91Èȱ¬

C'mon Robert....you still haven't explained how your beloved banks generate wealth?

Who believes banks generate wealth ?

At best they facilitate others to generate wealth and take a cut for helping them.

For the avoidance of doubt in the spread (difference at what they borrow at to what they lend at).

Speculation is not wealth creation - creating wealth by getting someone to pay more for something creates nothing. (apart from a profit) - as with the banking crisis it can easily be revalued at a lot less (and become a liability) - so becomes a large stakes game of pass the parcel.

I work for a bank - but have little time for the current crop of bankers - lets have a body that works for the UK, rather than beggaring the UK for short term profit.

The purpose of any tax is to give the government the funds it needs to meet its obligation to provide those services to its citizens that they cannot provide for themselves.

The UK banking industry has benefitted considerably from our money in terms of the 'bail out' (whether or not they were actual recipients of public money) and it seems reasonable that they should be expected to contribute to the rebuilding of national finances... finances which many people believe have been ruined at least in part by the behaviour of the banks.

I find it completely fruitless to continue to discuss the existing monetary system. This system is faulty by default and humanity will never progress further with this basis.
Why? Watch - Evolutionary baggage! -

I URGE the 91Èȱ¬ and Robert Preston, in particular, to give more publicity to people like Peter Jospeh (Zeitgeist Movement) and Jacques Fresco (The Venus Project) who offer alternatives - the Resourse Based Economy.
Who is Peter Joseph? -

There's a future for humanity beyond money.
Project Earth -

The last bit of your blog says it all,the difference is the Swedish levy is going to be used as a bank bail out fund - not to simply to prosecute daily business.
What we need is the most severe efficiency drives in public services ever undertaken - including in the sacred cow of the health service.
Therefore there isn't a party that is prepared to talk straight and lay its card's on the table.
We need radical overhaul of business investment,taxation, public service and our world role.
We need to act to create an economy that is more self reliant and based on our merits rather than on the waves of the global business tides. We need to manufacture more and export quality goods. We need to reduce imported goods and foodstuffs. We need to develop a financial system that is the model for the world stage not just its poodle.
Above all we need a British nation that can hold its head up and make its citizens be proud to be part of it.
Who can delivere this ? I am still waiting for someone to even partially say anything remotely near to this.
I fear we truly are no better than Greece or Spain and the others.

Fascinatingly the imposition of a bank tax will merely speed up the imposition of higher charges etc.
The bankers will have to pass on the charges. They must do so.
I mean where else are they going to end up?
The electorate will then see through the little charade of bankers profits and realise that they have actually got two masters.
One that they elect - and who taxes them.
And another unelected that taxes them.
The elected ones wants the unelected ones to tax us more.
They think we will not notice.
Good innit?

Why does George Osborn/David Cameron not take the whole Swedish system, not just bits of it? They have an egalatarian society with social cohesion but they also pay high taxes because they know if you want public service, you have to pay for it. They take great pride in being Swedish, the family (in whatever guise) is valued and cared for.
If you go for an interview neither your name, age or gender appears on the application form, so no discrimination.
The gap between the highest earners and the lowest paid is compartively small because they appreciate that everyone, who is honest and works hard at their job plays an important part in the whole and a valued member of society. Everyone can then feel they are doing a worthwhile job and not seen as unimportant or irrelevant. Refuse collectors, taxi drivers, waitresses etc all earn a decent living wage.
In this Country we expect everything for nothing- buy one get one free etc. stack em high, sell em cheap is the culture of the UK.

In Sweden and in Spain they pay 12 euros just to visit their GP, here we pay nothing and still complain.
In Germany if you inherit money and you have been on benefits, the inheritance is confiscated to recover money you have received, here most long term benefits are not means tested, so you get to keep the lot.

