Vote Labour

This is a discussion on Vote Labour within the The Foyer forums, part of the Off the Grid category; Originally Posted by Atilla So why didn't the governments pay all that money to the 'real people' who messed up ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 14, 2010, 2:27pm   #196
Joined Dec 2008
Re: Vote Labour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
So why didn't the governments pay all that money to the 'real people' who messed up so they could pay back their loans to the banks - who would then not have defaults and remain solvent?

Am I missing something here???

People don't have money to meet their liabilities and you take their house.

Banks don't have money to meet their liabilities and you pay them billions and fat bonuses.


Blame game is it???

No comprehendo me amigo.
There were definitely problems with the way the bail outs have been done, and I agree that whacking out the bonuses with hardly a pause is less than ideal.

The rationale is that banks must not collapse - which is after all to the benefit of the ordinary people who keep their deposits in them. The FSCS could not cope with widespread collapse on a large scale.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2010, 2:39pm   #197
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Re: Vote Labour

Quote:
Originally Posted by maiden22 View Post
There were definitely problems with the way the bail outs have been done, and I agree that whacking out the bonuses with hardly a pause is less than ideal.

The rationale is that banks must not collapse - which is after all to the benefit of the ordinary people who keep their deposits in them. The FSCS could not cope with widespread collapse on a large scale.

Yes but the arguement is that they lent money to poor people who could not meet their mortgages. That is the start of the domino effect.

Moreover, governments would have only had to meet the interest payments on a monthly basis of the few or many who were not coping. Not the whole lot in one woosh...

Think about it - tax payer liability would have been substantially less.

As for our capitalist system - why couldn't the banks have asked their share-holders to pay with new issues - before the bank run started on all of them. This is effectively what Gordon Brown did and it was a very bright smart move. Then once the sector recovered sell your new shares on and claim your money back.

The whole episode is a farce. Pure anarchy by the elite who did so very well out of all this. Where have all the billions gone? I mean who's pockets are they in?
__________________
Know your L I M I T A T I O N S
Atilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2010, 3:00pm   #198
 
Pat494's Avatar
Joined Mar 2004
Re: Vote Labour

I think the blame game is important if the same thing isn't to keep re-occuring. The guilty should have been punished and stripped of their immoral gains. If only to send a clear signal to the next generation of dodgy people.

You forgot to mention the politicians that relaxed financial controls on the banks. Were they "bought off" or just clueless ? When billions are sloshing about, it's not usually the clueless that benefit unless it suits the clever b*stards. Doesn't take a genius to guess into whose accounts loads of money disappeared.
__________________
Love your own area.
Long live NIMBYISM

for quality of life.

The Westcountry is being overrun with
grotty new estates
Pat494 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2010, 3:01pm   #199
Joined Dec 2008
Re: Vote Labour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
Yes but the arguement is that they lent money to poor people who could not meet their mortgages. That is the start of the domino effect.

Moreover, governments would have only had to meet the interest payments on a monthly basis of the few or many who were not coping. Not the whole lot in one woosh...

But surely this would have been a disaster? Talk about moral hazard - borrow too much, can't pay it back, government steps in? We need to avoid the situation in future - if the government bails people out it will never end.

Obviously I appreciate that this argument could also be applied to bailing out banks.


Think about it - tax payer liability would have been substantially less.

True, but see above.

As for our capitalist system - why couldn't the banks have asked their share-holders to pay with new issues - before the bank run started on all of them.

Well, they did have rights issues, but on their own these were not enough.

This is effectively what Gordon Brown did and it was a very bright smart move. Then once the sector recovered sell your new shares on and claim your money back.

The whole episode is a farce.

Agreed.

Pure anarchy by the elite who did so very well out of all this. Where have all the billions gone? I mean who's pockets are they in?

Fair point - there are plenty of people who have got a lot of money they shouldn't have.

.
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks! The following members like this post: Atilla
Old May 14, 2010, 3:31pm   #200
 
Atilla's Avatar
Joined Nov 2006
Re: Vote Labour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trader333 View Post
We have a tendency in our culture to try and blame one person or one group of people or a single cause for any scenario that has developed. In my view a crisis rarely has a single cause and as part of my Masters one of the modules was crisis management. It was a fascinating area for study and we were fortunate to have a Professor from Liverpool visit us who was an expert in this subject. He was involved in many crisis investigations including a major disaster (which we studied) and many others. He even had court injunctions levied at him to prevent the publication of many of his findings of crises that he had investigated. The official reason given for one of the disasters he had looked into and was ordered not to make public was blamed on a single cause. He presented overwhelming evidence to us that there were six contributory causes to this particular disaster. If any one of the six causes had not been present then the disaster would not have happened. The reason why he was prevented from publishing was that the cost to the industry and subsequent confidence would have been enormous.

What happened was that the single (and convenient) cause was the official published reason for the disaster but the industry quietly addressed all five of the other causes over time to prevent a recurrence.

Anyway the point I was making is that in all crises there are usually 6 contributory elements to it and as such blaming just one is rarely justified.


Paul
I don't dispute this Paul, you know my sentiments - I would have Mrs Thatcher in that list along with the Tory party advisers, the FSA and the banks chief exec as well as politicians.

However, as it stands labour unions and migrant workers the people who could not afford their mortgages - people on the lowest of the ladder get the boot.

It's lucky we have gravity on earth and **** falls down as we all know. I guess its just law of nature...

There is a term 'errors and ommissions'. If it is unintentional then it needs to be addressed. If it is intentional - then dismissal is usually the preferred first choice for due negligence.

