Vote Labour

[Ambrose Ackroyd]

The tragedy of politics is that it usually ends in tears

Yes, Gordon will tell you about that.

 

[Atilla]

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

Fraud and theft is againts the law but I don't see any MPs with ASBOs. In fact they have been allowed to continue until kicked out by voting public. I'm sure that's going to hurt them a great deal...

Quite a few have declined to pay back what they have been instructed to do so too.

 

[Trader333]

Fraud and theft is againts the law but I don't see any MPs with ASBOs. In fact they have been allowed to continue until kicked out by voting public. I'm sure that's going to hurt them a great deal...

Quite a few have declined to pay back what they have been instructed to do so too.

I am not sure what point you are making ? The law must be upheld and no one is above it even if it does take time to enact it. You have stated earlier that we live in a civilised democracy and this would not be the case if the law can be flouted without consequence.


Paul

 

[Atilla]

I am not sure what point you are making ? The law must be upheld and no one is above it even if it does take time to enact it. You have stated earlier that we live in a civilised democracy and this would not be the case if the law can be flouted without consequence.


Paul

The point I'm picking up on is this "To have allowed this to go ahead when against the law would have resulted in anarchy" from your blog Paul. I find this way OT (over the top to suggest anarchy).

Problem we have now is we have financial anarchy!

Not one banker has been sacked despite absolute wreckless behaviour. Only one retired from ill health. Fred the Shred wasn't sacked so he got to save his pension.

All board members know they can pay them selves what ever they like and there is no law that can touch them. No shareholders or fund managers can reach them. To suggest anything otherwise is a sham.

Politicians likewise. Thatcher knew people wouldn't acknowledge the stupid increases politicians wanted so she gave out luxerious allowances. Like how much you could claim for employing family members to answer the phone - second homes and stationary bills etc. Now allowances is one thing but even that wasn't enough such that we had collosal fraud of claiming for porn movies and duck ponds and gardening. Homes 00s of miles away from constitutiencies etc. Geoffrey Hoon has bought and tarted up and sold about 5 properties. Its bleeding amazing he had any time to do any parliamentary work at all.

I would put to you that we now have financial crime endorsed by the establishment. These fat pigs are hardly fighting for their jobs or family livelihoods.

So when you talk of anarchy - I can only grin and state - no I didn't like Scargill or the trade union practices at the time but if you ask me which is the greater sin or anarchistic situation - you can imagine what my answer would be.


As for the police - on the news - the police-force in Wales have had something like 5 fold increase in Over-Time wages whilst the number of police has increased. Is this creative accounting or what.

Blatant criminal fraud practices by those who rule are common practice it seems.

Judicial system is in there too with their stupid charges and legal aid practices. What is legal aid other than the judges paying them selves.

Beggars belief to grant legal aid to a politician fighting fraud and theft but you know it happens.

Anarchy indeed - but not in your average common man - but more in the elitist parasites of society.

My apologies for the rant but honesty and integrity are difficult to come by in these self serving *******s who are destroying the nation from the bottom up.

By that I mean pay **** all to all labourers who do hardest dirtiest work including nurses who save lives. And pay a fortune for management and bankers and rulers who may if lucky get to do one hour in the morning and one in the afternoon before retiring to meetings lunches and the golf course.

Rewarding failure is government policy.

 

[maiden22]

The point I'm picking up on is this "To have allowed this to go ahead when against the law would have resulted in anarchy" from your blog Paul. I find this way OT (over the top to suggest anarchy).

Problem we have now is we have financial anarchy!

Not one banker has been sacked despite absolute wreckless behaviour. Only one retired from ill health. Fred the Shred wasn't sacked so he got to save his pension.

All board members know they can pay them selves what ever they like and there is no law that can touch them. No shareholders or fund managers can reach them. To suggest anything otherwise is a sham.

Politicians likewise. Thatcher knew people wouldn't acknowledge the stupid increases politicians wanted so she gave out luxerious allowances. Like how much you could claim for employing family members to answer the phone - second homes and stationary bills etc. Now allowances is one thing but even that wasn't enough such that we had collosal fraud of claiming for porn movies and duck ponds and gardening. Homes 00s of miles away from constitutiencies etc. Geoffrey Hoon has bought and tarted up and sold about 5 properties. Its bleeding amazing he had any time to do any parliamentary work at all.

I would put to you that we now have financial crime endorsed by the establishment. These fat pigs are hardly fighting for their jobs or family livelihoods.

So when you talk of anarchy - I can only grin and state - no I didn't like Scargill or the trade union practices at the time but if you ask me which is the greater sin or anarchistic situation - you can imagine what my answer would be.


