2015 Election night discussion.

[Bigthumb 10]

Lets just say 76% did not vote Tory, that is near enough.

 

If that's what it takes to help you guys get through the next 5 years. I doubt it matters to Cameron. I expect Boris will be our next PM despite at least 70% of the population not voting for him. :hihi:

[I1L2T3 10]

So, the ongoing regulation in the UK to address the problems at root and prevent a recurrence of 2008 is not a point worthy of consideration and discussion?

 

That's just one point.

 

I'll not bother re-stating the others as, from the above, your wavy dismissy hand is quite clearly still waving and, in that context, I'll be f**** if I'm going to repeat myself, manifestly in vain

 

Give me a heads-up when you decide to progress from your monochromatic debating stance.

 

In the meantime, I don't disagree that the UK needs to repatriate (create more of, actually) manufacturing, particularly of the high-value specialist type. Which it has been doing for several years now and, happily, that is an accelerating trend.

 

But in the absence of a voluminous slave labour force knocking out trinkets for pennies and flogging them globally with a mark-up at 1000s of %, coupled with a 'statist' State with a blank and limitless chequebook engaging in outright economical warfare and tech know-how hoovering -like China, not to name it- innovation and production investment doesn't happen without a strong financial sector to back it.

 

I don't think the regulation really goes far enough. It's trumpeted as a sea change but really it isn't. The BofE now oversees regulation more but it's the same BofE that made a multitude of serious regulatory errors in the 80s and 90s. The regulatory staff are largely just shifted over from the old FSA anyway. Direct impacts to the structure and governance of banks are woolly with lax timescales. There has been no serious reform, not much in the way of improving international regulatory frameworks. It's more of the same and risks for generations of UK tax payers remain.

 

As for the rest of it you know my stance - it's about removing our dependence on the financial sector and rebalancing the economy. The financial sector needs to be remodeled to work for us as a country, to invest more productively, to stop driving up personal debt. It'll take time to wean us off our dependence on the sector but the removal of HSBC is an excellent start.

[Berberis 10]

Lets just say 76% did not vote Tory, that is near enough.

 

Discussing this with you and sibon is like playing chess with a pigeon.

[Bigthumb 10]

Yes of course and it's the kind of argument Thatcher made about the big old industries dominating our economy in the 70s. The problem is after years of change we've ended up with the same sort of issue, only with a different and potentially more damaging sector dominating the economy.

 

It is only damaging if you fall for the line of bankers bringing down the UK economy. The figures from the treasury website would suggest a slightly different picture.

 

Tax contribution of the UK financial sector.

 

2007 ................£67.8 billion

2009................ £61.4 billion

2010 ................£53.4 billion

2011 ................£61.0 billion

2012................ £61.0 billion

2013................ £65.0 billion

 

How easily we dismiss 12-15% of UK tax revenue, particularly considering how easily a large portion of it could move abroad.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Bigthumb

[RonJeremy 10]

Discussing this with you and sibon is like playing chess with a pigeon.

 

Not a rook then?

[Bigthumb 10]

Discussing this with you and sibon is like playing chess with a pigeon.

 

Do you really expect coherent debate from someone who is scratching through the detritis of a humiliating election defeat looking for any glimmer of hope, and finding none. The poor dear might just come to terms with events in time for a similar Labour disaster in 5 years time.

 

Let's talk about boundary changes.

[I1L2T3 10]

It is only damaging if you fall for the line of bankers bringing down the UK economy. The figures from the treasury website would suggest a slightly different picture.

 

Tax contribution of the UK financial sector.

 

2007 ................£67.8 billion

2009................ £61.4 billion

2010 ................£53.4 billion

2011 ................£61.0 billion

2012................ £61.0 billion

2013................ £65.0 billion

 

How easily we dismiss 12-15% of UK tax revenue, particularly considering how easily a large portion of it could move abroad.

 

Let's be sensible about this - nobody is saying that all of the tax revenue will be lost. Nobody is saying we'd lose the sector altogether. We'd have a leaner, less risky sector. If we reduced our reliance finance and diversified then a smaller tax take of say £40bn from the sector would be better.

