³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Never say never, George.

Sagamix @ 2

Well you just said it twice.

Are we borrowing from the banks so that Ireland can borrow from us so that they can give it to the banks?

Please tell me I've got this wrong

I happy that we are helping our neighbours, the Irish.

Perhaps now they will allow H.M. The Queen to visit their country.

Or is that asking too much?

Time to forget the text book solutions - events and our interests are dictating our actions.

Seems to me a lot of commentators want to turn this into an issue of whether the Coalition is being sufficiently anti EU. But that is nothing more than government spin.

The real issue is that the UK needs to loan money to Ireland because two state owned banks (RBS and LLoyds) are horribly exposed to Irish bank debt. Whether that is done via EU or bilateral mechanisms is very much a secondary presentational issue.

And all this stuff about the importance of the Irish market for our exports is also vastly exaggerated. Last time I looked Ireland was the destination for 6% of our exports.

Make no mistake this is all about protecting British banks.

Wrong argument. Osbourne is not bailing out a "eurozone" country, he's giving more of our money to idiot UK bankers. The only reason George bailed out the Irish Government is because of the massive exposure the UK banking sector would take, and don't take my word for it. I quote from the Bank of International Settlements
"Banks headquartered in the United Kingdom have larger exposures ($230bn) than banks based in any other country. More than half of those ($128bn) were to the non-bank private sector." The UK banks also hold a huge amount of Irish derivative (basically options that are financial gambling). So the banks take the risk and the profits when they succeed and we quietly pick up the bill when they mess up. Helping your mates in the City George. You have to laugh at the sheer absurdity of it all.

Eurosider - we are not helping our neighbours we are helping the banks that you and I own (RBS and LLoyds).

2#

He says everything twice. At least. He finds his own mellifluous tones most gratifying on his ears.

Who wrote 'the inhabitants of the island gained a precarious living by taking in each others’ washing'? It seems apt.

It does apprear that we are owed a lot of money.

Now George please be precise. How much are the UK owed by all Countries around the world? I know about monies having been lent to US, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece but surely there must be a few more. Japan? China?

George, I know how much interest we are paying on our debt per annum, you've spent the whole of your time in government telling us but just for the record how much interest are receiving on our monies lent to all these other countries?

Please tell me that we are receiving interest on the USD 1.25bn we have given to the USA. and that they do have a plan to pay it back?

Why has no one at the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ thought to ask this straight forward question on our behalf?

So, we the UK borrow at 4% and then lend this to Ireland at 5%.

£70m profit thanks very much. Little risk as Ireland are in BoP surplus.

Politicians often are obliged to say things that they do not necessarily believe in, it is part-and-parcel of the job.

Thus Osborne fobs of Bill Cash with some meaningless platitudes and naturally blames the previous administration for 'signing-up'.

The reality is that we are full members of the EU even though our politicians appear to be rather half-hearted about it at times.

Being a full member implies taking full responsibility, which means supporting other EU member countries when required.

As far as the EU is concerned, we are genuinely all-in-it-together and therefore must sink or swim together.

So there will probably be more member country bail-outs and we here in England will find that our Government will contribute whatever is required of us, which is no different to other member countries which can afford to do likewise, such as Germany.

After all, we don't want to be seen to be weaker than Germany, do we?

Do not think about this along national lines i.e. it's Ireland that is being bailed out etc.

It's the bond holders and banks (the privateers) that are being bailed out and the poor Irish taxpayers that will be left to pay (aka privatised profits, socialised losses).

It's all about red libertarians (aka free-market anarchists, called new labour) and blue libertarians (aka free market anarchists called the tories) just doing their normal business. The statists (aka socialists ala clause 4) packed up their bags and left a long time ago.

All the Lisbon treaty was ever about was allowing the right for persons/corporations to run businesses as they see fit (hence human rights, equality, freedom of labour movement in the EU legislation etc etc)

This labour vs. tory charade is just the same as the right wing tory vs. left wing tory charade re. Europe. It's all just rhetoric and bluster to fool the masses. They all really worship Lisbon though will never admit it.

The cosmopolitan, free-market anarchists don't do national stuff. That's left to bamboozle the plebs.

Another 7 billion to lend...ok then, if you must. The laws of economics, morality, fair play etc. have been overturned so many times since the banking crisis began that I've stopped trying to make sense of any of it.

