Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Bank cheif admits labour were not the cause of ressession Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by looseseal)
    Agree entirely.

    It's why I think the privatisation of public services such as transport and energy has on the whole failed to provide a cost effective service for the population. What we have at the moment isn't anywhere near true capitalism - our taxes are essentially subsidising the major firms running these services to ensure they make a profit which goes against the principle of privatisation.

    I won't say that I'm too crazy about the installation of a completely free market for these services being properly carried out. Equally, I'm not too sure renationalising them will do much to improve quality and reduce costs. But what I will say is that the system we are currently running is entirely unfit for purpose and has left the citizen propping up companies enabling them provide a substandard service while still maintaining a healthy profit for shareholders.
    The financing and operation of the rail network is a lot more complex than people realise, which makes it very susceptible to spin. I realised this during an hour-long presentation from a rail finance lawyer which went almost entirely over my head, to be honest. The bottom line, though, is that it's very difficult to run a complete national rail service for profit at sane cost to the end consumer. Although the taxpayer does provide a level of guarantee in the event that the companies make a loss, the terms of the franchise agreements also allow the taxpayer to claw back excess profits. It's worth noting that for the past few years the trend has been for TOCs to make net payments to the government, not the other way around. For 2013-14, this payment was £40 million.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    The financing and operation of the rail network is a lot more complex than people realise, which makes it very susceptible to spin. I realised this during an hour-long presentation from a rail finance lawyer which went almost entirely over my head, to be honest. The bottom line, though, is that it's very difficult to run a complete national rail service for profit at sane cost to the end consumer. Although the taxpayer does provide a level of guarantee in the event that the companies make a loss, the terms of the franchise agreements also allow the taxpayer to claw back excess profits. It's worth noting that for the past few years the trend has been for TOCs to make net payments to the government, not the other way around. For 2013-14, this payment was £40 million.
    It's complex because the Major government deliberately set it up that way - obfuscation to create smoke and mirrors to hide where the money goes.

    The supposed 'return of cash to the taxpayer' is more like playing games with an endless round robin of subsidies in reality. One example of many is that Network Rail pay 'compensation' (from taxpayers money - naturally!) to the TOCs every time a train is delayed - which the operators then pocket instead of returning to the rail passengers affected!
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-8182658.html

    Millions more are handed out in penalty fares, diddles on the inexcusably complex fare structures and huge hidden subsidies via relaxed franchising arrangements and 'no lose' clawback provisions.

    Any money 'returned' by the TOCs is strictly a bookkeeping trick and not to be taken seriously.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's complex because the Major government deliberately set it up that way - obfuscation to create smoke and mirrors to hide where the money goes.

    The supposed 'return of cash to the taxpayer' is more like playing games with an endless round robin of subsidies in reality. One example of many is that Network Rail pay 'compensation' (from taxpayers money - naturally!) to the TOCs every time a train is delayed - which the operators then pocket instead of returning to the rail passengers affected!
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-8182658.html

    Millions more are handed out in penalty fares, diddles on the inexcusably complex fare structures and huge hidden subsidies via relaxed franchising arrangements and 'no lose' clawback provisions.

    Any money 'returned' by the TOCs is strictly a bookkeeping trick and not to be taken seriously.
    Is there any evidence to suggest that the complexity of the system was made to obscure how it works?

    Does Network Rail not compensate TOCs in light of lost revenues as a result of the disruption? The rates are set to reflect the impact on passenger revenue, not on the basis of inconvenience to passengers (however that might be measured). Again, TOCs pay money to Network Rail in periods of unexpectedly good service in light of the inflated passenger revenue.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Two points to make here..

    1) Those who argue Labour are to blame because of a lack of regulation have a case
    Yes they do. But they can't then vote Tory since they advocated even less regulation. I blame labour for the very reasons you propose. But that is because I am actually against just letting banks do what the **** they want.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Blame Gordon for telling us all the ****ing time that he had somehow re-written the laws of Economics.
    Gordan Brown used magic money alchemy schemes based off of Thatcherism. He is one of you. Not one of me. He advocated the markets magically fix everything crap.

    I have more reasons to dislike Gordon Brown than a Thatcherite does.

    Thatcher even said it herself for Pete's sake.

    This what I don't understand (well I do, it is a propaganda technique, that or the mail marxist conspiracy brigade are morons) that so many people think New Labour are some kind of undercover Marxist communists spending their way towards communism.


    Also what are these laws of economics? Are they akin to Newtons laws of gravity? Do they have the same level of accuracy and empirical evidence supporting them? It would seem in the field of economics you can bypass these questions. It's nothing but alchemy.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yes they do. But they can't then vote Tory since they advocated even less regulation. I blame labour for the very reasons you propose. But that is because I am actually against just letting banks do what the **** they want.
    If people voted on the basis of who caused the recession then I agree however I voted Tory in 10 primarily because I wanted the deficit cut fastest and also because I generally disliked Brown.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Gordan Brown used magic money alchemy schemes based off of Thatcherism. He is one of you. Not one of me. He advocated the markets magically fix everything crap.

    I have more reasons to dislike Gordon Brown than a Thatcherite does.

    Thatcher even said it herself for Pete's sake.
    Brownism and Thatcherism are WORLDS apart. When you get a matured perspective over these things you'll realise that life isn't split between super intelligent moral socialists, and nasty, evil stupid capitalists.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    If people voted on the basis of who caused the recession then I agree however
    Which is how most people voted. They voted wrong,. They were manipulated.