I re-iterate, why are these people still being paid collosal amounts of money for blundering. Let's forget the blame and punishment. What on earth are bonuses for?
__________________
Know your L I M I T A T I O N S

Last edited by Atilla; May 14, 2010 at 3:47pm.
Atilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2010, 3:38pm   #201
Joined Dec 2008
Re: Vote Labour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post

I re-iterate, why are these people still being paid collosal amounts of money for blundering. Let's forget the blame and punishment. What on earth is bonuses for?
This is a very fair point. The relationship between performance and reward seems to have broken down somewhat. Bonuses should be given for good results, not just for tipping up to work and sh4gging the business into the ground.

Mind you it's not just the banks. The FSA got their bonuses in 2008 and 2009 as well .
maiden22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2010, 9:29pm   #202
Global Moderators are volunteer members with senior administrative powers to moderate all forums.
 
counter_violent's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Re: Vote Labour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atilla View Post
I re-iterate, why are these people still being paid collosal amounts of money for blundering. Let's forget the blame and punishment. What on earth are bonuses for?
It's no lose...when **** hits fan the worst that can happen is reduced or no bonus...they still get paid wages for their incompetence mind. When they are seen to be making the business fortunes, then they claim bonuses.

The problem is the starting point year on year does not equate in any way to any previous values. So they could have 1 absolute disaster year versus umpteen bonus years. Something not quite right there I feel.
__________________
Spreading the madness across this suite of forums.

Those are my principles and if you don't like them, well..... I have others.

Kin Dissers Everywhere

We are all leavers now
counter_violent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2010, 9:41pm   #203
Global Moderators are volunteer members with senior administrative powers to moderate all forums.
 
counter_violent's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Re: Vote Labour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trader333 View Post
It was anything but a peaceful protest.



I was a union rep at the time of this and the mistake that was made by the leaders of the strike was that it was illegal. This is why the Labour Party would not support it. I fully sympathise with what was happening to the industry and I was very against it but what you are suggesting is that the law should be ignored and that cannot be allowed.

Scargill knew that he risked not getting a legal vote through and that is why he decided not to have one. To have allowed this to go ahead when against the law would have resulted in anarchy as more and more of the population realised that they can do what the hell they want without repercussions of it being against the law.


Paul
I remember exactly why the miners strike collapsed in much the same way as the Mrs Duffy affair was the final straw for Brown.

The miners had been out for months without pay as such and all the time Scargill was telling them to hunker down, dig in and keep going. Then the cheeky sod had the audacity to take delivery of a brand new jag...all paid for I expect from the subs of the miners union funds. That jag pissed off both the public and the miners and after that it was an easy victory as most of them finally woke up to the reality they were on their own.
__________________
Spreading the madness across this suite of forums.

Those are my principles and if you don't like them, well..... I have others.

Kin Dissers Everywhere

We are all leavers now

Last edited by counter_violent; May 14, 2010 at 9:55pm.
counter_violent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2010, 9:10am   #204
Joined Aug 2009
Re: Vote Labour

The Labour Party has announced that it will decide on its future drinks choice by June 2011. The “Beverage For a Socialist Future” report lays out a clear path for the Party’s choice between tea and coffee, while outlining potential alternatives for those still unsure.

John Cruddas told reporters that it was essential the Labour Party take “as long as humanly possible” to choose between the two drinks: “When we do finally sit down, we need to be clear in our minds what we’re all about. Are we a tea party, or are we a coffee party? What does our choice imply? What does it mean to be a tea-drinking Labour supporter in the 21st Century? Is coffee a Tory drink? There are so many questions that remain unanswered. We have to capture the beverage zeitgeist, and that cannot be done in just a couple of months.”

“Personally, I’m neither a tea nor a coffee man and I won’t be drinking either, but I fully support the Labour Party’s long-term beverages strategy.”

The Beverage For a Socialist Future document outlines the procedure for selecting the drink available for the next Labour meeting, which includes an all-membership ballot to take place towards the end of 2010, with regional hustings in the run-up to the first ballot. Several rounds of voting will take place, representing 10% of the final decision, after which the unions will be consulted, and finally the Labour MPs present at the meeting. Labour Party officials have not ruled out the possibility of adding other beverages to the ballot sheets in the goodness of time, and say that they need “to meditate” over the ever-confusing list of options.

Leadership candidate David Milliband weighed into the argument, saying “Tea is tea, that’s fine. We’re fine with that. No bugger drinks green tea, and we’ve only got PG Tips anyway. But coffee’s not just coffee any more, is it? I mean, what happens if someone says – hey, I’m a latte guy but not a cappuccino guy? And who knows the difference between a latte and coffee with milk? Frappuccino? Flat white? We’re entering dangerous territory here, so it’s quite right that we should take our time over this decision. Has no one thought about hot chocolate?”

Ed Milliband said exactly the same thing to reporters afterwards, but added that everything he drank was “Fairtrade” only, which received a few “aw”s from the audience.

The Condemocrats have laughed off accusations that they face the same indecision problems, by mixing tea and coffee together and calling it “teaffee”. David Cleggeron spoke of a “new beverage situation”, telling reporters that “people are sick of us telling them what we’re going to drink, and they’ve quite clearly told us that they want us to drink something in between. Something new. Something inspiring. Something strong and stable. Something, well, frankly… I don’t like it so I’m going to sip at it for a while before throwing it down the sink and getting a coffee. White, of course. We don’t do black.”
Ambrose Ackroyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Labour party vermin (Warning:Offensive) zigglewigler The Foyer 57 Jan 26, 2010 3:26pm
This is labour government sinimini The Foyer 165 Nov 9, 2009 11:47pm
Mental note to self; US Labour day, go on a bike ride Black Swan General Trading Chat 5 Sep 7, 2009 10:39pm
Who voted Labour anyway? wasp The Foyer 40 Sep 5, 2009 1:37pm
Please vote mauzj The Foyer 4 Mar 2, 2009 11:57pm

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)