Complaint From: IR35_SURVIVOR Moderation Reference: 30338618 about Post 103354669 #19 stated "Post 14 are you George Osborne as you also seem to have no idea of what happened in the last 13 years, read hs fabulous piece in the Times post 10 to see what George wantedus to get involved in"

and

mine was

"are you T.Bliar as he did not have anyidea either"

either both stay or go or the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ is biased ?


seems ok to accused someone of being GO but not to respond by say are you TB ?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I don't think my attention span is short enough to keep up with the debates on these blogs. One comment each if we're fortunate enough to find the window, and they're closed.
I mean... don't they want me to cast light upon this multi-faceted jewel?

Mr.Osborne fobs off the eurosceptics with a form of words.But both Tory eurosceptics and pragmatists lack a meaningful analysis of where we are,if they do have one they haven`t passed it on.

Sovereign debt is the next stage of a crisis across the capitalist world which began in 2007-08.In the thirties banks went bust and businesses failed,now their losses are socialized and they become a responsibility of governments and the taxpayer.These and other stabilizing mechanisms have prevented catastrophe,but in doing so have inhibited a wider debate on the way forward for growth.

Greece and Ireland find themselves in a debt spiral where cutting debt has shrunk tax revenues faster than deficits which are growing.The USA with weak growth and high unemployment is subject to similar strains.Additional cutting and taxing in Britain could replicate the disaster elsewhere.

It is often forgotten that the world crisis of the thirties only ended with a massive armaments programme in WW2,so it may be a question of the scale of intervention as well as its direction? There`s no certainty,each crisis is unique while sharing common features with previous events.Meanwhile the Western economy is on the brink, we need a wider ranging debate on the way forward.

8 Cassandra

Eurosider - we are not helping our neighbours we are helping the banks that you and I own (RBS and LLoyds).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lloyds is not state owned.

7. Mulder
So you are basically saying that the Tories are using Tax Payers money to support UK Banks by helping Ireland out; surely some mistake after all of the roasting that they gave old Crash Gordon.

Still, Ozzy says that it’s never going to happen again – Honest Guv'.

The thing that strikes me about this is the calm, assured and mature way this crisis is being handled by Osbourne. Those who questioned his qualifications to be chancellor, suggested he was a bit lightweight, simply out to make a name for himself, must be feeling pretty foolish about now.

Bryhers 19

'we need a wider ranging debate on the way forward.'

and if the Labour party want to play any meaningful part in that debate they could start by admitting that state spending got completely out of control when they were in office. If they can't even admit this then their contribution to any debate is worthless.

4. At 3:21pm on 22 Nov 2010, EuroSider wrote:

I happy that we are helping our neighbours, the Irish.

Perhaps now they will allow H.M. The Queen to visit their country.

Or is that asking too much?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes.

14. At 3:59pm on 22 Nov 2010, DebtJuggler wrote:

Do not think about this along national lines i.e. it's Ireland that is being bailed out etc.

It's the bond holders and banks (the privateers) that are being bailed out and the poor Irish taxpayers that will be left to pay (aka privatised profits, socialised losses).

It's all about red libertarians (aka free-market anarchists, called new labour) and blue libertarians (aka free market anarchists called the tories) just doing their normal business. The statists (aka socialists ala clause 4) packed up their bags and left a long time ago.

All the Lisbon treaty was ever about was allowing the right for persons/corporations to run businesses as they see fit (hence human rights, equality, freedom of labour movement in the EU legislation etc etc)

This labour vs. tory charade is just the same as the right wing tory vs. left wing tory charade re. Europe. It's all just rhetoric and bluster to fool the masses. They all really worship Lisbon though will never admit it.

The cosmopolitan, free-market anarchists don't do national stuff. That's left to bamboozle the plebs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No.

When are world financial institutions going to shoulder their share? Seems to me they are the only ones to get paid at all, let alone in full, whilst all other obligations are being reneged upon on the grounds of "We are skint."

They need to be looking at debt reduction by cutting interest rates, extending the term of loans... yet instead they have the temerity to RAISE interest rates on further loans, pointing to the mess their actions have caused, and governments are too feeble to say "No" - perhaps they used up all their breath saying "No" to their citizens who dared to ask for the services that they have already paid for!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I doubt we would be so anxious to help Ireland if our own banking system wasnt so inextricably linked with the Irish one and that Ireland wasnt a big customer for our exports.

