I wouldn't bank on it

[amateur51]

I know that you inferred it and have no doubt that you've re-read it but the facts are nevertheless clear and, I think, beyond argument in that reducing trade union power did not impose a total stranglehold on the eonomy of 80s Britain whereas regulating the banks out of existence as punishment for their ill deeds would do just that in 10s Britain; with which bit of that do you disagree and on what grounds? Just curious - that's all...

Always happy to help the curious ...

You wrote "When trade union power was drastically reduced during Thatcher's régime, the economy of Britain didn't actaully fall apart irreparably,"

I believe that the economy since that time has fallen apart to the extent that it was remodelled into a service-dominated economy with over-reliance on banking with the consequences that we see today.

The only Tory Prime Minister who got to grips with the UK economy was of course Edward Heath with his staggeringly successful 3-day week. Output did not fall and the workers loved it

[ahinton]

But really that isn't the voice of go-ahead private enterprise speaking is it?

I don't quite see how it could or indeed even should be such; it was simply me asking you a question about how you'd go about what in order to rectify the current situation, how successful and sustainable you believe the attempted implementation of your proposals might be and to what extent, if any, they might protect world economies from more of the same as we're now encountering - that's all.

There are millions of kids growing up who won't need stabilisers on their bikes, never having had the stupidity to ride over a cliff themselves. One thing they might be offered is some thorough history.

There are millions more of them who won't even be able to afford the bikes themselves and hundrfeds of bike manufacturers going out of business in any case if a regulatory earthquake routs the global banking industry (although, in so saying, I am not, of course, seeking to defend the actions of certain banks which, after all, prompted me to initiate this thread in the first place).

Clearly those who had the supernatural confidence of gods are now utterly useless at the coal face.

And who isn't? Bring back Arthur Scargill, say I!

In fact, the training of a new generation in completely different norms should concentrate the tired old heads enormously. They will hate the competition and come down to earth.

But who will do it, who will first train the trainers and how will you be able to guarantee a permanent and total absence of corrupt self-interest by means such measures?

[amateur51]

Surely the really important aspect of the Bob Diamond/Barclays news is that it has been going on for some time and that Bob Diamond was head honcho for that aspect of Barclays' business when it started happening & continued happening. He knew about it (or should have known about it) from day one and did nothing.

This way for your P45 please Mr Diamond!

[ahinton]

Always happy to help the curious ...

You wrote "When trade union power was drastically reduced during Thatcher's régime, the economy of Britain didn't actually fall apart irreparably,"

I believe that the economy since that time has fallen apart to the extent that it was remodelled into a service-dominated economy with over-reliance on banking with the consequences that we see today.

I did not suggest that reducing trade union power had no effect at all, but the economy was dependent upon banking well before Thatcher and it's only become more so today because (a) there's a whole lot more of it and (b) it's a whole lot more international with a great deal more interdependence than was the case 40 or so years ago. I stick with my point that the economy of Britain in the 80s - and, since you mention it, the legacy of what happened to it then - did not fall apart completely as would be the case if we had no banks and could issue, use and move no curency anywhere; surely you can see that this would have vastly more grave consequences for everyone than reducing trade union power had - or indeed could possibly have had - in 80s Britain?

[ahinton]

Surely the really important aspect of the Bob Diamond/Barclays news is that it has been going on for some time and that Bob Diamond was head honcho for that aspect of Barclays' business when it started happening & continued happening. He knew about it (or should have known about it) from day one and did nothing.

This way for your P45 please Mr Diamond!

Of course that's the case and I have little doubt that those at and/or near the top of other banks that have engaged and doubtless still engage in such activities knew/know about it as well - but then, given that FSA is itself largely staffed by people from the banking industry, who's to say with any certainty that the head honchos there didn't know anything about it either?

There could well be so many P45s waiting to be issued that hundreds if not thousands more civil servants will need to be employed in order to ensure their timely and efficient issue! - and guess who'll have to pay for that!...

[eighthobstruction]

Did I hear on NewsNight that the Ex top boss of Barclays* is a shoe in for some BIG JOB at the Bank of Engerland....Villiers????

