Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

ED WON!

195 replies

pinkbasket · 25/09/2010 16:51

There you go.

OP posts:
FellatioNelson · 30/09/2010 18:26

I think he sounds like a monotone, nasal, whiny sixth former at the best of times, but this week, with the advantage of a heavy cold, he is excelling himself.Grin

FellatioNelson · 30/09/2010 18:28

And he's the least attractive of the pair by far. Not that it matters in the scheme of things, but if I had to sleep with a Milliband it wouldn't be him.

(sorry, I'll get off this thread now.Grin)

claig · 30/09/2010 18:55

FellatioNelson, I think you are spot on, which is why he mentioned Forrest Gump. He is the interim Gump candidate.

TDaDa · 01/10/2010 06:25

He sounds like Tony Blair with a cold?

TDaDa · 01/10/2010 06:28

Without the (global) tax revenues from the banking sector we are finding out that we don't earn enough as a nation to afford our standard of living.

Unilaterally regulating the Financial sector; even now, would have been/would be a silly stupid thing to do in the face of global competition

claig · 01/10/2010 06:47

Yes, I see what you're saying. What you mean is we should get on our knees and worship the 'Great Ones' even more, just like Gordon Brown did with his buddy 'Fred the Shred'.

What you're saying is that the best thing to do now would be to deregulate them totally and see what happens to our standard of living. Should we knight the whole lot of them for their "services to banking", as New Labour did for 'Fred the Shred'?

So what you are saying is we were wrong to vote Gordon Brown out because he had let them run riot? We should have realised that Gordon's intention was to "save the world" and not to save their bacon. So we should start getting used to "global competition" and the "market" sweeping us up, hurling us around and tearing up our jobs and lives like a scrap of worthless paper in a hurricane, because Gordon's polcy was to let these clever experts get on with it, gambling away our money.

So what you're saying is we were wrong to call time on Gordon Brown and the casino operators? It sounds like we were wrong to hope for a better way, to want to see them brought to book, to slash their bonuses paid for out of our taxes. We were wrong to put our confidence in the coalition rather than New Labour's demolition?

TDaDa · 01/10/2010 06:56

Not saying that. I am saying that:

i)We need to build other industries

ii)We need to pursue GLOBAL regulation and not do it on our own as we will simply lose revenue to Zurich, Singapore, Hkg, Toronto.....

claig · 01/10/2010 07:15

global regulation is global bullshit, just like global warming and all the other "save the world" global governance initiatives of the arch globalist Gordon Brown, the champion of globalisation and global hot air.

It won't be achieved anytime short of the next millenium, which is exactly why globalist Gordon advocates it, so that his mates like 'Fred the Shred' can carry on unheeded and unregulated without so much as a "hold on" from the elected "representatives" of the suckers (i.e. the public).

We don't need to pursue a deliberately deceptive, phony, pie-in-the-sky global regulation. What we need to pursue is plain old simple regulation, no global bullshit involved at all. No Gordon swanning about at international conferences shaking hands and rictus grinning with global bigwigs. What we need is local regulation, just a few phone calls, a couple of local meetings in Threadneedle Street, instead of the Maldives.

But of course, that would be too simple, that would work. That would save the country. But of course, he's not interested in the country. The country's not global, the British people as just local, he's got bigger ambitions. Underneath his suit, he's got a different set of clothes, he thinks he's Superman, and unfortunately for us, come hell or highwater, he intends to "save the world".

TDaDa · 01/10/2010 07:18

i find you to be angry, ill informed and sensationalist.....

claig · 01/10/2010 07:20

I find you to be naive

FattyArbuckel · 01/10/2010 16:59

Well working together globally to agree improvements on this stuff would be great but its frankly never gonna happen, is it?

The fat cat bankers are still fat cats after all that has happened. Are any of them really worth million pound remuneration? Of course they aren't, its a distortion caused by how the market works and by the current regulation system. Does this current system really benefit the man and woman in the street as they would have you believe? Does it F*.

claig · 01/10/2010 17:11

well said FattyArbuckel, but unfortunately these fat cat bankers have cheerleaders all over the media telling us how important they are and how we would be sunk without them. They bring us to the brink of ruin and then expect us to be grateful and to praise them.

TDaDa · 01/10/2010 18:54

FattyArbukel - the previous wave of global regulation was a G30 initiative. So was the recent Basel 3 initiative which governs capital requirements of banks. It is a fact that if one country pushes ahead too far then banks/funds can choose to relocate.

I know for a fact that some banks have relocated their mega (ten of M's) earners out of London to avoid higher marginal tax- nothing that the UK Govt can do about that without global agreement. These are facts.

claig · 01/10/2010 19:13

I'd happily chip in to help send the "megas" to the moon. I don't think we'd be short of contributions.

