Selective memory there, Barlo. Fulfilling a need to borrow, yes, and stoking it at the same time. Light touch regulation yes, but at the request of the City who of course know what's best for them. This goes back to Thatcher's big bang.
Both parties turned a half-blind eye to the spivs in the City because the money was rolling in. The spending became unsustainable after the spivs screwed us over.
We're over-reliant on the finance sector, who can't be trusted to play straight. Even now the country is awash with money, it's just that a small number of people are hogging more than their fair share. A little bit of redistribution would not go amiss, a bit more of the trickle down rather than the trickle up.
What worries me about this election is that there's a concerted effort to obscure the fact that the 2008 crash was caused by the supposedly clever finance boys getting way beyond themselves and fucking up the economy right and proper.
This is Labour's big failure in this campaign - to nail the lie, because the economy was beginning to pick up, albeit slowly, until George took the wind out of the sails with his ideologically-driven austerity and put us back into recession.
For all the bluster I still haven't had a reason why the non-doms and other tax-dodging parasites should have favourable treatment.