While HM Opposition shouted that they didn't go far enough.
Bankers were devising financial instruments so complex that many who dealt in them didn't understand them.

That much became very apparent after the dust had settled and TV and radio commentators tried to explain the crash in very simple terms which went something like "We sell you this package of long term debt which is tied to bricks and mortar assets but we don't want it right now because we're getting more into short term debt, so here, its a bargain, your people will love you for buying it..." and they bought it, sight unseen it appears for no-one seemed to have bothered to look at what was inside the package.

I've occasionally bought fruit like that at the back of Leeds Market at 5pm on a Saturday evening, it always ends in tears.

Regardless of what the Tories wanted Brown was still in charge - he and Dowling cannot be absolved simply because they didn't go as far as the Tories wanted.

Agree re. that last point - these instruments/computer generated algorithms are almost impossible for most intelligent humans to understand just ask LTCM!!

Let's try this again: New Labour was/is not socialist, however much you and others like to pretend so.

There was a reason that one of Blair's earliest acts as leader was to ditch Clause 4, and in government, Labour continued down pretty much the economic path laid down in the early '80s. It continued with and developed further deregulation and privatisation as central planks of policy. These are not 'socialist' policies. To repeat: they were continuations of policies begun under Margaret Thatcher.

We have had this discussion numerous times - one thing both Blair and Brown did was increase the size of the state - that is classic Socialist policy and something that Thatcher worked against. So not sure how that is a continuation of Thatcherism?

Spending went up massively in health, education and government depts - selling all the gold off wasn't on the Tory agenda etc. What Blair/Brown did introduce was much greater state intervention, more PC etc again not really a right wing thing.

What they did continue was the control of the unions - that was out of necessity, they knew that Labour would not get elected again if they let the excesses of union power once again get out of hand. They also kept income tax low but increased NI to compensate, overall taxation increased under Blair/Brown again exactly what you expect from a Socialist government.

Back in the 1970s an old boss of mine had a formula for UK politics, "Two terms of Tories to lower income tax and get the books in order followed by two terms of Labour to put the public works back to where they were when the Tories took over".

All these years later it still seems like the perfect solution.

We have this conversation repeatedly because you refuse to pay attention and don't like facts that don't tally with your apparent desire to see everything in black and white (or red and blue).

Let's try again.



More was spent – that's because hospitals were falling apart and elderly people were dying on trolleys in hospital corridors. However, much of that extra spending was channelled in such a way that it went to private companies – PFI (created by John Major and continued under Blair) is but one example of how this happened.

Privatisation was continued and expanded. This is a fact. Privatisation is the antithesis of socialist policy.

And it was done not because services were struggling, but simply for ideological reasons – see the sale of NHS Logistics as an example.

Deregulation was continued. Deregulation is the antithesis of state control. Deregulation is the antithesis of socialist policy.

Now, not that long ago, you started copying and pasting a definition of what constituted a "supposed socialist" onto posts. Nowhere did that definition talk of deregulation and privatisation.

The spending on public services was required because chronic neglect was causing them to fall apart. The claims that record amounts were spent has been shown to be factually wrong.

In effect, New Labour's 'third way' was about continuing down the route set by Margaret Thatcher economically but softening it a tad by looking after the public services a bit better than she or Major had.

That, no matter how much you continue to try to spin it, does not equate to socialism.

Oh, and the business of the gold: so a bit like Maggie spending the North Sea gas revenues to keep the unemployed from starvation, then? Presumably she was a socialist too?