If you want to know why Miliband is right to go for the banks this headline, referring to an article by Philip Stephens in the FT that is well reasoned and worth reading, says it all:
It takes courage to challenge such a perceived bastion of power. That's why it's worth doing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
More insane bank bashing, where do banks get the money to pay taxes? Do you remember who was in government when the banks imploded? New Labour changed oversight body and allowed the country to be plundered. Remember the downs syndrome charity being used by Northern Rock for tax evasion. Who was in government while RBS deliberately destroyed small businesses with their interest rate caps?
Vote Tory for a Better Britain
If that is the lens through which you see things, you are right to your opinion
The fact that you would not have known much about that Northern Rock charity but for me putting it in the public domain is another issue
And the fact that your other comments make little sense means the veracity of your conclusion is to be doubted
But feel free to vote on the basis of bias, prejudice and misinformation. Many people do
But the insights are there.
– Increased tax helps the governments pay for things.
– The Labour party never, and still doesn’t, help investment in manufacturing.
– The Labour party took a good bank and merged with a shit bank that owned a Scottish bank. The Halifax and Bank of Scotland merged during a Labour time. Then was taken over and saved by Lloyds. Now they are saying something different. Nothing has changed since they allowed this to happen. Its all a bit odd.
– Now they worry about small companies. The price of business rates that more than doubled during their time. Why try to destroy business during their time and then say otherwise. We know small business employ the most people, help not hurt them.
Miliband has more things to worry about other than an open goal with the banks.
Repeating lies does not stop them being lies
I can assure you, having run a small/medium company for the past 15 years I know what the banks and the labour govt did. The council rates is my biggest bug bearer. How are small companies supposed to deal with a increasing tax, and for what.
As we were banking with the BOS at the time of the take overs I was only too aware the upset when they merged. This reduced the options for me to go and get investment when my facilities ran out.
You call them lies, I call them blood pressure problems. Sorry that you don’t agree. I know that you think we are all millionaires that have great profits. We are not, all I am trying to do is create jobs and employ people. Sometimes I wonder what the point is. From having dealings with a labour council in 2007, they were anti business and anti enterprise.
On the basis of a contact you draw a conclusion
I am overwhelmed by your evidential base
did u really expose the downs syndrome charity, good job. much respect
Can you really believe that labour is good for the economy, they used the city of london financial boom to hide the collapse in the real economy.
Yes, I did expose it
“The Labour party never, and still doesn’t, help investment in manufacturing”
It is true that the percentage of GDP coming from manafacturing dropped more between 1997 and 2010 than it did between 1979 and 1997.
Labour spends less on manafacturing, the Tories spend less on the armed forces. Labour are perceived as supporting manafacturing and being anti-military, the Tories the opposite.
The reason is simple: political parties have worked out it makes no sense to help those who are likely to vote for you anyway. Because the pursuit of power has usurped the pursuit of public good on all sides. I suppose at some point we hoped the Libdems were different but see how that turned out.
It wasn’t a contract, it was a frame of mind. I don’t deal with councils on minor contracts. I am too tired to go into such details now.
You are defending the indefensible, which is a shame. No one cant rewrite history, only the future.
I think your time on this blog has come to an end
Yes I have thought that too. Actually its made me a little sad, if I am honest.
Its not enjoyable reading your posts anymore. I did at one stage enjoy it, no longer. You hide your political intentions behind money, which is a shame. If you are that interested in politics then go into politics. Just don’t spread lies and try to change history!!!
Good luck in your pursuits, I hope you achieve whatever you are trying to achieve.
I well remember the goldfish impression given by Cameron and Osborne as their assumptions about the world came crashing down around their ears.
The pitiful performance of the British economy since 2010 could have been predicted by anyone observing Tory behaviour then.
Thank heavens it was Brown in charge at the time and not them.
It is time for some banker bashing. There has not been enough of it. The banks have emerged almost scott-free from their misdeeds which have wrecked our country.
Like most people, I look forward to Ed Milliband as our Prime Minister. It seems to me that Labour is the only hope we have to mend broken Britain.
miliband wont tackle the banks, the banks control both parties. bankers control the EU miliband loves the eu, he is a banker shill/puppet as is cameron.