As both are fact then help was inevitable and it is difficult to see any other avenue.

On other matters Mods. Why have I today been notified of the removal of off topic posts from November 2009 and February 2010 ????? Is it just me ?

jobs @ catch

Just loving the limelight, Osborne, isn't he? Vanity very much in the box seat.

"He says everything twice. At least." - fubar @ 9

That's not true, I most certainly don't. I do not.

No way.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

3. At 3:20pm on 22 Nov 2010, dotsanddashes wrote:

Are we borrowing from the banks so that Ireland can borrow from us so that they can give it to the banks?

Please tell me I've got this wrong


--------------------------


No, that's the Eurozone member state's situation.

The GB situation is: We call our bail-out bilateral lending and if Ireland cannot pay it back, the Eurozone will do it.

23 Jobsagoodin

says

"and if the Labour party want to play any meaningful part in that debate they could start by admitting that state spending got completely out of control when they were in office. If they can't even admit this then their contribution to any debate is worthless."

----------

An if the Tories start by admitting that they pledged to match that spending right up till November 2008 we may not find the sheer hypocrisy so laughable.

Same Old Tories.

You couldn't wish for a stronger example of why the little Englander model of Bill Cash and UKIP of "going it alone outside the EU" is now a non starter.

Globalisation has caused the financial system and world's markets to be so interlinked that an isolationist approach to banking, regulation and trade is now simply impossible - the structures have gone global.

But it also highlights the contradictions of the international open market and the archaic notion of "the nation state". The private sector banks are let loose to trade where and when they like - free movement of capital and laissez faire economics - plus "light touch" regulation - result - exessive greed, excessive risk and ultimately banking failures - yet the banks aren't left to go bust because if they did they'd take our economy with them, yet we collectively as the people of Britain in our "nation" are expected to pick up the bill for their excessive greed and poor judgement.

I understand the desire to preserve the UK's independence to act alone and to protect our people from the cold winds of global crises, but whether you are looking at Iceland, Eire or the UK, the reality is that private sector banks are underwritten by public sector taxes which can only in turn be underwritten by much large collective groupings big enough to survive major crises.

The UK needs to be in the EU - and probably ultimately the Euro too - in order to be sure those that owe us large sums can actually honour their debts, but also if our economy stumbles the other members of the club will support us.

The truth is that if the UK doesn't bail out the Irish government then they won't be able to bail out their Irish banks, and if the Irish banks go down they in turn will force the UK banks into insolvency, which will mean that the £40k for every man, woman & child in the UK that has already been poured into UK banks to stop them going bust will be lost and our economy would STILL go down the pan as our financial system melts down.

Our sovereignty has already been emasculated by the libertarian policies of allowing globalisation to sweep away any power or real control over the destiny of UK PLC.

If Bill Cash etc are serious about what they propose, then globalisation must end, banks must be borught to heel and an interventionist approach to trade put in place to rebalance our economy.

"Moral hazard" is a paper tiger - the free market has no morals other than trying to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible, that's why its is ultimately immoral.

"Is there a global economic crisis?"

Possibly, and today seemed a good day to ask the question.

World economic growth declined for one year only (by 0.6%). It rose in other years and is predicted to rise again. So we have had a (mild) world economic recession, but recessions are not normally considered to be critical.

That's why, as I said in another post, the Chinese see it as a North Atlantic crisis.

I suppose it seems like a crisis because although economic growth is resuming, even in the North Atlantic, the amount of bad debt held by banks and governments is unknown. So we know at least something that we don't know (known unknowns), but there may be worse (unknown unknowns).

So for now it's too early to say whether there is a world economic crisis, or whether this will be seen by economic historians not as another Great Depression, but merely an episode in the transfer of economic power from the West to Asia.

Can anyone tell me in simple terms where the £7bn is coming from, who has the money to lend us (a country with financial problems!) to lend to the Irish (a country with dire financial problems)? Surely not the most risk free of lending, are we in the hands of loan sharks?

