Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
cool_hand

Ed Miliband: Irresponsibility Led To Phone Hacking, Banking Crisis And Mps' Expenses

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8644295/Ed-Miliband-Irresponsibility-led-to-phone-hacking-banking-crisis-and-MPs-expenses.html

Ed Miliband will today blame the phone hacking scandal on a culture of ''irresponsibility'' that also led to the banking crisis and MPs' abuse of their expenses.

The Labour leader will say that all three episodes were caused by some of the most powerful people in society thinking they were ''untouchable'' and could act as they pleased.

In a speech at KPMG in central London, Mr Miliband will also call for a change to the media ownership laws, saying that the size of Rupert Murdoch's empire is ''not healthy''.

He will say that common themes connected the scandals of the banks, MPs and now the press with the News of the World phone hacking allegations.

''All are about the irresponsibility of the powerful. People who believed they were untouchable,'' he will say.

''My argument is that throughout our society we need a new culture, rules and structure, which encourages people to act with responsibility.

'We need to address this responsibility deficit we see in our society.''

He will say that Mr Murdoch's power in the British media is part of the problem and that Labour will submit proposals for a change to ownership rules to the forthcoming judge-led inquiry into the affair.

''Down the ages, it is large concentrations of power that lead to abuses of power and neglect of responsibility. In the banks, they were too big to fail. And the same is true in our media,'' Mr Miliband will say.

''News Corporation owned nearly 40% of the newspaper market. It owns 80% of the pay TV market through the Sky platform, and Sky News.

''I do not think that is healthy for our country. It is not healthy for consumers, who see choice constrained.

''It is not healthy for our democracy, where we see too much power in one set of hands.

''It is not healthy for a country that believes in responsibility all the way to the top of society.''

The Labour leader will say that a reformed press complaints system should also encourage greater responsibility.

''When you make a mistake, you should have to publish an equally prominent apology,'' he will say.

''When you wrong someone, you should have to pay compensation and not force them to go to the courts.

''And you should be judged not by your fellow editors but independent people.''

Mr Miliband, who has won praise for his leadership on the phone hacking scandal, will say that he is determined to ensure that the revelations of recent weeks result in ''the lasting change that is necessary for the sake of the Dowlers and the millions of decent people in this country''.

In an interview with The Observer this weekend, Mr Miliband called for the break-up of the Murdoch empire - a move that exposed differences within the coalition Cabinet

Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg joined calls for greater ''plurality'', saying his party had campaigned for change for many years.

''We do need to look again in the round at the plurality rules to make sure there is proper plurality in the British press,'' he told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show.

''A healthy press is a diverse one, where you've got lots of different organisations competing, and that's exactly what we need.''

But Tory Defence Secretary Liam Fox warned against ''jumping on bandwagons'' in pursuit of headlines and insisted further regulation of the press should be introduced only if ''absolutely necessary''.

''Obviously any government is going to continually want to look at how the press is structured, but we do have a very pluralistic press in this country,'' he said.

''I think politicians would be wise at the moment not to over-react, that there is a definite feeling of politicians wanting to, if you like, get their own back on some elements of the media.''

Gobsmacked. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

''News Corporation owned nearly 40% of the newspaper market. It owns 80% of the pay TV market through the Sky platform, and Sky News."

but 90% of people in the UK are only interested in whether Cheryl is back with Ashley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''News Corporation owned nearly 40% of the newspaper market. It owns 80% of the pay TV market through the Sky platform, and Sky News.

I must have imagined my yearly bill for the BBC then.

The 40% figure for newspapers is based on circulation (popularity) rather than distribution reach so it is irrelevent to media plurality - anyone who wants a Guardian can buy one at any newsagent they wish.

Edited by thecrashingisles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''It is not healthy for our democracy, where we see too much power in one set of hands."

I'll look forward to a reduction in the size of the State then. Whats good for the goose......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with what he said? Or do we all have to hate whatever he says because he wears a red rather than blue tie?

He said the banking crisis had nothing to do with Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with what he said? Or do we all have to hate whatever he says because he wears a red rather than blue tie?

Getting quite a whiff of "big society" in that talk of responsibility.

He sounds like a man who's trying to behave responsibly. Not that he'll get the chance: the likes of his shadow chancellor won't let him sustain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with what he said? Or do we all have to hate whatever he says because he wears a red rather than blue tie?

[/quote]

No, it's because he's a sanctimonious little sh*t who is conveniently ignoring the fact that Labour was in bed with the Murdochs as much as anybody, and he never saw fit to comment until he thought he could score party political points out of the Milly Dowler etc. connections.

Which is one of the most sickening aspects of the whole sordid affair IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said the banking crisis had nothing to do with Labour.

What specifically did Labour do to bring about the banking crisis?

You can blame them for spending decisions and the steps they took after the crisis but that is a separate issue to the actual event.

They pretty much followed the deregulation / free market right wing consensus with the only quibbles coming from the opposition being that they were regulating too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's because he's a sanctimonious little sh*t who is conveniently ignoring the fact that Labour was in bed with the Murdochs as much as anybody, and he never saw fit to comment until he thought he could score party political points out of the Milly Dowler etc. connections.

