Do you want to discuss boring politics? (96 Viewers)

[wingy]

And now it's all apps and remote fucking useless!

 

---

[fatso]

So if they do less hours those hours become available and we have more people in work do we not?

People from where?

 

[shmmeee]

Genuinely not being nasty but you and shmmeee are deluded if you think the big Uk banks could’ve been allowed to fail. There would’ve runs on banks (see what happened to northern rock and Icelandic banks - small in the grand scheme of things in terms of Uk).

Have a look into fractional banking. The banks don’t hold everyone’s cash and there would’ve been a unravelling of the financial system, the economy and civil unrest before the government would’ve been able to get control of the situation.

Gordon brown, whilst a flawed character, is not some capitalist idiot. He wouldn’t have taken that decision lightly

The bigger issue, as mentioned previously, is nobody seemed to pay the price for the damage done…bit like China with Covid…the culprit(s) gets away with it and the rest of us pay the price

Either way, what’s done is done

I’ve not said anywhere allow big banks to fail, I’ve said rather than give bank cash directly funnel it through people in debt. The banks would end up with similar amounts, they’d just have a less restrained economy to recover in.

 

[shmmeee]

People from where?

elsewhere in the economy. Better people from abroad, whatever we want. So what if people want to work 3 or 4 days because they’ve got health issues or care responsibilities? That’s one fewer carer needed maybe, or one more person off disability/SAHM and into work.

 

[wingy]

I’ve not said anywhere allow big banks to fail, I’ve said rather than give bank cash directly funnel it through people in debt. The banks would end up with similar amounts, they’d just have a less restrained economy to recover in.

Exactly what I suggested at the time, trust,ha,.
You'd have to make sure that the money ended up with them of course and some way of securing it back from them when all has settled down?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I’ve not said anywhere allow big banks to fail, I’ve said rather than give bank cash directly funnel it through people in debt. The banks would end up with similar amounts, they’d just have a less restrained economy to recover in.

This was my point.

It wasn't about letting them fail, it was about making sure they had to a lot more to get it. I'm just advocating we should have used the system they are so keen to laud when it suits them. If you're in the shit and need help, we get to dictate the terms of it.

The banks would have had the choice - take the deal, find a better one or fail. Had they failed it would have been their own choice.

 

[Captain Dart]

We knew this was coming, don't know WTF the Russian Imperial Legion, the Russian Imperial Movement and the Maniacs Murder Cult are.

 

[CCFCSteve]

I’ve not said anywhere allow big banks to fail, I’ve said rather than give bank cash directly funnel it through people in debt. The banks would end up with similar amounts, they’d just have a less restrained economy to recover in.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you, SBD and wingy are saying (or you’re misunderstanding what happened) but RBS and Northern Rock were effectively nationalised and Lloyds were strong armed into taking on HBoS and government took 40% share. They were all provided with significant liquidity to support businesses and continue to loan to businesses and individuals.

Thats probably the strongest actions the government could take without allowing them to fail ie nationalising/semi nationalising certain ones. Influencing lending policy in exchange for liquidity

From bbc ‘At the time, RBS's balance sheet (outstanding loans) was bigger than the entire UK economy’. - how do you try to deal with that amount of cash/clients directly ? You still need the banks to manage the debt/clients

 

[Captain Dart]

Another fuck you. I guess Labour are not intending to contest the next General Election in any meaningful way.

 

[chiefdave]

Another fuck you. I guess Labour are not intending to contest the next General Election in any meaningful way.

This is going to be something else that goes down like a lead ballon. How long before the backbenchers are getting it in the ear from their constituents and pressuring for yet another u-turn.

At this point I'm starting to wonder if Labours policy chief is a plant from the tories or reform because they seem to keep handing them absolute gifts.

 

[Nick]

Another fuck you. I guess Labour are not intending to contest the next General Election in any meaningful way.

Why are they doing that? Do they just want to tax people saving?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

This is going to be something else that goes down like a lead ballon. How long before the backbenchers are getting it in the ear from their constituents and pressuring for yet another u-turn.

At this point I'm starting to wonder if Labours policy chief is a plant from the tories or reform because they seem to keep handing them absolute gifts.

I've wondered since before the election is all the policy wonks that knew the Tories were getting wiped out jumped ship to save their own ass. Policy definitely started to become more right led leading up to the election and the manifesto certainly came across as something that had been written for a moderate Tory party.

Not sure what Starmer stands for anymore, but Reeves has always been soft right economically and for me is far more suited to being a moderate Tory.