I thought he was very good in Taken, but Taken 2 was rubbish, and Taken 3 was so bad it made Taken 2 look like Taken 1

You are trying to make out that the GFC was caused by or could have been prevented by the Labour government; that's why I quoted The Economist article because far more eminent and knowledgeable analysts than you don't include Blair in the causes.

I mentioned the 7 figure bonuses in the context of the White Anglo-Saxon excessive risk taking and greed the article mentioned.

The US is considering further action and has already imposed massive fines (JP Morgan Chase & Co $13 bill fine, CEO given 74% pay rise!!!!, Bank of America $16.65 bill, Citigroup $7 bill):

Holder starts 90-day clock on potential prosecution of bankers | Center for Public Integrity

The incredible thing is that the US Dept of Justice has fined institutions but not the individuals who run them - as if the bank buildings made the decisions.

Why have no bankers gone to jail? | History and Policy

"When the great train robbers stole £2.5 million from Royal Mail, they were sentenced to as many as 30 years in prison. When our bankers get caught fraudulently taking billions of pounds from poor people throughout the world, they just pay large corporate fines and walk away with fat pensions."

"One often-remarked aspect of the recent banking crisis is the absence of criminal prosecutions of senior executives. In the UK, the bailout cost the taxpayer £133 billion, or over £2,000 for every person in the country. A lot of people struggle to understand why those responsible have not faced criminal sanctions."

I believe that one of the train drivers was killed.

And many people around the world didn't take their own lives as a consequence of financial ruin following on from the GFC?

Suicide is completely different than some thug wacking you on the head with a steel cudgel.

I realise that! The point in the quote is mainly about the amount involved. (they all didn't wield the cudgel btw)

Well ultimately governments are responsible for regulations that prevent such events from occuring. Australian and Canadian banks escaped without bailouts for a few reasons one of which were banking regulations.

And that cost you mention has been passed on to the successive government to sort out. A very good reason why the debt Dave is dealing with far exceeds Tony / Gord.

No, wrong on Australia (can't speak for Canada). The big Australian banks were far less exposed to the GFC because they didn't over expand by taking over banks in other countries, particularly the USA.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]%E2%80%9310

From the RBA - The credit and money markets in Australia have also proven to be more resilient than in many other countries, necessitating considerably less intervention by the RBA than occurred in many other countries. In large part this reflected the health of the Australian banking system. The Australian banks had almost no holdings of the “toxic” securities that severely affected other global banks.

You can put it down to regulation if you want but I'd prefer normal (hitherto) caution by Australian bankers. Freddy Goodwin at RBS meanwhile was obsessed with making his bank the largest in the world and they took over US banks with toxic debts, took over the sick ABN-AMRO and so on.

On the one hand you want businesses and bankers to be free to do what they want and on the other you blame governments (especially Labour ones) if things go wrong for not regulating enough.

For which we can thank Peter Costello

Oh look, he isn't a socialist

Peter Costello, was he CEO of CBA, Westpac, ANZ or NAB or was he Governor of the RBA?

Dunno

Yes. Regulation was not the whole story but certainly part of it. Competition and take over regulations meant banks in Oz weren't required to take excessive risks. I do tend to blame Labour governments in the UK and Oz for things. You just need to look at where deficits came from in both countries to see that Labour creates the mess, and conservatives do their best to clean it up.

The 'workers' mantra is becoming old and tired. Most people are workers and most (evidence of recent election results) realise that a good economy and successful employers are good for the workers.

Please explain how a large deficit is avoidable in the face of the biggest recession the world has faced - taxation revenue falls as unemployment grows and companies make smaller profits; spending on benefits goes up. You are not seriously suggesting Dave would have created a budget surplus post 2008?

What is the deficit? | The wrong cure | False Economy

and try this (and don't just choose to disbelieve because it is in the Guardian - read what the senior civil servant said):

Budget deficit | Business | The Guardian

Your story. I didn't suggest anything of the sort.

So you didn't say Labour in both countries created the deficits?