*who was B's top boss when all this started in 2008

[amateur51]

I did not suggest that reducing trade union power had no effect at all, but the economy was dependent upon banking well before Thatcher and it's only become more so today because (a) there's a whole lot more of it and (b) it's a whole lot more international with a great deal more interdependence than was the case 40 or so years ago. I stick with my point that the economy of Britain in the 80s - and, since you mention it, the legacy of what happened to it then - did not fall apart completely as would be the case if we had no banks and could issue, use and move no curency anywhere; surely you can see that this would have vastly more grave consequences for everyone than reducing trade union power had - or indeed could possibly have had - in 80s Britain?

Who, apart from you, for purpose of hyperbole I thought, has mentioned anything about there being no banks?

I think most people would want a complete separation of commercial and investment banking, free banking as a selling point, and a complete re-design of the 'compensation structure' (it was called pay scales when I was working). Credit Unions are an interesting angle as is the whole concept of mutuality.

We differ about the impact of Thatcher 's economic and industrial strategy on the UK. Do composers get out much

[amateur51]

There could well be so many P45s waiting to be issued that hundreds if not thousands more civil servants will need to be employed in order to ensure their timely and efficient issue! - and guess who'll have to pay for that!...

I know it's dodgy to interpret what you write ahinton but are you seriously suggesting civil servants should not be paid now?

[Lateralthinking1]

But who will do it, who will first train the trainers and how will you be able to guarantee a permanent and total absence of corrupt self-interest by means such measures?

The Department for Education but you will need to get rid of Michael Gove to do it.

[eighthobstruction]

Suggest a Gove Tax....

Suggest a U-turn on Gove by a articulated lorry....

[ahinton]

Who, apart from you, for purpose of hyperbole I thought, has mentioned anything about there being no banks?

No one - but what I did seek to draw attention to was the problem of how to stop banks from doing what they've been doing, punish them for it financially and tighten the future regulation of every aspect of their activities without bringing them almost to their knees - and the gravity of the outcome of doing just that.

I think most people would want a complete separation of commercial and investment banking

This was already being widely - and, I think wisely - commended even before the latst Barclays débâcle became as heavily publicised as it has this week, but I don't see how such separation could possibly wipe away the risk that the nefarious activites now under scrutiny would continue in the investment arms of those banks where they've been and are continuing to be carried out.

free banking as a selling point

Not a chance, in a climate where bank charging is an ever-increasingly widely used instrument!

and a complete re-design of the 'compensation structure' (it was called pay scales when I was working)

What particular compensation structure are you referring to? Bank customer compensation? Important as that is in itself, it's hardly likely to figure in the far larger world of shady interest fixing by investment arms of major international banks, is it?

Credit Unions are an interesting angle as is the whole concept of mutuality.

Maybe so, but they need money like everyone else does!

We differ about the impact of Thatcher 's economic and industrial strategy on the UK.

Do we really? Do you really equate the outcome of that with what would happen if the world's major banks were to regulated to the extent of almost entirely strangling their business acitivities?

Do composers get out much

I cannot and would not presume to speak for composers as a whole, but I assume that they do so, except when they're actually working on scores; I do know that Elliott Carter doesn't any more, though, but then he is nearly 104 and needs to conserve his energies for his work.

[ahinton]

I know it's dodgy to interpret what you write ahinton but are you seriously suggesting civil servants should not be paid now?

Of course not! I merely pointed out that the almost instantaneous issue of zillions of P45s and their equivalents outside UK would require the employment of a brace of extra civil servants and that the poor taxpayer would then get stung twice by reason of having to fund that exercise.

[Lateralthinking1]

Suggest a Gove Tax....

Suggest a U-turn on Gove by a articulated lorry....

Promise me it will be Francis Maude first.

[ahinton]

The Department for Education but you will need to get rid of Michael Gove to do it.

What - me personally? No, seriously, who will train the trainers? (as I already asked), how would the Department for Education suddenly acquire all the requisite know-how and trained and experienced staff to implement such training? and, even if this were possible, how would or could it guarantee no possible return to the current situation? You can in any case teach anyone to do whatever you lkike but that doesn't guarantee that those things will get done as taught, especially when greed, self-interest and a mania for corrupt practice take over.

[ahinton]

Promise me it will be Francis Maude first.

Be careful what you wish for; he might be driving that truck...