As for the police - on the news - the police-force in Wales have had something like 5 fold increase in Over-Time wages whilst the number of police has increased. Is this creative accounting or what.

Blatant criminal fraud practices by those who rule are common practice it seems.

Judicial system is in there too with their stupid charges and legal aid practices. What is legal aid other than the judges paying them selves.

Beggars belief to grant legal aid to a politician fighting fraud and theft but you know it happens.

Anarchy indeed - but not in your average common man - but more in the elitist parasites of society.

My apologies for the rant but honesty and integrity are difficult to come by in these self serving *******s who are destroying the nation from the bottom up.

By that I mean pay **** all to all labourers who do hardest dirtiest work including nurses who save lives. And pay a fortune for management and bankers and rulers who may if lucky get to do one hour in the morning and one in the afternoon before retiring to meetings lunches and the golf course.

Rewarding failure is government policy.

We don't normally see eye to eye, and I think you're a bit OTT on the banker issue, but I have to say you make a lot of good points there.

British public life is becoming severely corrupted in many areas as you identify.

 

[Atilla]

We don't normally see eye to eye, and I think you're a bit OTT on the banker issue, but I have to say you make a lot of good points there.

British public life is becoming severely corrupted in many areas as you identify.

Cheers for your repu Maiden, but to labour the point - Bankers are precisely the people to target in all this.

They have acted with total disregard to any law and do what ever they choose irrespective of regulatory bodies, corporate governance or compliance and good practice. Where is self regulation.

The US is much tougher on these bodies than we are. They have always been so too. Our old Mergers and Monopolies Commission was toothless compared to the US on price fixing and cartels too.

This article I think highlights the point. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10115471.stm

At the height of the crises I recall the FSA spokes person defending the bankers and their salaries because - this was precisely the time when we needed the best in the industry to see us through the crises. That takes the biscuit to their approach on the banks.

Yet to this day - not one persuction or enquiry into the banks practice.

Few people march to protest - break a few windows and they get treated like criminals, beaten up by the police, herded like animals even if you are pregnant and old and want to get out of the crowd you will not be released from the ring of 'defence' .

Bankers break the capitalist system and they get fat pay checks. :-0

 

[Pat494]

Or as Steve McQueen once said

" life ain't fair "

 

[Atilla]

Or as Steve McQueen once said

" life ain't fair "

You endorsing anarchy? :clap: :clap: :clap:

err financial anarchy!!!

 

[maiden22]

Cheers for your repu Maiden, but to labour the point - Bankers are precisely the people to target in all this.

They have acted with total disregard to any law and do what ever they choose irrespective of regulatory bodies, corporate governance or compliance and good practice. Where is self regulation.

The US is much tougher on these bodies than we are. They have always been so too. Our old Mergers and Monopolies Commission was toothless compared to the US on price fixing and cartels too.

This article I think highlights the point. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10115471.stm

At the height of the crises I recall the FSA spokes person defending the bankers and their salaries because - this was precisely the time when we needed the best in the industry to see us through the crises. That takes the biscuit to their approach on the banks.

Yet to this day - not one persuction or enquiry into the banks practice.

Few people march to protest - break a few windows and they get treated like criminals, beaten up by the police, herded like animals even if you are pregnant and old and want to get out of the crowd you will not be released from the ring of 'defence' .

Bankers break the capitalist system and they get fat pay checks. :-0

Hi Atilla,

Again I agree with pretty much everything you wrote (good God, wtf is going on ).

I think you make a good point about how we have come to police protest marches and the general approach of the police to the public. They seem to have gone from being uniformed citizens policing by consent to being an armed wing of the state imposing the dictats of the state from above. You probably don't like him, but have a look a Peter Hitchen's blog - he's very good on this topic, and you'll probably find yourself in total agreement with what he says, on this subject at least. He makes his case very well indeed (the blog is very different to the Mail column by the way).

With regard to the "bankers" issue, I wouldn't really argue with anything you've said. Breath-taking incompetence, rewards for failure, you're absolutely right.

I just think that blame lies with many people - bankers, politicians, and the public. Lots of people behaved like idiots, so I'm not defending bankers, just saying that I think we should recognise that they were not alone.

It makes a nice change that we're getting along - sorry for my previous intemperate language .

 

[Atilla]

Hi Atilla,

Again I agree with pretty much everything you wrote (good God, wtf is going on ).

I think you make a good point about how we have come to police protest marches and the general approach of the police to the public. They seem to have gone from being uniformed citizens policing by consent to being an armed wing of the state imposing the dictats of the state from above. You probably don't like him, but have a look a Peter Hitchen's blog - he's very good on this topic, and you'll probably find yourself in total agreement with what he says, on this subject at least. He makes his case very well indeed (the blog is very different to the Mail column by the way).

