Do we tend to ignore the true facts ?

OP I think you are correct.

Davidhs,

The points I raised are factual, it would be completely wrong for me to link Wilson and Gallagher with Black Wednesday for it would have been a fallacy, as to Blair . We do know the links to the economic fallouts and damages were caused by the greed of Wall Street and the failures of many of USA large financial institutions. I have not tried to blame any political party in the UK, for they cannot held responsible for the greed.

I hope my comments are not inferred as being linked to any political bias for my questions are based on economic facts. Not political bias.

People get their beliefs and opinions from somewhere. They don't just appear in their minds. As far as I can there are only two main sources of information which shape opinions and beliefs; they are the media (in all itsmanifestations) or academia.

Unfortunately much of the media has little interest in accurate reporting or facts. Academia is demonised because it reveals unpalatable counter arguments to the populist lies promulgated in the media.

Davidh's first paragraph illustrates media formed opinion. Academic studies would tell you that it's just not true.

The 2008 crash was because the regulators allowed the banks to lend without restriction regardless of the consequences, we are still paying for that today. It cost the treasury £45bn just to bail out RBS which still hasn’t been recouped, the total cost to the economy is estimated at £160bn.

Black Wednesday which cost £3bn was trifling in comparison, and recovery was quick, then over confidence allowed the 2008 recession to happen. I’m not a fan of Thatcher or Blair the truth is politicians are not good at managing the economy they are more interested in short term vote catching.

And the academic source for your assertions is what, Davidhs?

One true fact that you seem to have ignored is that "Thatcher" wasn't PM on Black Wednesday that pleasure was John Major's.

The Marmot Report 10 Years On is worth reading, although it's quite long. There's too much in it to summarise here.

www.health.org.uk/funding-and-partnerships/our-partnerships/health-equity-in-england-the-marmot-review-10-years-on?gclid=CjwKCAiAy9jyBRA6EiwAeclQhFi4l2ZKPIfHgJUdIZ4wLykKVgrKVADhlBYe9vEIT0_AYzAQlLHz7hoCx_IQAvD_BwE

It highlights a number of issues related to premature death compared with the rest of the country. The reason that poorer women's life expectancy has stalled (and not men's) is a mystery. Giving up smoking has increased life expectancy, but men always tended to smoke more than women, which could be a factor in all men's life expectancy (iyswim).

There's been another report about poorer people in affluent areas, claiming that those people do worse educationally than their equivalents in poorer areas, which would suggest it is poverty itself (and not the area where one lives) which affects educational achievement.

There really needs to be a "deep dive" to find out which factors affect life expectancy, rather than "blaming" any individual factor.

It's not enough, for example, to give all children free school meals., even though they make good headlines. Community infrastructure, such as children's centres, green spaces, good jobs, access to primary medical care, etc etc are all factors.

I agree that the UK economy hasn't performed particularly well over the last few decades. However, that's more to do with short term planning and lack of resilience, when there are crises. Crises themselves are inevitable, but better prepared economies recover better.

Doesn't matter which party is in power, they all only tell you what they want you to hear!

It would be unfair to pin Black Wednesday on Major. The reason for it was caused by the management of the economy while Thatcher was PM (and before). The UK had tried to track the Deutsche Mark, while not doing what Germany was doing to create a healthier economy. By the time Black Wednesday came, the UK had been playing at being King Canute for too long.

jaylucy Which is why anybody with any interest in the country reads beyond the popular newspapers and uses sources provided by experts.

Davidhs The trigger for the 2008 crash took place in the US.

Thanks for those comment, growstuff.

I actually agree with Davidhs to a certain extent that our politicians don't have much idea how to run the economy, though they are supposed to be guided by 'experts'. The problem is two fold, though.

1) The experts doing the guiding are wedded to neo-liberal economic theory, most noticeable from Thatcher onwards and neo-liberal theory is not only the sole theory around, but is also being discredited more and more.

2) People have been persuaded that the national economy is like a domestic economy and deeply distrust any attempt to run it differently. This was broadly true up until the 1970s, when our currency was backed by the amount of gold we held (the gold Standard) but we came off the Gold Standard in the early 1970s and since then our currency has been free floating. Politicians and, I think, economists, have struggled to come to grips with the implications of this for running the economy. (Though maintaining the fiction that the country has a finite amount of money in order to justify ideological cuts in public spending has been very useful to tory governments)

Politicians run the economy, so that they can turn round to their supporters and claim to be doing a good job, especially if an election is imminent.

Thatcher wanted to appeal to her shire Tories and "new" middle classes, so it didn't matter to her that industry was being destroyed. She used various criteria to "prove" her strategies were a success. If people who had lost their jobs complained, she accused them of not trying hard enough to find a new one. That mentality persists to this day.

The UK is rubbish at long-term planning. It's not that difficult to balance the books, if you close your eyes to the people who are really suffering and you don't think about the future.