Governments don't earn money they have to raise it through taxes and there is no such thing as a free lunch, so if feel it is every childs right to a decent education, it has to be paid for. If you want to be able to walk into a hospital and get free treatment it has to be paid for.
A friend has just had major surgery and was told it would have cost £40-60,000+ in the USA, so if you had no insurance, no op and you just die!!!
We need to become more self sufficient and not have 'stuff' trundling half way round the World to satisfy some ridiculous retail therapy. We should be making quality here in the UK, that lasts, not endorse a throw away world.
We need to value, appreciate and keeping training the next generations. We are the envy of the World for the wonderful history and heritage that is our great buildings but they are only there because of the highly skilled, highly talented artists, craftspeople & artisans of yester year, not the wealth generators who built them. If we carry on the way we are, those buildings will crumble and die because we are no longer interested in keeping the skills alive, needed to maintain them.
We need a sea change of attitude and not one the politicians are pussy footing around with, tinkering at the edges, afraid of the press and media.
We need to accept we have to pay taxes, if we want a civilised society, we all have to take responsibility for the way we conduct our lives and be punished properly when we fall foul of accepted values.
Capitalism has to be curtailed otherwise the ultimate pinnacle, which all business strives for is total supremacy, World domination, in what ever sector they are in, then they can charge whatever they like and we will be hostage to their whims. Money, profits, bonus' are all they are interested in. We are mearly fodder to that end goal.
We are sleep walking into disaster allowing ourselves to become totally reliant on China, producing all we need. One day they will be in total control and we shall really pay the price!!
The Banks were a wake up call, however painful but it could get much, much worse and that is without global warming!!!

Wrong....... Let's not tax the banks but let's impose on them an obligation to provide the equivalent of the tax to set up and sustain a venture fund aimed at start-ups, spin-outs and early stage companies preferably in the "making things" sector.

This way we can begin the process of rebalancing the economy as indeed all three main parties have promised.

But - let's not allow Govt to run this venture fund and lets not let conventional PE or VC companies run it either. We need instead to select people that understand technology and markets and not a bunch of beancounters and lawyers.

I've worked in banking for some time. Some of their activities create genuine win-win, where a bank can achieve a saving which is shared with their client. Cross-border bond issuance coupled with currency swaps is an obvious example of this.

Other banking activities seem to be little more than shuffling lots of paper around while periodically keeping some of it in fees.

Taxing the less productive activity makes sense. Firstly it makes it less profitable, secondly it provides some extra capital for the government. Normally I would be opposed to simply providing capital for the government but given the near-certainty of the taxpayer being obliged to bail the banks out (again) if they get into trouble it seems only fair for the banks themselves to chip in.

As long as the productive, socially and economically useful, activities are not taxed this seems like a state where everybody wins.

Will David Cameron have us all in granny knickers and corsets, long dtuffy dresses and walking around with prayer books? Ring for the butler, shall we no that Victorian values with echoes John Major are back? Now remind me Mr Mellor...

While all politicians are responsbile for letting the greed of capitalism off the leash, deliberately creating low wages and high unemployment, huge social inequality, why don't they take a stick and a leash and put it where it belongs - around the greedy markets rather than those who have no choice, rather than rewarding marriage? The things the Tories used to say to label people like my mum who literally saved our lives by walking out of her violent marriage. How can these people look in the eyes of a woman like her or the widow of a soldier?

I hear no mention of increasing the jail term for market fraudsters, no hint of hunting them down, no hint of the major players splitting the banks and hitting them, along with their big-business friends, hitting them with a punitive tax, increasing the support to the unemployed and putting the chains back on those who would destroy our society. No tax on the banks is enough, not until they close down all the routes of fraud and tax dodging.

Hi, Angela Colbridge #7,

I registered on this forum just to congratulate you on a brilliant post. I would only add that tax & fiscal policy should be structured to create a better sociery not just a richer one (for some). A better society is also one which takes pride it itself, as opposed, very much, to jingoism. I remember as a kid being so proud and happy to ride in a plane powered by Rolls Royce engines. And, as such I'm intrigued and pleased to see the 'Cadbury's Law' proposal, from of all people the Labour party. I have a vivid hope that this election campagn will bring out non-partisan, smart proposals from ALL parties to get the UK back to where our abilities lie.

The anti-bank sentiments are understandable, but I do not think they are entirely to blame for this mess. Many have enjoyed the high life, yes buy a new Merc with a top-up on your mortgage, have that exotic Carribean holiday, after all it is only a few quid per month and the loan will be overshadowed by the vast increase in capital value of your home. Or will it?

The greed and laziness of the British people is mostly to blame for this, too willing to be led by must-have, beat the joneses type attitudes. This is commercialism and now we must pay the price for this greed-based society.