Which is one of the most sickening aspects of the whole sordid affair IMO.

The Milly Dowler revelations came about 2 weeks ago.

Months before then Cameron had been forced to sack Coulson under pressure from the media/opposition parties

I don't disagree Labour were just as much in bed with Murdoch under Blair as the Tories are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with what he said? Or do we all have to hate whatever he says because he wears a red rather than blue tie?

Yes, I'm sure a Scum Labour Politician like Miliband wanting more control over the press is a good thing. It's amazing how he wasn't so concerned whilst Murdoch was supporting Labour.

Did he ask the Observer Journalist about ' operation motorman' ?

The Observer's use of detectives

"..At the time the Observer, owned by the Guardian Media Group, issued a statement from its editor Roger Alton, citing a defence in most cases.

Yes, the Observer has used the services of an outside agency in the past, and while there were strong public interest defences for most of those cases, it is possible that some of the inquiries did not sufficiently fit that criteria. As a result, I have now taken steps to ensure that no inquiries will be made through outside agencies unless I believe that there is a compelling public interest to do so...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What specifically did Labour do to bring about the banking crisis?

You can blame them for spending decisions and the steps they took after the crisis but that is a separate issue to the actual event.

They pretty much followed the deregulation / free market right wing consensus with the only quibbles coming from the opposition being that they were regulating too much.

:lol:

Brown took responsibility for banking regulation away from the Bank of England as soon as he became chancellor, at the same time absolving himself of political accountability for interest rate decisions. He later compounded this by changing the inflation measure and target to avoid the already obvious asset bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with what he said?

In 2009 When the Telegraph first broke the expenses scandal.

LABOUR forced a three line whip, to try to exempt MP's second home expenses from the Freedom Of Information act.

From being made public.

Labour purposefully inflated the Housing Bubble.

The truth is that there was never any political will to enable the average person earning average wage to be able to afford an average house in a rising unregulated market, under a secret corrupt expenses system, where MP's were all flipping houses, making hundreds of thousands of pounds in personal profits.

Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman of the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) ruled that Ministers should repay profits on their second homes.

However, that only applies to gains from November 2009!

So profits from massive House Price Increases UP TO November 2009, were locked in.

HPI was all cream for our elected officials.

[Profits from second homes needed to be backdated to 1997, or the beginning of an MP's tenure.]

The Brown Raid in 1997 forced people out of private pensions, and into BTL portfolios, so that as many as 60% of houses historically bought by FTBer's were then acquired by BTL investors.

Pricing out Generations. Forcing them into debt slavery. Forced to pay for others retirements and mortgages.

It is not just that Ministers used our money to profit, and paid no tax on the gains, it is also that it created a dangerous conflict of interest that meant that voting for policies which fed the house price bubble, for so many years, such as keeping IR too low for too long, CGT etc, also generated personal profits for these politicians, in secret.

The Abuse of Power was one of the defining elements of Labour's Leadership.

*My own Labour minister completely ignored my emails for years asking about house prices, before she turned up on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, for flipping houses, making over £200k in profit, then retiring.....

Whilst her Constituents have been forced to put their lives on hold, and waste tens upon tens of thousands of pounds in rent. Working for Nothing. No Capital.

Slaves.

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What specifically did Labour do to bring about the banking crisis?

You can blame them for spending decisions and the steps they took after the crisis but that is a separate issue to the actual event.

They pretty much followed the deregulation / free market right wing consensus with the only quibbles coming from the opposition being that they were regulating too much.

Might have something to with the Bank of England and the FSA, and "no more boom and bust".

Seriously, you really think Labour were not complicit in anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Brown took responsibility for banking regulation away from the Bank of England as soon as he became chancellor, at the same time absolving himself of political accountability for interest rate decisions. He later compounded this by changing the inflation measure and target to avoid the already obvious asset bubble.

Which explains the UK housing bubble (having the financial regulators and MPC independent of government interference is classic Chicago school ideology too) but not the trading of financial instruments on worldwide exchanges based on global property values and rated AAA by "independent" ratings agencies.

And again where were the voices in opposition of these moves? It is all very well blaming everything on Gordon Brown but we had opposition parties pledging to match the spending all the way along and calling for more deregulation of the financial markets.

Just because Gordon is gone and the ones with the blue ties are in place means nothing - the political choice in this country is between 3 almost identical parties with not an original idea between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might have something to with the Bank of England and the FSA, and "no more boom and bust".

Seriously, you really think Labour were not complicit in anyway?

I think it is sad people believe Labour and actually any different to the Tory party on economic matters. It is the global policy of deregulate and privatise that sees a shrinking middle class, high asset prices and debt servitude. The colour of the tie is the only difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again where were the voices in opposition of these moves? It is all very well blaming everything on Gordon Brown but we had opposition parties pledging to match the spending all the way along and calling for more deregulation of the financial markets.

That's a very selective view of history. Under Hague and IDS the Tories tested to destruction the strategy of pointing out Brown's profligacy and bad decisions. The pledge to match government spending only came about to shut down the cries of 'which hospital/school will you close' whenever the economy was discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What specifically did Labour do to bring about the banking crisis?