    Manufacturing consent in action. Protecting the status quo from democracy etc.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Brownism and Thatcherism are WORLDS apart. When you get a matured perspective over these things you'll realise that life isn't split between super intelligent moral socialists, and nasty, evil stupid capitalists.
    Please stop the strawman now. He even said in the OP he isn't advocatingany given ideology, just criticising one that clearly isn't working.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Brownism and Thatcherism are WORLDS apart. When you get a matured perspective over these things you'll realise that life isn't split between super intelligent moral socialists, and nasty, evil stupid capitalists.
    Lot of socialists weren't moral. Lots of capitalists weren't stupid.

    I mad it pretty clear in my OP I'm not interested in a "socialism" vs "capitalism" debate.

    (Original post by Obiejess)
    Please stop the strawman now. He even said in the OP he isn't advocatingany given ideology, just criticising one that clearly isn't working.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Perfect timing Obiejess :five:

    At least someone understands
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    which the operators then pocket instead of returning to the rail passengers affected!
    Only if idiot passengers don't claim a refund.

    I have £260 of rail vouchers to use.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    Please stop the strawman now. He even said in the OP he isn't advocatingany given ideology, just criticising one that clearly isn't working.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If you're lumping Brownism and Thatchereism together, then clearly tribalism is at play. Brownism advocated MASS PUBLIC SPENDING. Thatcher refused to subsidise the industry. Totally different.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Lot of socialists weren't moral. Lots of capitalists weren't stupid.

    I mad it pretty clear in my OP I'm not interested in a "socialism" vs "capitalism" debate.



    Perfect timing Obiejess :five:

    At least someone understands
    See my response to Jess.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    If you're lumping Brownism and Thatchereism together, then clearly tribalism is at play. Brownism advocated MASS PUBLIC SPENDING. Thatcher refused to subsidise the industry. Totally different.
    I'd disagree there. They both follow the same base ideology - but there can be massive differences in how an ideology is implemented.

    Also associating Brownism and Thatcherism does not make you a socialist, and thus your argument does not logically conclude from its premises.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Lot of socialists weren't moral. Lots of capitalists weren't stupid.

    I mad it pretty clear in my OP I'm not interested in a "socialism" vs "capitalism" debate.



    Perfect timing Obiejess :five:

    At least someone understands
    I try Daniel, I try.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    I'd disagree there. They both follow the same base ideology - but there can be massive differences in how an ideology is implemented.

    Also associating Brownism and Thatcherism does not make you a socialist, and thus your argument does not logically conclude from its premises.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They both have markets as central to policy. That's pretty much where the consensus ends. Brownism is socially to the left, whereas Thatcherism is socially to the far right. Economically, new labour are perhaps borderline centre right; but the policy uses Keynesianism to support market growth, and the wealth generated from these markets are used for leftwing social spending. It's called the third way, and it appeals to me as a centrist.

    I never said saying that did, so right back at yah.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    I try Daniel, I try.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You made my heart skip a beat there before I read who you were responding to lol; my name's also Daniel.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    As you are probably aware I'm no fan of the Tony Blair party but the myth that New Labour caused the 2008 crysis really pisses me off.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...on-not-4891142


    The myth that Labour created the recession was just used as an excuse to fuel the conservatives ideological mission of shrinking the state (of course maintaining the state when it protects them) and to reduce public spending on services and organizations that do not throw money at the wealthy but instead throw money at the lower classes.

    It's a textbook application of manipulation and propaganda, I'll give them that. The fake neoliberal ideology they supposedly follow (which they don't, they wouldn't have bailed out the banks if they did) created the mess, they then managed to use that mess to justify carrying out the same policies that created the mess but to an even greater extent. They also managed to use it to justify cutting the NHS and reorganizing it so the tax money spent on it goes to private business (who tend to have links with the government) rather than efficiently spending it with the soul purpose of running a good cost effective service (although I admit Labour were doing this before 2008, as I said, I'm not a fan of them either).

    Before someone strawmans me as a private property hating communist... I'm not advocating communism, socialism, anarchism, <insert bogey man of choice>. I'm just complaining about the complete croney capitalist nature of the whole thing, how it is rigged in the favor of those who own everything, how the career politicians just work as slimy managers for those who really run things. The financial sec and banks clearly do not operate in the way their neoliberal doctrine dictates, they are to big to fail, that completly undermines the premise of neoliberlism in that the banks are not exposed to market forces in the same way that a normal business is. So the establishments' economic theory of choice dictates how wrong the current set up is. But the only reason the wealthy have taken this economic ideology on board is because it justifies their own greed to horde even more money and not pay taxes. They have no qualms in throwing all the theory out the window when they need saving or in usurping the state to cushion themselves from market forces.

    What I propose is a variant of capitalism (yes capitalism, not communism) that is regulated in a rational way to ensure the system isn't rigged in anyone's favor, to ensure efficacy is maximized, to ensure everyone has access to the basic benefits of civilization (health care, food etc) and that the rich pay their share and acknowledge they wouldn't be rich if that wealth wasn't generated by other people who they ow a responsibility to look after.
    Nobody has ever blamed them for CAUSING the recession- they were to blame for pissing-away all our money so we had nothing left to inject durting a recession!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Nobody has ever blamed them for CAUSING the recession-
    :lolwut:

    The Tories repeatedly call it 'Labour's recession'. If that's not blaming them for causing it, or at least very heavily and clumsily implying they caused it, I don't know what is.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    :lolwut:

    The Tories repeatedly call it 'Labour's recession'. If that's not blaming them for causing it, or at least very heavily and clumsily implying they caused it, I don't know what is.
    The Daily Politics once did a peice showing that most of the MP's they asked did not know the difference between the debt and the deficit let alone specific figures. Given this kind if economic illiteracy among politicians (all parties) one can only imagine the illiteracy among the electorate. All of this means that such a lie is an open goal for the Tories to hammer Labour with.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 5, 2015
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.