We lost our way some time ago, perhaps mere coincidence, but in my experience it was around 1979. As a nation we lost our belief and pride and turned to worship the God of money instead. Thanks Margaret.

I loved your opening paragraph. I hope it was meant to be funny because it sure tickled my funny bone.
Anyway, I favor a bank levy, preferably a Tobin Tax.
The European Commission has published a study which calculates that a new tax on banks could generate as much as €50B/year.
As well as greatly assisting EU Governments to improve their balance sheets, the fresh revenue could be used (like Sweden) to fund future bank bail-outs. But it could also be used to implement climate change, maintain social programs, etc. and the best part: this type of tax hits the elitist Wall-Street crowd right where it hurts.
The EU palns to come up with a common position ahead of the G20 in Toronto this June. The EU is also looking at the possibility of a tax on global financial transactions, suggesting this could yield up to €20B.
EU is stressing that combined measures could provide a "double dividend" - helping to improve market stability by putting a definite price on risk-taking.
Did I see James Tobin sit up in his casket. I think he’s smiling.
And listen! Do you hear that noise in the backgrouhd?
That noise you hear is US Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, lamenting his concerns that EU plans to regulate hedge funds could "discriminate" against US fund managers.
As for Labour, forget international consensus because the Americans will never agree. American banking is not regulated and does not want to be regulated. EU consensus should be good enough for Labour.
Libdems would impose a tax on banks' profits rather than their liabilities; excuse me, but how does one tax a liability anyway? I suppose you could give them a tax credit??
This stuff is getting truly exciting. I can hardly wait for the G-20. There are so many important decisions to be made.

I agree #7 is an excellent post.

Whatever the financial issues we face, this country is in danger of losing social cohesion. The vitriolic and selfish attitudes that some have towards the public sector exemplify this. If we need to rebalance things that are out of balance fine but we are becoming a nation of materialistic moaners who judge everything in terms of money.

The Tory proposed bank tax is justified. I do not agree with what they plan to do with it but I think the other parties should tax banks unilaterally and not await international agreement.

I think any money of this kind that can be raised should be used to stimulate UK manufacturing and not frittered away in tax breaks.

While I appreciate that government is not always a good means of making such things happen, I am also concerned with the argument that we should trust the individual firm or taxpayer to act in the right way. If we do trust them and they do the right things great but what if they do not? Indivuduals do not generally say, I have a bit more money so I will buy a British product any more than an employer says that he will hire a member of staff because of the rate of NI.

So those that say (like #8) do not tax the banks just make them do the right thing and help industry may mean well but frankly I do not trust the banking sector to do the right thing in any circumstances. I never have but now they have a track record.

Grow Up. Money is a dead icon. Relevance, contribution and enrichment are the only things that will endure on all of our head-stones.

There is no chance that ANY society will Prosper with the objective of making the 'top' 1% richer. When David Cameron sees this - as he does - , you'd better worry my dear banking, lawyering and doctoring friends.

The future for the UK is as a pioneering, creative economy. Not as a people that shuffles Somebodies Else's wealth.

Wake up - fire up the Quattro - no matter who is driving and reverse out of this insane cul-de-sac

#7 - good post but the one problem is WE ARE NOT SWEDISH.

Not that being swedish is a bad thing but the idea of 'changing' society is that you actually have to change the individuals in it and to do that - you start with the kids so it actually takes at least a generation to make any change.

In order to change attitudes of kids you have to change.. you guessed it.. the attitudes of parents and the problem with that is that most parents who want their kids to be happy teach them that money isn't really important (although most parent's actions say otherwise!) but there are others who believe it is important or that you don't need to work.

Money is a mass delusion anyway. Who wants to make up a new curency based on fig rolls?

Robert.
one thing i am unsure about in all this "fuss" about our debt is, i realise this huge sum of money was paid to bail the banks out. And the talk is always about how "we" can pay it back. But exactly how much of that debt are the banks themselves going to pay back?
It seems to me that all the talk is that whatever happens to the banks - i.e they could go on to make billions once again, that they will not be paying any money back to the taxpayer at all.
can you possibly enlighten us "uneducated" bunch on exactly what proportion of the debr was "lent" to the banks, and so what they will be able/expected to pay back? in fact surely they should pay it all back in time and with interest. shopuld we therefore be saying, yes Ok we have to pay the immediate debt as a country because we borrowed it, but in reality over the next 30 years (or something similar), the banks themselves will actually be paying US back.
your unravelling of this particular part of teh issue would be much appreciated. Thanks.