You can blame them for spending decisions and the steps they took after the crisis but that is a separate issue to the actual event.

They pretty much followed the deregulation / free market right wing consensus with the only quibbles coming from the opposition being that they were regulating too much.

Revisionist garbage, I'm afraid.

Failure to contingency plan or 'stress test' for the possibility of a credit contraction and it's effect on the Nation's finances is entirely Labours fault.

The ineffectuality of the tripartite regulatory system that Brown set up was entirely Labours fault.

The taking on of unfunded public deficit financed spending commitments over the 13 years that they were in power that has now left the nation Bankrupt, was entirely Labours fault.

The hubris in actually believing a delusional charlatan's claim that they had 'abolished boom and bust' was entirely Labour's fault.

You don't understand what a free market actually is. The free market (if there had actually been one operating ) would have let the banks go bust. The politician's (of every hue-Tories included) didn't want that to happen.

If the banks and the financial system had gone under, nobody (apart from the Govt via monetisation) would be buying Gilt's or Treasuries, we would have had people on the streets banging pots and pans and building gallows in parliament square.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is sad people believe Labour and actually any different to the Tory party on economic matters. It is the global policy of deregulate and privatise that sees a shrinking middle class, high asset prices and debt servitude. The colour of the tie is the only difference.

There are subtle differences - though, I concede, there isn't a lot of choice between them.

That does not, however, absolve Brown for his part. Stripping the BoE of its role of operational oversight of the financial world was at best reckless and irresponsible - at worst, an act of treason. I personally believe Brown did this because he saw the massive popular backing Thatcher gained in 1997 when her barmy 'target M3, that'll do' monetary policy led to a runaway debt bubble that - temporarily - left the uninformed feeling wealthy and optimistic. Brown's other unforgivable deceit was in claiming that his move from RPIX to CPI was justified on 'technical grounds' (which he didn't need to explain further) when the fact of the matter was that Eurostat who defined HCIP - which, in turn, was re-named CPI in the UK... actively advise against it being used as a sole measure for monetary policy - because it never had been designed in a suitable way for that purpose. Both these moves led to rapid expansion of debt in the UK - and the fact that Brown's regulation was among the most loose in the world... made London the epicentre for exponential growth in traded risk... which played no small part in the global collapse... where systemic long-tail risks were shuffled onto too-big-to-fail insurers; masked by a layer of impenetrable complexity and left to mature into disaster.

No - I don't think the Tories have all the answers... but Labour were recently in power and their ministers most recently proved that they were either corrupt or inadequate. Former cabinet ministers trying to pretend otherwise is nothing short of offensive.

Edited by A.steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very selective view of history. Under Hague and IDS the Tories tested to destruction the strategy of pointing out Brown's profligacy and bad decisions. The pledge to match government spending only came about to shut down the cries of 'which hospital/school will you close' whenever the economy was discussed.

My view is selective?

Hague and IDS were gone by 2003 at which point Labour were running a balanced budget.

Howard did plan to cut spending in 2004

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1486252/Tories-vow-to-match-Browns-sweeteners.html

But also agreed to an independent BofE and the minimum wage

After the 2005 election defeat Labour started "investing" and the Tories vowed to match spending and deregulate further learning from Ireland

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article733821.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html

It was only after the financial crisis hit that they removed their pledge to match spending.

The idea that Conservatives would have done anything substantially different to New Labour isn't backed up by any of their statements made in opposition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's because he's a sanctimonious little sh*t who is conveniently ignoring the fact that Labour was in bed with the Murdochs as much as anybody, and he never saw fit to comment until he thought he could score party political points out of the Milly Dowler etc. connections.

Which is one of the most sickening aspects of the whole sordid affair IMO.

Was in bed? WAS IN BED?

Try 'IS IN BED' - did he not see that his brother, David Miliband, was at that recent party thrown by Ms Murdoch? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting quite a whiff of "big society" in that talk of responsibility.

He sounds like a man who's trying to behave responsibly. Not that he'll get the chance: the likes of his shadow chancellor won't let him sustain it.

Is there anyone who knows what this 'Big Society' is, or what it means? Haven't senior Whitehall Civil Servants complained to No.10 that there is little, if any clarity as to what the 'Big Society' is which doesn't really help them when they receive loads of Government documents that use the phrase but no explanation as to what it actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't understand what a free market actually is. The free market (if there had actually been one operating ) would have let the banks go bust. The politician's (of every hue-Tories included) didn't want that to happen.

If the banks and the financial system had gone under, nobody (apart from the Govt via monetisation) would be buying Gilt's or Treasuries, we would have had people on the streets banging pots and pans and building gallows in parliament square.

I don't think you understand what a free market is either.

If we had a free market in banking they wouldn't have had the ability to lend money they didn't already have in their vaults and financial instruments / toxic loans would never have been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with what he said? Or do we all have to hate whatever he says because he wears a red rather than blue tie?

It was him and his bosses to did it all. Now he's saying how bad it was. Remember he was at the heart of NLab govt #ugly and pretending he had nothing to do with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 309 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.