Labour was in government when the banks imploded but on what basis is a primary regulator, the government, more responsible than the perpetrators, the banks. If a murderer used a defence of “I did it because I could”, would the government, the police or goodness know who else be more culpable for the murder? I think not.
Labour reduced regulation of the banks, disastrously, but the facts are that your party wanted Labour to cut bank regulation even more. On the reasonable assumption that even less regulation would have led to an even worse outcome, it is both disingenuous and dishonest to continue the trope that “it wos Labour wot done it”.
But then, as your favourite party demonstrates almost daily, truth is no substitute for the endless repetition of myth.
Well said
Thanks
Labour doesn’t say anything they have no policies.
you misunderstand “regulation” if you keep your winnings and the taxpayer covers your losses then regulation is meaningless.
if you can buy a lottery ticket which the taxpayer will guarantee to pay you for but u keep any winnings how much will you spend on lottery tickets ?
professor kay of lse has done an excellent video about the banking scam.
the scam has 4 components,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgneziqRQxU
larry -you live in cloud cuckoo land -yes, Labour was culpable but the Tories are ramping up oligarchy, asset stripping to help their hedge-fund owning friends and more housing bubbles that syphon wealth from the real economy -you’re in la-la land mate! Keep sleepwalking into fascism if you want.
Spot on Simon
The trouble with Larry, Richard and alike is that they’ll run away from Labour screaming “Socialism”, when they act in the interests of the majority, but they won’t check the direction to which they’re running…straight into the arms of “Corporate Fascism”, which will happily wipe out their businesses if it is in the interests of transnationals to do so!
I think I have said both parties are puppets of th banks, there is no left right.
Royal Mail was looted, any idiot could figure out it was worth at least 650/700p when it was sold for 330ish.
government is a criminal who we pay some money to protect us but the criminality has got out of hand.
labour leadership almost silent while public asset got sold for 40% of true value, they are ignorant or criminal , neither is very good. Not much u can say for someone who would sell their integrity for a few thousand in expenses.
Damn new labour and damn libcon.
I find nihilism deeply unhelpful
Its up to the individual concerned if you use corporates or independent companies. You can easily check and see if they are part of a chain or are small family run companies. The majority of business in the UK is sme, not Corporate Fascism.
I am less convinced that the Labour party act in the interests of the majority. I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that they even think of anyone expect themselves.
Corporate fascism is a way of thinking
It is not about size
Larry
whilst I voted LibDem last time, I did actually think the coalition could result in a “better Britain”. I didn’t like the conspicuous consumption under NuLab & looked forward to “austerity Britain” as potentially a more decent, more sustainable place.
I said then that, for austerity to work, the paramount points were;
1 The proportion of wealth held by the most wealthy should fall &
2 The Govt should use austerity to move the whole country to a more sustainable, natural way of living.
Needless to say, the coalition has gobbed in my face & that of anyone with a ‘green’ agenda. Won’t (as The Who said) get fooled again.
Everything I’ve heard so far about the Miliband plan says it’s attacking the wrong problem – the Big Five plus Two will not be an improvement if we don’t get the casino operations properly separated from high street/small business banking.
(If he is proposing that sort of separation, he needs to kick the BBC about their lousy media coverage.)
You may be right
But it’s a start
Indeed it is a start I suppose anyone concerned about neo-liberalism has to be thankful for the merest crumbs these days. james is right to point out that it is the proliferation of dodgy financial instruments over the last thirty years that are the root of this and if we just split up the banks a bit to do the same there won’t be much change or spreading of wealth. It’s not just a question of separating the casino side-we need to outlaw this nonsense that creates wealth from non-production or more to the point:anti-production.
the problem is that there is only enough honest banking for 10,000 people, but banking employees 100,000 so u get lots of dishonesty
Absolutely absurd
As with any large sector there are good and bad people. Money is the major driver of emotion even when they say otherwise.
I simply do not agree
There is no evidence to support that
It’s important
It’s not the sole or necessarily even the main driver
Yes, I can see that. What I’ve heard (& I’m happy to be corrected), is that bank employees are expected to sit at their desks from 9 to 9 (at least). Often they have nothing positive to do. They’re expected to drum up work.
Almost invariably, when bank employees drum up work it will have an overall negative effect on the Great British economy.