#17

You may wish to take a look at this to know whats coming down the line :-



Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]





And then ask yourself why on earth we have to pay Peston et al the beeb celeb presenters ? [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Mr Peston, is your film entitled 'What is money?' too controversial? I note that of all the short films touted it is the one that isn't up yet.

I'm assuming it's on its way. RESPECT if you do an approaching-honest version. I'd be surprised and delighted - 91Èȱ¬ careers don't last very long with this sort of honesty. The last thing the bankers would want anyone to genuinely know and understand is 'What is money?'

Isn't it amazing? There are still as many fields, as many workers, as much raw materials and needs, and machinery, but we are IN a Depression. The last unemployment figures masked a 140 000 rise in new people siging on as unemployed, and despite over 150 000 people being transferred to other categories - not the employment category - the number of unemployed hardly moved. I think we have pretty much reached our limit in what government spending can absorb, and a limp across the finishing line (General Election) will be about it.

Why? Because of what money is. It's that simple. The way money is created and distributed means that people will die for lack funding in hospitals; it means that people will increase in their mental health problems; it means that people will commit suicide due to feelings of worthlessness; it means that large areas of this country are going to become no go areas and scarred black spots for years; it means that young children will be ill-educated, ignored and written off before they even leave school - ALL BECAUSE OF WHAT MONEY IS.

I hope your film will genuinely tell us what money is. Who creates it? Why they create it? Why it is allowed to become scarce? And why the scarcity is dealt with the way in which it is? These are the only questions worth answering at this moment in time, if we are going to head off a deepening slump. And its consequences.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#7

'Capitalism has to be curtailed otherwise the ultimate pinnacle, which all business strives for is total supremacy, World domination, in what ever sector they are in, then they can charge whatever they like and we will be hostage to their whims. Money, profits, bonus' are all they are interested in. We are mearly fodder to that end goal.
We are sleep walking into disaster allowing ourselves to become totally reliant on China, producing all we need. One day they will be in total control and we shall really pay the price!!'

See number 8 links.

Nos 21 - Sorry see links on number 18 if it doesn't get moderated that is.

Prudeboy (#6), why will higher taxes lead to higher charges? I don't think banks are run on the basis of the running cost plus x% equals a fair and reasonable profit. They no doubt have teams of very highly paid people working out what pricing maximises their profits. If bankers could get away with higher charges they would be doing so now. Look at what Nationwide (a mutual building society for heavens sake) are doing. They are trying to cherry pick their customers to minimise their costs and maximise their profits. But they can't get away with saying "increase bank charges by 1% all round".

All costs including taxes will be passed onto the customers of the banks as per normal..double hit indeed..

Credit and debt are the building blocks of economic development, but it takes banks to raise it above the level of a loan shark and their hapless victims.

Its only when borrowers have access to efficient credit markets they can raise themselves beyond loan sharks... and only when savers can put their money in dependable banks that money can be channelled from the idle to the industrious.

The problems we have now are because the relationship between banks and borrowers broke down, as loans became securitised and passed onto unwary investors

Mr Cameron spends his new bank tax on marriage breaks. Should be titled "He spends his new stealth tax on a pointless tax bribe to a ridiculously small sub-group of of a minority section of society". Once again the lets cut the deficit instantly approach appears to have come unstuck. Not surprisely I am not bothered about taxing the banks but to use it to do this instead of setting up some sort of bank failure fund is unbelieveable.