With regard to the "bankers" issue, I wouldn't really argue with anything you've said. Breath-taking incompetence, rewards for failure, you're absolutely right.

I just think that blame lies with many people - bankers, politicians, and the public. Lots of people behaved like idiots, so I'm not defending bankers, just saying that I think we should recognise that they were not alone.

It makes a nice change that we're getting along - sorry for my previous intemperate language .

Likewise here Maiden no problem at all.

The control mechanism was / is with the banks and politicians. Not with Joe Public. It's like giving candy to a baby.

Now why do you want to smack the baby? :cheesy:

Is it better to control the millions of masses or do you control checkpoints - be a GateKeeper?

 

[Trader333]

This is not about "morality" which I agree with you about. It is about the law and it should be applied. The fact that it is not done so evenly is not my fault but the principal of doing so is paramount in my view.


Paul

 

[maiden22]

Likewise here Maiden no problem at all.

The control mechanism was / is with the banks and politicians. Not with Joe Public. It's like giving candy to a baby.

Now why do you want to smack the baby? :cheesy:

Is it better to control the millions of masses or do you control checkpoints - be a GateKeeper?

In practical terms, checkpoints no doubt. And yes, control was a joke - banks and governments f***** the situation into a cocked hat.

But caveat emptor should still apply. People aren't babies they're adults - adults have culpability.

That said, I do understand how people get into that position. Just as a little example, we've been talking about education on another thread. My view is that state education lets down a lot of people.

I saw a segment on a programme a while ago about a young couple who were losing their home. They borrowed basically up to the limit of what they could afford to pay monthly, had one of those 2 year deals for bugger-all %, and then you know what happens. They couldn't afford the new payments, and the telly chap said surely they knew that payments could rise. The girl said yes, but they thought only by a bit - maybe £50 or £100 a month. She genuinely couldn't understand that if you borrow at 1% and your rate rises to 2%, you have a 100% rise in repayments.

I come across lots of people who would have to think about 5% of 100 or 10% of 50.

Now you can say that there is no excuse for this, but if you've had a terrible education it can leave you in that position. My fiancee went to a state school and from what she's said about it it's a miracle she can read.

So I think the situation is complex and partly at least has deep roots. Banks made money available too easily on stupid terms, yes.

But people weren't forced to take it - they did so because they wanted to live beyond their means.

Government was happy about the situation obviously.

The regulator f***** up spectacularly as we all know.

I think that the blame pie is big enough to give a lot of people a slice.

 

[Atilla]

This is not about "morality" which I agree with you about. It is about the law and it should be applied. The fact that it is not done so evenly is not my fault but the principal of doing so is paramount in my view.


Paul

Holding you personally responsible for encouraging this kind of behaviour Paul. :cheesy:

The management reserve the right to ... err... bend the law so it is seemed to be applied but not really guv...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o68thoPjmfA&feature=related

 

[Atilla]

In practical terms, checkpoints no doubt. And yes, control was a joke - banks and governments f***** the situation into a cocked hat.

But caveat emptor should still apply. People aren't babies they're adults - adults have culpability.

That said, I do understand how people get into that position. Just as a little example, we've been talking about education on another thread. My view is that state education lets down a lot of people.

I saw a segment on a programme a while ago about a young couple who were losing their home. They borrowed basically up to the limit of what they could afford to pay monthly, had one of those 2 year deals for bugger-all %, and then you know what happens. They couldn't afford the new payments, and the telly chap said surely they knew that payments could rise. The girl said yes, but they thought only by a bit - maybe £50 or £100 a month. She genuinely couldn't understand that if you borrow at 1% and your rate rises to 2%, you have a 100% rise in repayments.

I come across lots of people who would have to think about 5% of 100 or 10% of 50.

Now you can say that there is no excuse for this, but if you've had a terrible education it can leave you in that position. My fiancee went to a state school and from what she's said about it it's a miracle she can read.

So I think the situation is complex and partly at least has deep roots. Banks made money available too easily on stupid terms, yes.

But people weren't forced to take it - they did so because they wanted to live beyond their means.

Government was happy about the situation obviously.

The regulator f***** up spectacularly as we all know.

I think that the blame pie is big enough to give a lot of people a slice.

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.

 

[Trader333]

Blame game is it???

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

 

[maiden22]

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.

 

[Atilla]

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?

 

[Pat494]

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.

 

[maiden22]

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.

.

 

[Atilla]

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... :whistling

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? :-0