What a farce! Bill Cash - we shouldn't be in it. George Osborne - don't like it but there wasn't really a choice. David Cameron - accepts it's to do with Qualifed Majority Voting but blames Labour anyway.
Libs have been very quiet. Coherent joined up government?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Can anyone explain what the consequences would be of letting Ireland default on its debt? In other words: if someone was silly enough to buy dept from a bank that was lending the money to property speculators during a property bubble, why shouldn't that person simply take the losses? Surely to bail out the bond holders would create moral hazard on a massive scale? Or is it simply that rich bond holders are more important than the general tax payer? Explanation anyone?

"That's why the Chinese see it as a North Atlantic crisis." - 36

Or, as El Presidente of Brazil described it a while ago, a crisis of "blue eyed white men".

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

You have to hope and assume that Osborne is doing the right thing, not from any love of the Irish but from the knowledge that they owe our banks so much that he is in no position to not help them out. Otherwise two of our biggest banks are in trouble, allegedly to the tune of about £70 billion

There is another way to look at it and that is do we want to prop up a failed experiment, the Euro. For if the Irish do go on the default on their bail out the Euro must surely collapse. The same goes for any of the other PIIGS.

So it is a risk if we do and possibly a bigger one if we don't for the ECB is very flimsy at present and is looking more like a house built of cards every day.

However there is still that dame morality banging around inside us to do the rite thing, but what is the rite thing for us and the Irish. As one commentator said; "is it better to give the addict another fix or should they be forced to go cold turkey?"

We are in Europe whether we like it or not, and I can't help wondering if it would be better for all if we try to make it work, as opposed to standing on the sidelines shouting abuse and making rude gestures.
Of course this would take some effort, would take quite a long time and would require some willingness to compromise, so it will be difficult for some here to understand what the point is. I don't expect everyone to agree straight away.

#42 lefty10

No money is being given to Ireland. It's being lent, and will appear as an asset on the government's books.

You can't compare it to public spending savings (though I think could compare it Forgemasters).

42 lefty11

I think it is important to remember that the Seven billion pounds being given to Ireland happens to be the total saving that would be made by all the welfare cuts put together.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Safe to say it will not be "given" to Ireland.

If UK borrows at 2% p.a. (5 year gilt yield) and lends to Ireland at 5% p.a. say then it is getting a 3% p.a. return for taking credit risk and helping UK banks at the same time.

Therefore not really comparable with cutting welfare payments, where we are reducing borrowing and expenditure.

46. johnharris.
Hi John,
The point is though that we were told there was no money. The country was virtually bankrupt and hence these ideological cuts affecting those who are most vulnerable hardest. And now there is seven hundred thousand million pounds to help prop up Ireland’s failed banks. And what are the terms of this loan?. What is the guarantee?
If its right to loan the money to Ireland then its right to prevent these wrongly targeted cuts.
Could you help me with any of the questions I asked about bank/banker accountability?
The ever increasing bonus pot v austerity for the poor?
Can you see how the system is broken and this is just the start?

I can smell revolution in the air. What type and how far reaching i dont know...but i can smell it!

47. AS71
That’s one hell of an expensive "IF"
And of course as there seems to be no guarantee its prudent to point out the devastation of public services and the money saved. Then the same amount leaving the UK in the form of a loan which im sure will help to pave the way for continued anti austerity bonuses paid to bankers worth billions of pounds!!!

See the muggery of it?

Anyone who thinks Osborne is lending to Ireland because he is either kind or a closet European integrationist has lost touch with reality. As others have pointed out he is protecting British banks. Moreover if there is a savage restructuring of Irish bank debt that will lead to a chain reaction as investors sell Spanish, British and even German bank paper. They've all got assets that have not been conservatively marked to market. Ireland may be "only" 6 per cent of UK exports (a mere £20 billion!) but Europe is over 50 per cent of our exports and if they have a relapse into recession we shall not escape. Fear not! Our government can be cleared of any suspicion of altruism or generosity.

on 22 Nov 2010, johnharris66 wrote:
"Is there a global economic crisis?"

Possibly, and today seemed a good day to ask the question.
World economic growth declined for one year only (by 0.6%). It rose in other years and is predicted to rise again. So we have had a (mild) world economic recession, but recessions are not normally considered to be critical.

The moderate decline in Gdp you mention was moderated by the contribution of the Asian and Brazilian economies.If you take the United States and Western Europe alone,the decline was much sharper and these economies were the source of the crisis.