#11 Lostat91Èȱ¬ said:

I'm intrigued and pleased to see the 'Cadbury's Law' proposal, from of all people the Labour party

The problem is that this law is far too late. Pretty much all the companies worth having have already been taken over or sold off. Labour know that of course and won't bother to bring in this law until the end of the next parliament.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

16. At 6:49pm on 10 Apr 2010, EmKay wrote:
#7 - good post but the one problem is WE ARE NOT SWEDISH.

Not that being swedish is a bad thing but the idea of 'changing' society is that you actually have to change the individuals in it and to do that - you start with the kids so it actually takes at least a generation to make any change.
////////////////////////////////////////
This is very true. I know that those who blame the blessed Margaret for things can sound like a broken record but in this context she and Nu Labour do have a lot to answer for. Mrs T presided over an era where society was subordinate to the individual and where selfishness was encouraged (the me first, Loadsamoney culture). The generation who grew up under Thatcher had far less sympathy for their fellow citizens and were in my view much more self centred and materialistic. You cannot engineer this less caring attitude out of people.

While Blair tried to adopt a more caring approach, he reinforced the Thatcher generation's attitudes to money and materialism, encouraging them to believe that borrowing money they could not afford was acceptable. They borrowed on credit cards and mortgages and spent big on the proceeds of re-mortgaging and further borrowing. Their children have also become used to borrowing (student debts, creditcards, parents). Debts have become an acceptable way of life to many. Again these attitudes still need to change. For those without jobs it has done but many others are still not appreciating the need for a change of attitude.

So yes it may well take a generation

I couldn't care less for all the main parties proposal to tax the banks. It will not work. The only chance we have is to separate the casino from the banking business. Any less and it won't be long until we will have bankers' hands in our pockets again to save their casino business.

The banks will simply up the cost to the consumer, every "ordinary" joe schmo will see the bank charges rise overnight.
Solution, Nationalise the Banks fully strip the assets and provide 1 Government bank.

The bankers can take there schemes and devious dealings elsewhere we dont need them and dont want them.

Your final comment exposes the folly of Laurel and Hardy A.k.A. Cameron and Osborne: Sweden hypothecates the money raised to finance the next bank failure. Laurel and Hardy attempt to spend it, just as they, quite rightly accused Gordon "an end to Boom and Bust" Brown of not repairing the roof whilst the sun shone. Me thinks an election is three weeks away. Surely Laurel and Hardy are not promising things they never will be able to deliver just to hold up their crumbling support?

In the US the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation(FDIC)have to find the money to support failing banks in the good years and the bad: just a lot more in the last couple of years, however the expense is there every year.

The guarantees given to the UK banking sector in total, that includes the likes of Barclays and HSBC, are greater than the UK GDP. Somebody, somewhere will call in those guarantees when "Credit Crunch, the sequence" comes to town.

I'm afraid if Laurel and Hardy are running the shop then the UK is as badly placed as the bad old days of Gordon "an end to boom and bust" Brown initially started the rot.

I met a Swedish guy, about 30 years old, in Detroit, USA. He said he'd do anything to get out of Sweden and into USA, and I think that's exactly what he was doing despite the odds being against him (I don't think he had much money, and I don't think he was finding it easy to get a visa etc). He said Sweden was like a communist country; he said it was a good country if you wanted to sit back and have everything handed to you, but if someone worked hard and created a successful business, the government basically took it off them.

I don't know anything about Sweden and do not know how valid his view was, but the memory certainly sticks with me whenever someone mentions Sweden.

It isn't about convincing the mass of the population, it is about getting votes. The message is simple, "Tax the banks and give the money to help improve family life." If 100 000 voters think, "At last a policy that works for me and it punishes those greedy bankers!" and 50 000 think that this is a stupid idea, then the Tories are 50 000 votes up. They are not promising it immediately, so prevailing conditions can be used as an excuse for a delay, but they will be elected by then..

David Cameron was part of the team which gave John Major the surprising win in 1992 (though Kinnock helped) by giving these over simplified solutions and messages. Are we criticising Cameron just because he is so good at delivering the messages sections of the public want to hear? Or is our scepticism well placed? Trouble is I don't want Brown either!

#33. arny5000 wrote:

"I met a Swedish guy, about 30 years old, in Detroit, USA. He said he'd do anything to get out of Sweden and into USA, and I think that's exactly what he was doing despite the odds being against him (I don't think he had much money, and I don't think he was finding it easy to get a visa etc). He said Sweden was like a communist country; he said it was a good country if you wanted to sit back and have everything handed to you, but if someone worked hard and created a successful business, the government basically took it off them."

And yet, in most surveys, Swedes are amongst the happiest people in the world, along with citizens of many other high-tax, socially responsible countries.