TDaDa · 01/10/2010 19:20

Why not go the whole way and bank investment banking in the UK ........ and watch the UK go bankrupt very quickly?

jackstarbright · 02/10/2010 12:33

"but unfortunately these fat cat bankers have cheerleaders all over the media telling us how important they are and how we would be sunk without them."

Claig - you need to widen your reading beyond the Daily Mail Smile. The rest of the press are giving bankers a hard time.

I agree there are distortions in banker's pay (and top pay in general) and this need looking into.

But we are were we are - and that means our economy is over reliant on the finance industry and particular individuals within it.

For example, the UK is home to 80 percent of Europe's around £250 billion hedge fund industry. That's providing a significant slug of UK tax revenue. Considering about 55 hedge funds control most of those funds - we are talking about a very small group of people whose actions could significantly impact our tax revenue.

claig · 02/10/2010 13:48

jackstarbright, I tried reading the Guardian once, but there was too much spin wherever I looked, it certainly made my head spin.

That's why I prefer the Daily Mail. It tells it like it is. Here is an article that they did on those bankers, often referred to as "megas".

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1242575/Lusha-monkey-outperforms-94-Russia-bankers-investment-portfolio.html

claig · 02/10/2010 13:53

Apparently the Russian "mega" bankers tried the usual trick of threatening to leave the country if their taxes were increased. When the Daily Mail informed the Russians about the stellar performance of the chimpanzee, Lusha, the Russians thanked the Mail and told the "megas" to start packing their bags.

TDaDa · 02/10/2010 15:25

claig - Daily Mail tells it like it is?! Best if we stick to the facts: as pointed out by jackstarbright ...go ahead and chase the hedgefunders to other location and lose the tax revenue but ensure that you also develop other industry to replace the lost revenue.

In the banker bashing, politicians and the media never explained that a significant proportion of the profits of investment banks come from overseas capital...so go ahead a chase that capital away if you like but it is fees on that capital that has been helping to fund our public services for many many years now.

And before anyone says anyhting about bnank rescue costing the tax payer, I am happy to point then to the facts: the tax-payer is well on course to making thumping big profits from RBS, Lloyds.

Prefer if we dealt with the facts on this subject

FattyArbuckel · 02/10/2010 18:49

Tadada "I know for a fact that some banks have relocated their mega (ten of M's) earners out of London to avoid higher marginal tax- nothing that the UK Govt can do about that without global agreement. These are facts."

I fail to see a problem with this. If bankers want to earn stupid money and are prepared to live abroad if necessary for the priviledge that suits me just fine. I have no interest in keeping the super rich in the UK.

You also say "And before anyone says anyhting about bnank rescue costing the tax payer, I am happy to point then to the facts: the tax-payer is well on course to making thumping big profits from RBS, Lloyds."

  • Well actually not such big profits as they have a right to after the fat cat bankers top slice it with their ludicrous wages and bonuses.

Are you a banker or the wife of one yourself by any chance?

TDaDa · 02/10/2010 19:26

FattyArbuckel - I am simply saying that we lose revenue by flight of capital/personel overseas. You must understand that

The tax payers profit is a function of the difference between the share price at acquisition and the current share price. Share price is not a function of bonuses. For example Goldman Sachs pays some of the highest bonuses, yet has some of the highest shareholder return.

I am not defending bankers but I find that these broad brush tabloid remarks are not supported by the facts. I can dig out facts to show you that the tax payers investments are "in the money" . Would be nice if you could support your arguments with hard facts.

TDaDa · 02/10/2010 19:31

Friend of mine brother is a Tory MP...he admits that the plan is to sell RBS + Lloyds for a thumping big profit just before the next election. Read here

TDaDa · 02/10/2010 19:34

Then there is the Insurance scheme between RBS and the Govt which is making the tax payer a nice little profit of a few BN. read here

And then there is the funding lines that were provided by the govt which is at a nice premium.....just some examples of under reported facts.

Now you please show me exactly which deal the tax payer did with RBS/Lloyds that lost us/likely to lose us money? Quite the opposite.

jackstarbright · 02/10/2010 20:36

"I fail to see a problem with this. If bankers want to earn stupid money and are prepared to live abroad if necessary for the priviledge that suits me just fine. I have no interest in keeping the super rich in the UK."

FattyA -.You might be prepared to make up the resulting tax shortfall by an sudden increase in your personal tax - I suspect many others won't be as keen.

Tdada - I don't think we should chase off the Hedge-funders. I'm just not comfortable with so much of our tax revenue being generated by so few people. We need to broaden our tax base in the medium term, and not be so reliant on the finance industry.

FattyArbuckel · 02/10/2010 21:19

I don't want to live in a society where there is such a great gap in wealth between rich and poor. If, and I think it is definitely an if, that means that overall tax revenues fall, I think that is a price worth paying.