 

You have to consider that against future risk if nothing changes. At its height the 2008 crisis exposed the taxpayer to over £900bn of support for the financial sector. Can we afford that again?

[Guest sibon]

Discussing this with you and sibon is like playing chess with a pigeon.

 

There is nothing to discuss.

 

75% of the electorate didn't vote Tory. That is absolute mathematical fact.

 

Mr Cameron should have that in mind at all times. He's promised a one nation government, after all.

 

Incidentally, I'm happy to see what he comes up with. My only hope for the election was that we didn't get a government with a large majority, they do too much damage in my opinion. As you can't really slip a fag paper between the policies of Labour and the Tories, I don't think that the winner makes very much difference.

[SteveJ68 10]

There is nothing to discuss.

 

75% of the electorate didn't vote Tory. That is absolute mathematical fact.

 

Mr Cameron should have that in mind at all times. He's promised a one nation government, after all.

 

Incidentally, I'm happy to see what he comes up with. My only hope for the election was that we didn't get a government with a large majority, they do too much damage in my opinion. As you can't really slip a fag paper between the policies of Labour and the Tories, I don't think that the winner makes very much difference.

 

A bunch of neocons according to this bloke.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cameron-neo-con-395124903#pq=MDybRN

[RonJeremy 10]

Let's be sensible about this - nobody is saying that all of the tax revenue will be lost. Nobody is saying we'd lose the sector altogether. We'd have a leaner, less risky sector. If we reduced our reliance finance and diversified then a smaller tax take of say £40bn from the sector would be better.

 

You have to consider that against future risk if nothing changes. At its height the 2008 crisis exposed the taxpayer to over £900bn of support for the financial sector. Can we afford that again?

 

Which hospitals should we close? Shall we start with the Northern General?

[Bigthumb 10]

Let's be sensible about this - nobody is saying that all of the tax revenue will be lost. Nobody is saying we'd lose the sector altogether. We'd have a leaner, less risky sector. If we reduced our reliance finance and diversified then a smaller tax take of say £40bn from the sector would be better.

 

You have to consider that against future risk if nothing changes. At its height the 2008 crisis exposed the taxpayer to over £900bn of support for the financial sector. Can we afford that again?

 

I'm struggling with this word risk. Strip away the feeding frenzy whenever banks are mentioned. Even in the worst year in the last decade the financial sector contributed £53.4 billion. But it does upset folk that someone running one of these places that employs 100,000 taxpayers gets paid nearly as much as a footballer.

 

Whether Brown was right to tip all our cash into buying bank shares isn't an issue. It was nationalisation, nothing more. The Tories are de-nationalising the banks and look set to regain every penny paid for them.

 

Regarding the £900 billion you say we were exposed too. We still are and always will be. The FSCS underwrite the bank accounts of everyone to the tune of £85000 per person per bank. That's the same as your insurer insuring you against car accidents which could amount to £5 million if you ran into a bus queue.

 

https://protected.fscs.org.uk/

Edited June 11, 2015 by Bigthumb

[L00b 441]

How easily we dismiss 12-15% of UK tax revenue, particularly considering how easily a large portion of it could move abroad.

Glad it's not just me who's trying to stay a bit pragmatic in here.

Let's be sensible about this - nobody is saying that all of the tax revenue will be lost. Nobody is saying we'd lose the sector altogether. We'd have a leaner, less risky sector. If we reduced our reliance finance and diversified then a smaller tax take of say £40bn from the sector would be better.

So, er...this new manufacturing sector of yours...How do you make it pay £20 to £30bn to No.11 every year on top of what it already pays now? Within what timescale? How does the Gvt make up the shortfall in-between? Whose belts are being tightened in-between? Let's hear it

You have to consider that against future risk if nothing changes. At its height the 2008 crisis exposed the taxpayer to over £900bn of support for the financial sector. Can we afford that again?

False logic. The financial industry landscape has already changed significantly relative to 2007-2008, and is changing further still, as a result of statutory intervention (can't be anything else: the economy is now steadily growing again).

 

Exhibit 1: HSBC is going.

Edited June 11, 2015 by L00b