Incidentally, the Swedish government does not "take" successful businesses from their owners - that is obvious nonsense. It merely attempts to limit the excesses of unbridled greed that has got this country and some others into such a mess.

You're missing the point, Robert.

Sweden has an economy; Britain doesn't.

1. At 12:47pm on 10 Apr 2010, DebtJuggler wrote:
C'mon Robert....you still haven't explained how your beloved banks generate wealth?

Play the old record again and again..If you want to start a business or expand an existing one you have to borrow money, that money comes from Banks (don't give me 'No it doesn't that money comes from all of us' because most bank lending is of funds that they themselves borrow on the wholesale market). Ergo, there would be no business activity at all in this country without banks to oil the wheels..THAT is how they 'generate wealth'. Really this is such a spurious argument it's laughable..try running any economy without a banking sector and see if the populace enjoy being taken back to the 13th century. We NEED banks, get over it...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#37. mischievousCheesy101 wrote:

"If you want to start a business or expand an existing one you have to borrow money, that money comes from Banks... We NEED banks, get over it..."

Absolutely. I don't think many people would deny that the banks need tighter regulation and control, but we do need banks.

I would not have been able to start my own business if I had not been able to secure funding from a bank, nor would I have been able to buy my first home if I had not been able to borrow the money I needed. The standard of living I enjoy today is partly due to my own hard work but also to the willingness of banks to support me when I needed it.

"The aim of the Swedish tax is to generate funds to pay for any future bailout of the banking system, not to provide general revenues to finance other tax breaks or pay down the national debt."

And there's the UK's problem in a nutshell. Sweden sensibly uses funds generated from a particular source to fix any problems in that source, while we here in the UK have always robbed Peter to pay Paul. As we all (should) know, this creates only an illusion of wealth, not actual wealth.

#7 - I couldn't agree more. The question is how to convince the rest of the country - If I had a pound for every time I've had to listen to Johnny Public say "but why should I have to pay for *insert benefit not directly contributing to Johnny Public's wallet*?", I could solve the financial crisis myself. Simple fact is, most people are selfish.

Before you laud the Swedish system consider this:

1. Unemployment is much higher in Sweden (9.3%)
2. Actual employment is lower is Sweden than UK (c64% of workforce v 72%)
3. Much of Sweden's non agricultural sector is owned by the same family
4. Tax is much higher than in the UK

I posted elsewhere on the 91Èȱ¬ website that if you look at the tax take in various countries over several decades there does seem to be a "natural" level of tax (as a percentage of GDP). BY natural I mean that politically there does not seem to be any will to go beyond that level - presumably because the electorate kick the politicians out who raises tax beyond the natural level. In the UK and in Germany that level seems to be 35-37% of GDP (under Labour it is of course slightly above 37%), in France it is 43-44% but in Sweden it is 48-50%. SO if you want the Swedish system are you prepared to see the govt. increase taxes on each of us by nearly a third (compared to current levels), for example are you prepared to see VAT at 25%? If you want the Swedish model you also have to have their tax model. Sadly the result will be long term economic depression as the entire City of London leaves, not just the hated bankers but everyone else, lawyers, accountants, the stock exchange. We will need to move to a place which is on the same time zone and speaks English - I wonder if we can do a deal with South Africa

#25 wrote "Mr Cameron spends his new bank tax on marriage breaks. Should be titled "He spends his new stealth tax on a pointless tax bribe to a ridiculously small sub-group of of a minority section of society"."

Actually that proposal may save money in the long run. Social welfare payments constitute £180 bn out of a £700 bn govt budget. Statistically children of a stable relationship use benefits least (and have better health) and marriage is the most stable (on average - please do not apply to specific relationships) of all relationships. Now if spending £1bn or so on marriage perks in the long run leads to savings in the social welfare budget and health budget then maybe it is not a bad idea.

The message that David Cameron is sending out is becoming confused.

It seems that not only is he going to reduce the deficit but he is going to launch his Conservative version of social engineering.

He doesn't seem to get that when the HMS Great Britain has sunk and we are all in the lifeboat,the main focus of any action is survival.

It's not the time to give extra rations to rich or married passengers nor do anything that jeopardises their chances of survival.

