Did the Labour Party really "overspend" in office?

They were knowingly giving out mortgages to people who would never be able to pay them back. They were knowingly tricking people by giving out teaser rate mortgages. They knew these mortgages were utter garbage but they sold them on anyway. They knew plenty of people would lose their homes, they couldn't care less.

Are you really, really, saying there is no conflict in interest about the fact ratings agencies are paid by the same people they are rating?

They should be independent bodies which do not receive funding from the firms that they are rating.

Didnt say otherwise.



No, there's a mutual interest, both want to maximise profit. Economics 101

True, but with the political power of banks like goldman sachs that will never happen.

This is my problem with Tory supporters (not saying you are one). Complaining about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which weren't justified - sure. But then look at Cameron, who authorized military action in Syria in 2013. Both as bad as each other and seeing as Cameron's premiership came after Blair's, you'd think he'd take advantage of that and learn from the mistakes made.

The strikes in Syria are completely different from the wars in Irak and Afghanistan. There is no ground forces in Syria.

Cameron learnt from Blair's mistakes, precisely.

That's exactly my point.

We shouldn't allow corporations to become more powerful than governments. That's my real issue with libertarianism, it just turns into corporatism.

The financial crash was a colossal failure of the financial servies sector as whole yet they paid almost no price for it.

It's not about ground forces. It's about adding more flames (military intervention) to the fire (the corrupt/divided country) is only going to make things worse.

The things are getting worse by themselves. British influence in Syria is almost non-existent.

That's exactly my point.

We shouldn't allow corporations to become more powerful than governments. That's my real issue with libertarianism, it just turns into corporatism.

The financial crash was a colossal failure of the financial servies sector as whole yet they paid almost no price for it.

Banks paid colossal fines in the USA.

"In all, the fines and settlements amount to $204 billion paid out through 175 settlements since 2009. The actual number is probably higher, though, as KBW only tracks settlements exceeding $100 million. Since March, the total has grown from $187 billion and the case total expanded from 140."

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/30/misbehaving-banks-have-now-paid-204b-in-fines.html

They paid much less in the EU though.

Lmao, the amount of money the banks got through QE and the bonuses they got, these fines is hardly going to have an impact on the bank. Im willing to bet they funded it through the same money they received from the central banks after their bonds were sold.

The settlements that banks make are massively unjust. They hire the best lawyers to come to a deal that hardly has an impact on banks. Banks are now richer than they were pre-financial crisis.

So a civil war in Syria with British air strikes introduced into the mix doesn't make anything worse? Aha.. yep... you keep telling yourself that I guess lol

Banks were often forced to pay one year of profit. Hardly nothing.

You wanted the banks to go bankrupt? That would have had a real "impact" on them, but also on your savings.

So a civil war in Syria with British air strikes introduced into the mix doesn't make anything worse? Aha.. yep... you keep telling yourself that I guess lol

British airstrikes are very limited in Syria. Just compare them with Russian airstrikes.

Anyway, I don't have any problem with terrorists being killed.

How does targeting IS in support of the people fighting them on the ground make things any worse than they currently are with aid workers being beheaded, gays chucked off buildings etc?

The more support they have the quicker they can get rid of them.

Banks were often forced to pay one year of profit. Hardly nothing.

You wanted the banks to go bankrupt? That would have had a real "impact" on them, but also on your savings.

No. That logic is weird. Throwing more people into a bloody and gruesome war does not solve anything. You don't solve a problem by contributing to the cause.

ISIS has a lot of oil that it sells to other countries and thus has enough resources to never be concerned. Then you have new recruits coming to fight for ISIS from around the globe, so they have enough people too. This war has gone on for years, if we were going to win it with this strategy then it would've happened by now.

Plus nobody is even fighting on the same side, Russia supports the Syrian Government and Britain/USA support the opposition.

Extremism is always wrong, but how do we tell people "violence and war is wrong" if we're getting involved in that very same war? Nobody is going to take a hypocrite seriously.

IS are losing though, their oil profits have collapsed thanks to the airstrikes. They're almost finished in Iraq and Raqqa is being attacked by the Kurds with coalition backing.

Military action is never a thing to celebrate but unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.

Considering they're actively targeting the West with terrorist attacks and have zero interest in peace under any circumstances what would your solution be?