From 2007-2009*,the US suffered its sharpest post-war decline,falling to -4.1% of GDP from its previous peak.By 2009 the economy was still depressed at-2.5% from its peak.The Eurozone shows a similar pattern,its steepest decline was -3.5% of GDP,it was still -1.5% off its peak in 2009.

In both areas there were considerable regional variations:-the eurozone particularly showed sharp declines in Spain,Ireland,Greece and the UK.
What is clear is that both in the USA and Eurozone the crisis is unresolved insofar as gdp has not recovered to its pre-crisis level.If this is a trend and it may not be,it was last seen in the crisis of the thirties.


Mass unemployment is now endemic in both areas,the USA with around ten percent of its workforce without jobs,the eurozone similar.There is also debt.In the eurone the means chosen to reduce it is deflation with Greece and Ireland showing that heavy cuts increases debt faster than it achieves revenue, so deficits increase.

Mass unemployment,falling consumption and investment exarcerbated by deflation,and in Britain`s case inflation, are red flag signals for economies in crisis.This impairs our ability to compete with rising stars in the east as well as imposing hardships on our people.

3. At 3:20pm on 22 Nov 2010, dotsanddashes wrote:
"Are we borrowing from the banks so that Ireland can borrow from us so that they can give it to the banks? Please tell me I've got this wrong"
=====================================================================
Err ... As I suspect you already know, you're pretty much right; except that the borrowing we're doing eventually comes from us, paying tax. Bottom line is that you can't fix a debt problem by borrowing more money. The approach we are advocating here is basically making a cash withdrawal from the credit card in order to pay the bill ... on someone else's card! It works for a while ... but eventually, people stop lending to you! I don't want to see Ireland go down ... but I just don't see how this helps. A 70bn loan for 10 years at 5% is roughly 8.5bn a year ... more than half the current deficit ... which they obviously can't pay anyway. This makes things worse; not better.

The bucket that is the Euro has a big hole in it ... pouring more water in only buys time ... until you fix the hole (ie, get rid of the debt), the basic problem will not go away. How does Ireland get rid of the debt? Revert back to the Punt, and a hefty dose of QE. It's not as easy as that though ... thereafter there will be a hefty dose of inflation which consumes both savings and debts with equal vigour. The alternative is to default directly ... as Argentina and more recently Iceland have done. Mixed reports on this. Some think Iceland is now recovering, others do not. Argentina is growing again now though.

At 7:38pm on 22 Nov 2010, Chris London wrote:
"There is another way to look at it and that is do we want to prop up a failed experiment, the Euro. For if the Irish do go on the default on their bail out the Euro must surely collapse. The same goes for any of the other PIIGS."

If Ireland defaults it is more than the Euro which will collapse.This prospect shows the fragility of the western economy and how the wrong policies now could have disastrous consequences.That`s why a debate is essential on the way forward.Deflation has failed in Greece and Ireland,it`s being tried across the eurozone and here.If our economies crash they could take America with them into a second great depression.

And we have experience of bailing out our own banks.
Lets look at that experience and what happened afterwards with our part publicly owned banks.

Not lending properly to business.
Excessive charges like unauthorised overdraft charges. The said banks admitted getting back into the black was done with considerable help by increasing charges. These charges affected the lowest paid disproportionately. The system of referral to the financial ombudsman was largely ineffective in regard to complaints thanks to recent court cases. So the poor again not only helped bail out the failed banks but paid again with charges when in both cases they had nothing to do with the collapse and could least afford to contribute.
Thousands of redundancies for low ranking bank staff.
Now the interesting one. We were told that bankers from partially publicly owned banks had their bonuses suspended. So who monitored this. Who is to say that the wages were not increased to make up for the bonus. Anyone investigated this. No. Can anyone show pre bailout remuneration and post bailout remuneration by these banks?

Why doesn't the Irish economy just leave the Euro mechanism and join the UK pound, then they can alter interest rates and do any quantative easing required to get them out of their problems?

I have news for Bill Cash "We will all go together when we go", regardless of whether we are in the EU or not.

Because of the large scale use of interbank lending before the crunch, failure of any major European bank will start a domino effect which will not be limited to those within the EU.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

When the bond markets turn against Spain, as they will, we will be in this position again. Hopefully we won't have to shell out more money then.
Alistair Darling should be ashamed for agreeing to the bailout agreed in May - he may not have had a veto but to vote for it knowing he wouldn't have to pick up the pieces was shameful.
I agree with the previous poster that Gorgeous George is doing a good job and not grandstanding but taking serious decisions in a rational way.