Any money he gets from the banks needs to be spent on reducing the deficit and developing the British economy.

If he carries on like this, he will lose a lot of votes.He needs to stick solely to the vital issues and not spend time off-topic trying to promise everybody something in order to secure more votes.

We need a reliable government with common sense.If they are not careful the Conservatives will shoot themselves in the foot by persuading people to vote elsewhere.

Mr Peston

Here is an interesting story for you to cover:

Gold prices soar after CFTC Hearings confirm manipulation

The US and Swedish administrations are right to focus on the interbank lending system. It was this system that allowed financial institutions to remain liquid while lending down to very low reserve ratios, and it was its sudden failure that precipitated the credit crunch, and all that followed.

But I doubt whether a simple tax will provide sufficient control to insure that the disaster is not repeated. It could be used to reduce the volume of credit supplied by the institutions but this would reduce the spending power available in the economy. The authorities would need to increase the money supply to make good the reduction in private credit.

The wholesale money market is just that - a market, and subject to the usual problems associated with financial markets, in particular the possibility of catastrophic crashes as in 2008. Since as we now know, and should have already known if we had remembered what happened in the 1930's, these crashes have serious repercussions throughout the economy and we have the right to expect that governments should try to prevent them.

Very strict regulation or better still nationalisation of the larger banks is the answer.

I didn't say Sweden had all the answers and we all know about 'rose tinted glasses' and the grass is always greener on the otherside' but I feel successive governments, since the war, have only looked westward and been seduced into believing the only way to proceed was the way of the USA, instead of maybe looking over their shoulders and seeing that other Countries have different values, different agendas that take into account their people, rather than just big business & profits, as the only answer to progress. The USA may be 'the land of the free' but that only works if you are ones of those that are free financially to make choices, for many Americans they have no choice. We have now replicated their problems here in the UK.
Capitalisim was created by the few, for the benefit of the few and ultimately there will be a few very big winners and an awful lot of losers. The whole thrust and ethos of a capitalist is MORE and MORE for ME. They can never ever be satisfied, they are waging a non military war because what they want is to completely knock out all competition and totally dominate what ever sector they are in. Mrs Thatcher, mistakenly believed if you create competition in the market you can force prices down and get better value for money. Of course in the beginning it did seem feasible but obviously the more succesful those who embraced her values became the more they wanted, the greater their greed, there will be no stopping them until they have wiped out and destroyed anything and everything, that threatens their domination. All she did was to open the flood gates for the greedy and make it acceptable under the guise of being an entrepreneur!!
We are already down to five supermarkets and one is fighting on every front, to totally dominate the sector and will ultimately be able to charge whatever they like and also pay whatever they like to their suppliers and we will have no choice at all.
China has also realised they don't have to wage conventional war on the rest of the World, they can achieve total domination by making us total dependant on them, to supply the goods we need and eventualy it will be at their price. They can afford to play a waiting game because we are such willing stooges.

Capitalists are only motivated by greed and money, they care not for us as a nation or as individuals and yet we continue, not even blindly, to allow ourselves to be lead, believing they have our best interests at heart!!
We have lost all sense of pride in ourselves and our Country. The British press & the media feel they have a 'god given right' to constantly critise this or that sector, making people feel inadequate, hopeless or helpless, even fearful and yet no-one can call into question the inadequacies of the press!
We have a blame culture, that does no-one, no good at all. The vast majority of people are honest, hardworking, trying to bring up their families to be responsible citizens, whilst doing their job to the best of their abilities, often going beyond the call of duty, whilst the press, who must only employ manic depressives, are hell bent on destroying everything that is good in this Country. For what purpose I am not sure but they are nevertheless very succesful at what they do. They don't seem capable of celebrating good, it is not on their radar.

We should all celebrate that which is good in this Country and that which isn't should be dealt with in an appropriate manner. Too much PC and pussy footing around issues that politicians seem scared to broach for fear of loosing votes, rather than dealing with things honestly. They are always looking to the next election and themselves rather than dealing with real issues that affect real lives and real people.

