banks are derided for not lending) and could lead to more expensive retail banking.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 19:54:34

' I find it ironic that bad lending is blamed fir the crisis but now banks are derided for not lending'

I never believed the story that it was bad lending. Everybody like Vince Cable etc says that it was "casino banking", there was no retail bank lending there, just derivative gambling. That's why they want to ringfence the retail lending banks and teh mortgage lenders from the casino banking elements.

The people who make billion dollar losses are the traders on the trading floors, not the bank mangers on the high street.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 19:56:38

If Mr and Mrs Jones can't pay their mortgage, the high street bank repossesses their home. They are not on the hook for billions.

tomverlaine Tue 10-Jul-12 20:00:50

What? The question is whether securitisation made lenders take risks with lending that they wouldn't have taken if the risks had stayed on balance sheet- eg did they suspend judgement- losses only came when borrowers defaulted. The investment banks that collapsed during the crisis did so because of liquidity issues - not through derivatives. But investment bankers are easy targets- saying that people shouldn't borrow huge multiples of unpredictable income is not palatable.
But if vince cable says differently then I bow to his knowledge of banking

tomverlaine Tue 10-Jul-12 20:04:46

Repossession means in general that the bank ends up with a house that is worth less than the loan- this means a loss for the bank. Scale this up by the millions of mr and mrs jones...

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 20:06:54

'The investment banks that collapsed during the crisis did so because of liquidity issues - not through derivatives.'

The investment banks needed liquidity to cover their positions and the black holes caused by their derivative losses. Counterparties called time on the transactions and credit margins and rollovers were no longer good enough. It was the iinvestment (not retail) bank Lehmans that first went belly up and infected the entire system.

'But if vince cable says differently then I bow to his knowledge of banking'
You are not alone, a lot of people bow to his knowledge too.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 20:15:42

'Repossession means in general that the bank ends up with a house that is worth less than the loan- this means a loss for the bank. Scale this up by the millions of mr and mrs jones...'

I'm not sure, but I think teh banks may even have insurance for this. The house prices also eventually recover and they can receive rental income. This is not what caused the near collpase of the entire financial system. We have had housing collapses before and they didn't require trillions of pounds of taxpayer money to put right.

This is about the casino banks, not banks that lend to the public.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 20:19:42

Although the two banks are now interconnected due to teh light touch regulation which has failed to separate the retail arms from teh investment arms. Miliband is calling for that separation in order to safeguard teh taxpayer from having to bail the spivs out yet again. But it seems that the Tories may not go as far as implementing a full separation. We will have to wait and see.

EnjoyResponsibly Tue 10-Jul-12 20:20:47

It was exactly because Lehmans didn't have a retail banking arm that it was allowed to collapse. If the High St banks hadn't had customers with deposit accounts they'd have been allowed to go to the dogs.

And for the record, the electorate didn't favour light touch regulation. I'm betting the majority of the electorate wouldn't have known who the toothless FSA were, nor how little power they had or he lightly the Banks were being regulated right up to the point the shit hit the fan.

But that's all beside the point. If Ed really wants to convince the public that he can deliver loose real change, what's he got on the next 5 PowerPoint slides?

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 20:22:51

'what's he got on the next 5 PowerPoint slides?'

He is keeping that up his sleeve, but we may well be told soon.

EnjoyResponsibly Tue 10-Jul-12 20:26:06

Well let's hope so because until he's finished writing them tonight then its just a load of same old.

Frankly, I could have done what he's done so far myself --if I didnt think it was a cynical ploy to appease the part of the electorate that is prone to believing Slide 1.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 20:26:34

'It was exactly because Lehmans didn't have a retail banking arm that it was allowed to collapse.'

It should have been saved, not allowed to collapse. It would have cost far less than what the taxpayers have had to pay over the subsequent years. It should have been shored up and an orderly analysis of all derivative positions could then have been done behind the scenes and positions could have been closed out and some banks could have been allowed to fail without causing panic on the streets.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 20:27:57

some investment banks could have been allowed to fail

EnjoyResponsibly Tue 10-Jul-12 20:28:36

Rubbish, the US was too busy shoring up deposit banks and AIB. If that had gone tits up we'd all be living in boxes.

tomverlaine Tue 10-Jul-12 20:30:13

Lehmans stupidly was still profitable when it collapsed - it had a mismatch in between short term /long term funding and lending which was hugely impacted by the situation. Banks such as northern rock had no investment banking positions.
Derivatives are risky -and can leverage up risk hugely- but they weren't the culprits this time. This was different from others really because of the interconnectedness of the global markets- us property collapsed - the impact wasn't limited to the us.
Banks don't really have insurance for property repossessions- they may pass on risk to other banks ( either via securitisation or via derivatives) - but this just creates the contagion effect. They don't get rental income that would cover debt/costs.
Banks run their business on borrowed money- this is the fundamental problem- if something goes wrong and people stop lending - the house of cards collapses. This could be something real such as the property Market collapse or just Market sentiment. The fact that derivatives demanded margin wasn't a problem caused by huge derivative losses but to a degree normal demands which lehmans couldn't meet.

