Metropol

barcode wrote:What going to happen when the banks get Privatized? I dare say alot of our debt will get reduced, will it not.

That depends on how they're sold off. But I highly doubt the entirety of the debt would be paid off - in fact, I suspect it would amount to only a very small part of it.

Do you mean in terms of the shares bought up or the "Bad bank" system?

Sput wrote:Do you mean in terms of the shares bought up or the "Bad bank" system?

I don't think the model itself necessarily matters - only a portion of the debt the government has accumulated has come from the banking sector.

Sput wrote:Do you mean in terms of the shares bought up or the "Bad bank" system?

well yes, Government own alot of share, when the time comes to sell them off, there going to get money for them are there not?

Yeah, what I think barcode said. I'm approaching it very simplistically but surely they bought shares incredibly cheap and will almost certainly wind up selling them high? Or are you maybe saying that the interest on the international loan will wipe out any gains?

Sput wrote:Yeah, what I think barcode said. I'm approaching it very simplistically but surely they bought shares incredibly cheap and will almost certainly wind up selling them high?

Yes,

Sput wrote:Yeah, what I think barcode said. I'm approaching it very simplistically but surely they bought shares incredibly cheap and will almost certainly wind up selling them high? Or are you maybe saying that the interest on the international loan will wipe out any gains?

Maybe. It's unclear to me what price they would get - remember, these institutions were loaded with a lot of toxic debt. That's why the government had to take them over. Unless and until that issue is specifically resolved, it's hard to say either way. Yes, you would expect them to sell at a higher price than they acquired the banks for. But on top of the price they paid, they would have also absorbed a lot of additional debt. So, in fact, the true cost was probably far higher in the first place.

In any event, the banking sector accounts for only a portion of this. Falling tax receipts and higher spending have also increased government debt. And you can't expect that either will return to the levels that they were at pre-recession: I don't expect tax receipts will be as high (I think greater regulation will temper growth in the years to come) and changes in policy settings will probably leave spending levels higher too. In order to balance the budget, either taxes will need to be raised, spending cut, or - most likely - some combination of both.

Sput wrote:You don't vote for Brown, you vote for Labour and they choose the party leader. That's what people seem to have forgotten when they get all enraged about him not being elected. Anyway, what possible reasons for voting conservative could you actually give?

I don't think anyone fails to understand that fact, they just choose to ignore it. Regardless of the 'facts' of the situation, in general elections the average person who only bothers to vote in general elections will vote for the party whose leader they want to be prime minister - the constituency my home town lies in is traditionally Liberal territory, yet a Labour MP was elected in 1997 and 2001- because the general populus of the time wanted Tony Blair to run the country. Said MP was voted out in 2005 and replaced with another Libdem - because by that time less people wanted Blair in.

Thus the prime minister, whilst not technically directly elected by the people, nevertheless effectively is. And when that's the case a prime minister who did not lead his party to win a general election will *always* be considered to be 'unelected' and will not be seen to have fairly won his authority. I personally feel that the system should be reformed to require parliament to be disolved and a general election called when a prime minister resigns mid-term, but I fail to see why anyone rising to prime minister in the way Gordon Brown has *wouldn't* want a general election soon after in order to stamp their authority on the job - unless of course it's because they don't believe they could win one.

The lack of a general election always has and always will dog Gordon Brown's premiership - regardless of whether he is legally a fully paid up PM just like Blair, he will always nevertheless be viewed (by many in his own party apart from anything else) as someone who didn't earn the right to be there. And frankly, I agree.

Ha!

Hazel Bears is now desperately backtracking from her deliberate attempt to topple Brown last week.

She's "deeply regretful" about

Mocking Brown on YouTube

Resigning on the day she did

Wearing the "rocking the boat" brooch.

Who the fuck does she think she's kidding? She was trying to bring him down and couldn't manage it.

Deary, deary me!

A friend of mine has described her back-pedalling as "trying to wash piss off her chips", which I laughed at.

marksi wrote:A friend of mine has described her back-pedalling as "trying to wash piss off her chips", which I laughed at.

Oh I'll use that one.