They may try to engineer an M&A
They may suggest a debt restructuring
They may enthuse over a corporate capture
Without exception, the result will be fewer British citizens employed in manufacturing jobs, far smaller assets available to meet pension fund commitments, an increased willingness to pollute & an increased willingness to ban unions.
Put simply, the City of London’s influence is, invariably, negative, & almost everyone in the UK, outside of the Square Mile, would be better off if it was extinguished.
Your numbers may not be correct, but I think this is indeed one of the biggest issues. But who can afford to allow 200k jobs in banking to go. And I am not talking about investment bankers, but the whole out-dated administrative structure that today’s technology virtually makes redundant!
Technology is the culprit!
25-30 people could run 10 billion of SME lending very easily with today’s technology.
The internet is even worse than the conservatives!
Wrong
People need to talk
Banking is people, not technology
My understanding is “the new 2” won’t have any financially complex activity. They will be aimed solely at deposit collection & proper, old-fashioned, loans to small businesses.
How much it will cost anyone to switch their account (especially if it is a business account) to those new banks is, I think, a big question. If its reasonably cheap I think they will get an absolute flood of new business.
Actually, if they’re that simple they won’t even be banks because they won’t create credit
Which is actually quite worrying because it shows Labour may not understand that
If they’re ‘lending’ surely they’ll be creating new money?
No, savings and loans do what peolle thank banking does
Read Ann Pettifor’s new book
The comment from Mr Levine just shows how crass and deluded many tories are , unless of course he’s a beneficiary of our latter day rentier society. This group maintain that financial capital is paramount, a horribly destructive view, which must be exposed and opposed at every opportunity.The predominant focus is investment in unproductive activity. The latter day robber barons in our banking system who create money out of thin air with little control or regulation ( an unprecedented dereliction of political duty)have cornered the market in usury to the detriment of society and the environment.The banks must either be heavily regulated or have their privileged status removed so that interest rates are lowered to a level where enterprise is encouraged . Ann Pettifor in her book Just Money is clear and comprehensive in explaining the issues, particularly how bank deregulation has led to financial capture which threatens the moral and social fabric of our weak democracy.
(9
@ Mark Pearce
Mark, agreed. Indeed, when I read Mr Levin’s post I was strongly reminded of the judgement of, I think, the great US jurist of the early 20th century, Justice Brandeis, when faced with a particularly vapid litigant, to the effect that “there is nothing in the American Constitution that prohibits ignorance or stupidity” – a view endorsed in Richard’s response to Mr Levin.
🙂
Or is it lol?
what was ignorant in what I have said?
Can’t see why you support the Tories , Larry-or was that meant ironically/sarcastically in the light of what you said in later comments?
Nothing in that FT article about our being dependent on the banks for the money supply, or how they create it from thin air if as and when it suits them. More misdirection then.
They don’t create money out of thin air. They borrow money which they lend at an increased interest rate. That’s why they banking system failed. Northern Rock was one of the main banks doing this. Savers weren’t on the radar for them anymore. Borrow cheaply, lend more expensively = happy Shareholders.
Ahem… Where Money Comes From. I’d suggest Northern Rock was borrowing money which had been, er, made up from thin air… but yes, I understand it did have a niche model. I should temper my statements to say banks ‘generally’ create new money from thin air when they pretend to loan as there are these odd cases.
Hi Rich, I donit this isn’t the complete story. They’re business model was um well putting it politely rubbish This may be of interest…
http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2013/05/making-banks-work.html
I wish I shared your optimism Richard. The US had a similar ‘limit’ on market share, yet it was wholesale funding used by the US banks to get around this that triggered the shadow banking crisis that triggered their banking crisis that fed the global economic and social crisis that led to austerity lockdown. If the financial industries continue to have a huge, unhealthy and disproportionate influence on the UK economy, if they all are involved in increasing wholesale funding, if their activities place increasing stress on the shadow banking system, then it matters little whether a bank has a 10, 20 or 25% share; they’re all pissing in the same pot. There is still an unaccountable cartel in town.
I agree to some extent
The devil will be in the detail
As usual though, Miliband’s solutions sound too timid! The banks should be immediately broken up, with string regulation to stop them merely being bought up into a monopoly again. Investment banking should be separated from retail banking and heavy taxes should be levied on speculation.
Of course, I would much prefer bank nationalisation, but realistically, this is unlikely to happen.