"The ever increasing bonus pot v austerity for the poor?" - lefty @ 48

Mmm. A discredited industry continuing to remunerate itself as if it were some sort of success story. Hard to credit.

Jono

R u blo 25?

I think we can all safely ignore any pronouncement by Bill Cash! This man is a joke, and it is this kind of of Tory back woodsman that is determined to ruin any modernisation "call me Dave" wants for his party.

Let us hope for all our sakes that Cash and his 18th century cronies do not succeed in their vile aims.

55#

Problem would be, if they left the Euro and brought their own currency back, they'd have the mother of all jobs being able to borrow, plus their own currency would arguably be at an inferior rate to the Euro (which would rise as the risks/threats to it are removed) - and as most of their borrowing/debt was incurred under the Euro, an inferior Eire/Euro rate would mean this borrowing would take even longer to pay off.

They're kinda stuck. They cant print more without devaluing more - and under the terms, I would venture of the bailout they've had, they're almost certainly not going to be allowed to QE anyway. Only the ECB would be allowed to do that, I'd have thought...

59#

Change the record will you, it is becoming phenomenally tedious.

bryhers 51

'Mass unemployment,falling consumption and investment exarcerbated by deflation,and in Britain`s case inflation, are red flag signals for economies in crisis'

A fair summing up of Britain after 13 years of New Labour. How very different from the position they inherited.

64. At 11:29am on 23 Nov 2010, jobsagoodin wrote:
bryhers 51

'Mass unemployment,falling consumption and investment exarcerbated by deflation,and in Britain`s case inflation, are red flag signals for economies in crisis'
A fair summing up of Britain after 13 years of New Labour. How very different from the position they inherited."

Indeed,and the difference between then and now is a capitalist crisis which has enveloped western economies.If you can`t get your ahead around that simple fact you will continue to spin in ever decreasing circles making inane partisan points.

Who was responsible for the crisis? We all were, starting with Mervyn King,the IMF,Bernanke and Paulson,none of whom saw it coming.We must also include Messrs Cameron and Osborne, who were cheerleaders for the credit boom and as late as 2007 were going to match labour`s spending plans.There was also the banks who lent recklessly and sold financial instruments they didn`t understand to each other.Mr.Brown was responsible,he didn`t see it coming either and incurred a deficit by spending on public services in the boom years.
The public were responsible for a debt fuelled credit binge and I expect you and I were, so move forward.Except you saw it coming and just failed to warn us, nez pas?

"If you can`t get your ahead around that simple fact you will continue to spin in ever decreasing circles making inane partisan points."

Ho ho. How apt.

"We must also include Messrs Cameron and Osborne, who were cheerleaders for the credit boom and as late as 2007 were going to match labour`s spending plans."

So, by the same token, Mr G. Brown, latterly of this parish, can be held partly responsible for Black Wednesday can he, Bryhers, considering how vocal he was in support of it?

Or is it only partisan when someone from the right does it?

Mods, getting a 404 error on the Migration blog page.

jobsagoodin wrote:
"The thing that strikes me about this is the calm, assured and mature way this crisis is being handled by Osbourne. Those who questioned his qualifications to be chancellor, suggested he was a bit lightweight, simply out to make a name for himself, must be feeling pretty foolish about now."

I bust out laughing when I read the above.

This is the same Osborne who when in opposition Osborne disagreed with the independence of the Bank of England, called for further de-regulation of the banks and disagreed with virtually everything that was done to save the banks and rescue the economy. Now he is propping then up.

This is the same Osborne who said while visiting Ireland in 2006:

"A generation ago, the very idea that a British politician would go to Ireland to see how to run an economy would have been laughable… Today things are different. Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking, and that is why I am in Dublin: to listen and to learn."

We would be better off with Ozzie Osborne in charge of the economy than George.

bryhers 65

My comment didn't actually attribute blame bryhers, but if want me to do so I think you need to start with those in power during the years the problems were created. Don't see anything especially partisan about that logic. You also need to understand what the underlying problems were and I'd say chief amongst them was government spending way beyond their means. I'm still waiting on anyone in the Labour party to admit this failing. Until they do so I'll assume they'll make the same mistakes again given the chance. Not partisan just common sense.