EnjoyResponsibly Tue 10-Jul-12 20:34:00

But again, back to the point of your thread.

If Ed can hatch a plan that's got actual substance, and let's face it on the strength of what he's got so far even you'd have to agree the ink is still wet, let him bring it out.

He's got 2 years to stop dicking about and craft an idea that's more than bullet points.

I'm ready to hear it, I just don't believe he's got it yet. And I bet if you were honest, youd agree.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 20:34:58

'the US was too busy shoring up deposit banks'

They have got teh billions to cover deposit banks. Where do you think they found teh $700 billion to rescue teh bankers and teh billions to rescue GM. Covering the deposit banks was not teh issue, it was covering teh black holes in the investment banks which had infected teh entire system. That is why they are all now talking about splitting teh gamblers from teh retail side, so that it can't happen again.

There is talk of making the gamblers personally liable for their losses and removing limited liability, which is apparently how these investment banks used to be (when maybe they were partnerships, but I don't know enough about those times). That would stop teh gamblers in their tracks; they would all be queuing up at Gamblers Anonymous with no handouts from teh public.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 20:40:12

Ed has not got all the answers, but he has got the questions. He wants a judicial inquiry to find out the answers. He is a clever man, a PPE from Oxford, but he can't do it all alone - that's why he wants an inquiry to get to teh bottom of it and find out what went wrong and why and what can be doen to make sure it never happens again. That is a good start. A journey starts with a single step. He has taken a brave leap (since we don't yet know what this will reveal about possible Labour mistakes) in the right direction.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 20:43:07

Ed has looked into what the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England called "the cesspit" and has shouted "rien ne va plus".

EnjoyResponsibly Tue 10-Jul-12 20:53:11

Excellent, and when he's finished installing his Casino to English app he can finish his PowerPoint slides smile

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 20:57:17

Our democracy is actually getting healthier as we are learning more and more about what has been going on unbeknown to us for many years.

First we had the MP expenses' scandal, which had been going on for years without the public being told. Then we had the Murdoch thing, which had been going on for years without teh public being told. Now the curtain is being drawn back on what teh bankers have been doing for years, without the public being told.

Little by little, we are discovering the truth, the lies are held up to the light. This is good for democracy, good for the country and good for the people and bad for the spivs.

Once upon a time there was a great leader called Thatcher who was not one for turning back - she told teh socialists "you turn if you want to, the lady is not for turning". Now Miliband is also not for turning, he is sticking to his guns and seeking the truth.

We are living in historic times, we will eventually see "real change" and crooks will be punished for their crimes.

As the legendary, world-respected 'Daily Mail Comment' so wisely said

'it is no exaggeration to say that the banks stand accused of a series of crimes against society itself'

tomverlaine Tue 10-Jul-12 21:01:10

FFS- if the inquiry is run by people with as closed minds as you it won't do anything - you need to see beyond the easy answer of blaming derivatives - it's not that simple-a ppe degree and a lifetime spent in politics doesn't give give him an insight into banking ( or even into politics if the last couple of years are anything to go by!)

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 21:04:15

We've seen home flipping, New Labour backsliding and backslipping, phone hacking and email cracking and now we hear of low-balling and high-balling, it's enough to get your eyes rolling. Surely there can't be much more left, there must be a limit to the theft.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 21:09:16

This low-balling and high-balling crap gives a good name to Gangsta Rap.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 21:21:54

'you need to see beyond the easy answer of blaming derivatives'

I have seen beyond, I have seen the spivs' game, it's always the same.
What the spivs want us to think is that it is our fault. They want to blame us for taking up loans that were showered upon us. They want to blame us, tell us we did our bit and if we don't thank them for their "services to banking", then they say they will leave the country.

The problem for the spivs is that the public are sharper than the spivs thought. The spivs can't out-bluff the public anymore. The spivs hold a poor hand, their bluff has been called, and they have had to fold. The true story will be told.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 21:27:14

We have seen very powerful people who thought that they held the public's politicians in their pocket. But we have seen some very brave MPs - and frankly most of them are New Labour ones, to their credit - who have stood up for the public.

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 21:34:48

Three that spring to mind, but there are probably many others are
Ed Miliband, Tom Watson, Chris Bryant - these people are cut from a different cloth.

As Ali G and the entire membership of Da West Staines Massiv would say "Respect. Aye"

MiniTheMinx Tue 10-Jul-12 22:03:42

Erm, I think you'll find it's the Taxpayer who provides all this largesse. The State mechanism simply spends money that its citizens earn. Unfortunately, in the last 15 years, the government has spent rather more than its citizens earned, despite these years including a period of growth

amicissimma, we have a surplus capital absorption problem of some $50 Trillion, (by 2020 is will probably be $100 Tr) this money sits side by side with unmet social need. It is private money that could be invested into job creation and lending to smaller businesses but very little of this money is being invested in the real economy. In times past the capital surplus was used to fund developers and mortgages, speculating to accumulate over the long term. When it became obvious that the surplus outstripped the areas available for investment, we saw sub-prime mortgages come about. Problem is, governments do not take enough in tax, workers who make up the biggest chunk of tax payers on low wages, workers on P.A.Y.E on higher wages but the surplus is not in their hands. That is why we have "Dave's big society Bank" it is the new frontier for capital and it is the only way the government can meet it's welfare responsibilities, not through tax (they avoid paying through complex systems and off shoring) but through begging for investment. And who will underwrite this massive expansion of capitalist profiteering, we will, the tax payer.