As I said before, we need a sea change of attitude maybe beginning with calling all politicians servants rather than leaders!!! They delight in telling us they are here to serve us and yet refer to themselves as leaders!! Strange the two are opposite ends of the scale!!
Maybe if we called them ALL servants, it would attract a different kind of person into the 'calling'. Can't imagine some on the Tory bench would be happy being referred to as servants somehow???
The problem for me is who can I, with a clear conscience, possibly vote for. I know what I want from our politicians but there is no-one with real genuine commonsense,who is prepared to stand up and say what is right and what more importantly is wrong unless they think it will get them votes.

#46 capitalism is the inevitable result of free will and democracy - please note this is not the same as a totally free market.

Capitalism requires robust anti-competition rules to function otherwise there is an inevitable move towards oligopoly.

I have nothing against learning from other countries but you have to take into account their history and traditions before simply accepting their policies. One of the big problems for the UK is that we are part of the EU where our history, traditions and even legal system are totally different to much of Europe. We look to the US because their history and tradition is very similar to ours (well they were a colony after all). I think a big part in the difference is the legal system (common law v civil law) but I guess you could also argue that there is a protestant (maybe presbyterian) v catholic divide as well

47: We look to the US because their history and tradition is very similar to ours (well they were a colony after all). I think a big part in the difference is the legal system (common law v civil law) but I guess you could also argue that there is a protestant (maybe presbyterian) v catholic divide as well

Total role reversal now as we only paid our WW11 debt off to the USA in the last few years
You could also argue we have more in common with Europe, as we were so often invaded by so many of them and like it or not, as the case may be most of us have Europeans in our ancestory.
We share much of our history, our architecture etc., with them, so not a million miles away and who is to say open minded people cannot take on other people's ideas and ideology? We don't have to be always be the poodle!

#42. Justin150 wrote:

"SO if you want the Swedish system are you prepared to see the govt. increase taxes on each of us by nearly a third (compared to current levels), for example are you prepared to see VAT at 25%?"

Yes! I, for one, would gladly pay that level of tax for the standard of living, quality of life, public services and benefits that Swedes enjoy.

37. At 09:56am on 11 Apr 2010, mischievousCheesy101 wrote:

>> "Play the old record again and again.. no business activity at all in this country without banks to oil the wheels..THAT is how they 'generate wealth'. "

"Mediating" and "generating" are quite different.


>> We NEED banks, get over it..."

39. At 10:42am on 11 Apr 2010, rbs_temp wrote:
>> " Absolutelly ... The standard of living I enjoy today is partly due to my own hard work but also to the willingness of banks to support me when I needed it."

What rbs_temp says is sensible, I wish he made it clear that the bank didn't do him any charity, it was in for a profit (and a good one most of the time considering the large bonuses).

We don't need the banks more than the banks need us.

#48 The similarities between UK and USA and the differences between UK and Europe are much deeper than the odd war or two.

The differences between the common law legal system and the civil code system are profound and have deep implications for how our constitution works, how our laws work and how we view even honest politicians.

I would argue that we have very little in common with Europe apart from geography and a rather violent history.

When one looks at southern Europe the differences become even deeper. The differences between Catholic and Protestantism are, like our legal systems, such as to drive the UK traditions further and further away from European traditions.

The UK has never done social democracy very well because of our traditions and in particular our deep distrust of giving too much power to our rulers.

just back from a short break with the family and I might be too late in this one but great to hear/read so much common sense on this blog. Angela Colbridge writing with a clearness of thought that I only wish I possessed , not only Sweden but also Norway and Denmark also have these high tax systems and they are always near the top of the happiness league,I seem to remember that the Swedish PM got in again in the last election by telling the people that if they wanted thing to continue the way they were (healthcare welfare education etc.)then taxes would have to go up ...he got in by a landslide .The Swedes aren't that different from us , I know and do business with them ,they seem to be able to do business in the most relaxed honest and professional way that it is a pleasure at all times , they never moan about their job , life etc and they know how to party as well and they are very good looking , they never boast about or even mention what they own , drive ,earn, or where they go on holiday (none of them have ever expressed a desire to go to Dubai) they just enjoy there life.
getting back to what some may say are the serious issues I think that everyone who can should pay to go see their doctor and dentist it should not be up for debate.
one further thing I would far rather be following europes social structure than the U.S. version have you seen the state its in if you haven't watch the bbc,s Obama's America that poor guy has got some task on his hands and we are on that same road .
I for one advocate a u-turn