68#

Weak, hackneyed, old news. By the same token, Brown can be blamed for Black Wednesday.

Yawn.

FS 66
Bryhers:-
So, by the same token, Mr G. Brown, latterly of this parish, can be held partly responsible for Black Wednesday can he, Bryhers, considering how vocal he was in support of it?

Or is it only partisan when someone from the right does it?

Poor old Brown is blamed for everything else,why not this?

What strikes me about your posts and those of your co-conspirators is how tightly framed they are by ideology.This makes them crude and repetitive when they should be challenging.

There is nothing wrong with having a perspective providing it doesn`t spoil the view!

#86 Dave wrote:
"[Osborne} disagreed with virtually everything that was done to save the banks and rescue the economy."

Not correct.

The Conservative Party supported the bank recapitalisation.

They opposed the discretionary fiscal stimulus (in the UK).

I include the word discretionary deliberately, of course. Most of the deficit was caused by the recession (and not the banking bail-out or measures such as the VAT cut), and in particular the loss of tax revenues. The effect of the fiscal stimulus, for good or ill, can be exaggerated.

64. At 11:29am on 23 Nov 2010, jobsagoodin wrote:
bryhers 51
'Mass unemployment,falling consumption and investment exarcerbated by deflation,and in Britain`s case inflation, are red flag signals for economies in crisis'
A fair summing up of Britain after 13 years of New Labour. How very different from the position they inherited."

You then wrote:"My comment didn't actually attribute blame bryhers, but if want me to do so I think you need to start with those in power during the years the problems were created. Don't see anything especially partisan about that.

I don`t mind if your comments are partisan which my selection of your more coherent remarks make clear.What I object to is they are boring and repetitive.Tell me something I don`t know!

The key words were all there last night in the Newsnight discussion between Gillian Tett, Will Hutton, Irwin Stelzer and Jeremy Paxman on the euroland crisis.

The key words being 'euro' 'inflation' and 'fiat currency'.

And surely, that is how this phase of the euro crisis will end, namely via a massive dose of inflation, which of course, brings its own problems.

The curse of 'interesting times', which in my opinion, will only end when policy-makers stop fixating about 'perpetual growth' and head off more in the direction of 'sustainable economies'.

Except there are not many riches down the sustainable path so expect resistance from the 'greed is good' merchants (of chaos).

Icidentally, this simple soul has been exercised by the upcoming VAT increase to 20%, starting in the New Year.

Sadly, I told a local VAT-registered supplier, I probably won't be able to use your services next year as I need to find a non-VAT registered business for those services.

This fellow said that this {VAT rise} would not be a problem because I could continue to use him and, in fact, he would be 17.5% cheaper than this year.

How, my bewildered little brain asked?

Simples, he said, I am going to set up another company - which will not be VAT registered and will run in parallel with the VAT registered one.

Doh!

"There is nothing wrong with having a perspective providing it doesn`t spoil the view!"

Indeed.

And you dont let much get in the way of your view, do you?

What on earth has it got to do with ideology? It was a perfectly simple, straightforward question. You already acknowledged the point about Blair and Brown anyway - so when I ask you about

"We must also include Messrs Cameron and Osborne, who were cheerleaders for the credit boom and as late as 2007 were going to match labour`s spending plans."

You're saying that by virtue of the fact that they also didnt see it coming and didnt actively campaign against it that they were equally worthy of your criticism. After all, you've got to blame the right for something each day, havent you?

I merely applied the same logic to Black Wednesday. Thats got nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with historical fact. Brown was a vocal supporter of the ERM. He got it wrong. Major got it wrong, Lamont got it wrong.

To use your own words, tell us something we dont know already.

Just because your language is not crude does not make the message you give any less repetitive. You can dress it up as flowery as you want. You are no more or less partisan or ideologically bound than any other contributor on here.

bryhers 73

'What I object to is they are boring and repetitive'

My comment didn't actually attribute blame bryhers, but if want me to do so I think you need to start with those in power during the years the problems were created. Don't see anything especially partisan about that logic. You also need to understand what the underlying problems were and I'd say chief amongst them was government spending way beyond their means. I'm still waiting on anyone in the Labour party to admit this failing. Until they do so I'll assume they'll make the same mistakes again given the chance. Not partisan just common sense.

You were right bryhers. I appear to have bored everyone into submission.