So don't tell me state ownership or taxes are bad, look at who is really picking your pockets.

Claig, I'm so glad, we need the peoples poet on our side grin

claig Tue 10-Jul-12 22:20:16

Hi Mini, have missed your input. Good to see you back. smile

claig Wed 11-Jul-12 07:41:39

'Last year, a leading fund manager warned that millions of workers could be the victims of a pensions mis-selling scandal, which will halve the value of their investments.
David Pitt-Watson, chairman of Hermes, said employees could be enrolled into schemes with rip-off charges and poor investment strategies.

One of his biggest fears was these fees wiping out the value of savings, leaving workers with a paltry total after a lifetime of carefully saving each month.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171765/High-charges-wipe-fifth-workers-pensions-time-retire.html

How high will their bonuses soar, how low will their morals sink?

Ordinary people ripped off from pillar to post. Is it any wonder that they will listen to a message of "real change"?

claig Wed 11-Jul-12 07:54:40

But let's not notice what is being done to us, let's listen to the Reith Lectures 2012, let's volunteeer for the Big Society, let's go and clean up our beach for free, so that the Fat Cats can enjoy their leisure swimmingly.

tomverlaine Wed 11-Jul-12 21:17:00

But the pension issue is entirely different to the banking one! This is simply saying that because a contribution to a pension scheme covers both the actual investment and fees. The fees pay for the investment manager who is making the investment decisions - eg the costs. Is your problem the concept of paying someone, the level of the fees or the entire idea of defined contribution schemes ?

Fee levels in investment banking I think is an area which could be looked at- why are corporates willing to pay such fees , what alternatives are available etc...

claig Wed 11-Jul-12 21:22:34

Yes, it is different. But my problem is with the level of the fees which result in people being once again ripped off.

'David Pitt-Watson, chairman of Hermes, said employees could be enrolled into schemes with rip-off charges'

Yet again we need good regulation and high standards. People have been ripped off for too long. Read the comments of fine Daily Mail readers, underneath that article, who explain how they have been ripped off and how it has been happening for years.

We need 'real change'.

claig Wed 11-Jul-12 21:23:33

We need real change not to carry on being short changed by the spivs and scoundrels.

tomverlaine Wed 11-Jul-12 21:39:39

So what fees are you prepared to pay? I thought from something you said earlier that you were a Thatcherite and supported Market mechanism adjusting fees ?
The pension Market is highly regulated - how would you like it changed in particular?
Who are the spivs and scoundrels in this?
How is this miss-selling? Is a defined contribution wrong for these people ? Were the fees hidden? What is the alternative- we already have state pensions?

claig Wed 11-Jul-12 21:46:05

'I thought from something you said earlier that you were a Thatcherite and supported Market mechanism adjusting fees?'

I support market mechanisms but with regulation. I don't support lowlifes and low-ballers who use lowdown techniques to swindle the public. I don't support market traders who mis-sell products that are not for for purpose. I believe in trading standards and regulations; I don't believe in cowboy builders swindling old age pensioners out of their savings or cowboy casino corporations who swindle workers out of their savings.

Just like the US market institutions who initiated the investigation into the low-balling scam, I believe in a free and fair market that protects the consumer. I don't belive in 'light touch' regulation of low-ballers or soft touch regulation of spivs.

claig Wed 11-Jul-12 21:47:49

'Who are the spivs and scoundrels in this?'

How long have you got?
Ed wants a judicial inquiry under oath to find out who they are.

claig Wed 11-Jul-12 21:49:19

'The pension Market is highly regulated'

Yes, and we were told the City institutions were regulated too.

claig Wed 11-Jul-12 21:51:40

'What is the alternative?'

The alternative is that the government stipulates what the maximum fee percentage can be, just like they impose safety standards on food and consumer goods.

claig Wed 11-Jul-12 22:01:31

I believe in full transparency of charges and fees, full reporting and full disclosure or lobbyists, clear and concise language for the consumer, not arcane legalese, and full information given to the public. Instead of 'caveat emptor', I think we need a bit more 'caveat spiv'.

claig Wed 11-Jul-12 22:10:47

I know someone on low wages with some learning difficulties who works day and night and has never taken a day off sick in years of work who was sold an 'ethical' investment fund by the 'ethical' financial advisers. Their hard-earned wages, earned with real sweat, vanished as they read their financial returns. These commission cowboys in comfortable chairs who never sweat for a penny and who con hard-working people out of their small levels of cash and call it 'ethical' are nothing but condfidence tricksters.

Mrbojangles1 Sun 05-Aug-12 18:49:34

There are a lot of words that spring to mind aout red ed but brillant is not one of them

Betelguese Tue 28-Aug-12 20:44:14

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now