It really is crying out for a discussion of how we believe society should function and what is government's role in supporting its functioning. Or even, 'what is society?' But, as suziwoozie lamented on another thread recently, it's big question and no-one really seems inclined to discuss it ?

Just to remind every one what went on in the 2008 crash
Published in the Independant December 2009

How to spend £850bn bailing out the banks... and £107.1m on financial advice

£76bn To purchase shares in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group

£200bn Indemnify Bank of England against losses incurred in providing over £200bn of liquidity support

£250bn Guarantee wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity in the banking system

£40bn Provide loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme

£280bn Agree in principle to provide insurance for selection of bank assets

£671bn Total Government spending in the financial year 2009-2010

£32.9m Slaughter & May - Commercial legal advice

£15.4m Credit Suisse - Financial advice on a range of measures, including Bank Recapitalisation and the Asset Protection Scheme

£11.3m PricewaterhouseCoopers - Advice on APS

£8.7m Ernst & Young - Due diligence on APS, Northern Rock

£7.7m KPMG - Due diligence on APS

£7.4m Blackrock - Valuation advice on APS

£5.3m Deutsche Bank - Financial advice on a range of measures

£5m Citi Financial - Advice on Aps

£4.9m BDO Stoy Hayward - Valuation of Northern Rock

£4.5m Goldman Sachs - Financial advice on Northern Rock

£1.5m Morgan Stanley - Financial advice on Bradford & Bingley

£2.5m Other advisers - Financial advice on a range of measures and proposals to revive Britain's ailing economy
———————————————-+————-
Much of the cost was loan guarantees that was not actually paid out, the cost that was not recouped was massive, which is why austerity has lasted so long.
The US had its problems as well but leading up to the crash Northern Rock and others were lending at 125% of equity. “Financial Advisors” were selling self certified loans on commission, most thought the boom could go on for ever - it didn’t. The FSA was supposed to be regulating the Banks but they just sat on their fat backsides enjoying expense account lunches and watched it happen.

The US and UK did badly, The EURO countries much better because sterling fell from 65p/€ to 90p/€ a fall of 30%. Domestic transactions did not hurt too much but imports cost a lot more. Sterling was recovering nicely until the Brexit chaos, falling back to 90p/€, currently it’s recovered somewhat to around 85p/€

What happens now is anyone’s guess, but with politics being put before economics it doesn’t look good.

So what is worrying you about 'politics being put before economics', David?

Oh it doesn’t worry me I will sleep at night,
my reply to Wiltshiregran, just to illustrate that Labour, in particular Blair did more damage than even Thatcher did.

The current Brexit stance by the UK sticking to hard political red lines at the expense of economic improvement is going to result in no deal, that is going to hurt the UK much more than EU.

Davidhs,
I am not a Blair fan , but I believe your prejudices are clouding the true facts. You are ignoring Thatcher role around deregultion.
It is generally thought that Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister drove through Big Bang as part of a programme of deregulation. The big band was Lawson downfall and Thatcher played the key role in the problems created. Blair inherited many of those problems and had to find the solutions.

One of the key things about the 2008 financial crisis was that it was Global and mainly caused by neo-liberal free market beliefs. Beliefs which were commonly held by many countries.

If Darling hadn't acted to shore up the banks through quantitative easing the whole system would have collapsed leaving many (most?) people in the UK virtually penniless.

The money injected into the banking system was also meant to enter the 'real' economy to drive recovery through bank lending to active, money earning businesses but much ended up in the hands of the already wealthy and inflated bond prices instead. It has not imposed a particular burden on 'the taxpayer' as a good deal of it is 'owed' by the Treasury to the Bank of England. As they are more or less the same institution this is just a fiction.

Did you note that another £60billion of QE was issued after the EU referendum in order to shore up the pound when it plummeted when the ref result was known? Never cited as a particular burden on 'the taxpayer'.

MazieD,

Well said, I notice it seems difficult to debate in these columns without sheer political prejudices getting in the way.

I am therefore please that there been many constructive comments. Thank you all
B

I agree. We need to heed the facts and forget the leave lies.

UK politics has been one disaster after another since the 1960s first Wilson/ Callaghan then Thatcher who did what had to be done in her first term. Then got elected on a wave of Falkland war patriotism and set about undoing most of the gains, despite the North Sea Oil windfall. Deregulation sealed the fate for Blair and his cronies, they just went along with most of the Tory policies but didn’t see the train crash coming.

The recession was widespread but the U.K. has been very slow to recover, all in all U.K. politicians have performed poorly for six decades. In 1960 £1 Sterling was valued at 3 dollars, now it around £1.30 well done guys.

Brexit is set to cost the UK more than 47 years contributions to the EU.

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/brexit-to-cost-more-than-uk-paid-in-to-eu-1-6463383

Worth every penny for a blue passport Varian.