|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 18, 2014 18:52:48 GMT
Salop if you've read my previous post I've already explained why Russell is right to go after the banks. Nobody is saying RBS should have been allowed to fail, not even Russell, the point is that they shouldn't have been in a position where they failed in the first place. Forget the fact that the taxpayers money will be returned, its really not relevant in the slightest, the fact is the money we've used bailing out the banks could and should have been used better elsewhere like the where all the cuts have taken place like the NHS and fire service etc. Cuts have had to be made because of the economic crisis, because we the taxpayers have had to bail out the banks, so it's more than a little galling that 80billion has been made in cuts, that many people in roles that are incredibly important to our society have lost and are continuing to lose their jobs. It's also just a little galling that because of these cuts there are many people that have gone to university on the premise that they would get a decent job, only to see those job opportunities/prospects cut drastically thanks to government cuts. And all because we've had to use a large proportion of taxpayers money to bail out the banks. And best of all what's happened in the meantime? Those that work in the banking industry have given themselves £81billion in bonuses. it's an absolute joke. Just to add to this the taxpayers money is supposed to go on things like education, police, NHS, fire service etc and none of these things are supposed to give us a monetary return. It's not supposed to be paid back to us and it's certainly not supposed to be used to bail out banks. The rest of the stuff we've already discussed at great length so there's no real need to go into it apart from one point I'd like to pick up on. The comments about the BBC are pointless also, by that logic everyone should boycott the BBC, and I'd love to know if the guy who penned the letter watches the BBC along with the person whose comment you've quoted above boycott anything BBC related, if they feel it's such a massive waste of the taxpayers money (I bet they don't). Its a nonsense argument really. As britsabroad points out below if you want to go down the brand route and insist the banks bought the economy down than it was also them that bought or kept the economy up, you can't have it both ways. The truth of the matter is as a country we have been overspending for a long time, that's why Gordon started to use PFI so much to hide how bad things were, one example everyone has known for decades is that pensions needed changing, people are living longer and someone has to pay for that but no one did anything because telling people to pay more and or work longer tends not to win any votes so everyone left it for the next lot to sort out. All Russell has to say about this is my mate Lee's pension blah de blah and having to run into burning buildings at the age of 60. 60 by the way is the retirement threshold amongst most of the fire services in the rest of the world I read somewhere. It's also the retirement age for the police and the army and the same as those two jobs unless you pass a fitness test you're out and unlike the fire service they don't get to spend most of their night shift sleeping either. But of course it's far easier to blame the banks than deal with some real world issues. Seeing as yourself and britsabroad are making similar points I'll address you both. Firstly with regards to the banks bringing the economy up/down you can absolutely have it both ways. Let's not kid ourselves here the financial crisis of 2008 didn't happen because of the government overspending on public services, it happened because the banks failed and they failed badly. The argument that they've been keeping the economy up and are therefore somehow immune from taking the blame for a financial crisis that they caused is absolute nonsense. It's no good pointing to their contribution to the economy prior to 2008 if the consequence of those contributions is needing to be bailed out by the government due to a flawed system and an awful lot of bankers not doing their jobs properly. Anything the banks have contributed since 2008 is a result of them doing their jobs properly so forgive me whilst I don't commend them too much for that. Taking on board your comments on government overspending I think there's definitely an argument that we were spending too much and some cuts needed to be made. But it's the scale of the cuts that's the issue, if we didn't have to bail out the banks we wouldn't have had to make the hard-hitting cuts that we have, a lot of people have suffered as a result of the cuts and the banks have had a massive contribution to the way things have gone. With regards to your point about the retirement age being 60 for firefighters around the world, our own government produced a report which said that two-thirds of firefighters are not fit enough for duty at the age of 55 never mind 60. If you're saying they should accept the rise in retirement age and get on with it then you're effectively saying it's fine for them to put their own lives and the lives of others at more risk than is necessary. Its a poor argument. So yeah it is easy to blame the banks, and it's also incredibly easy to blame tax avoidance because they have both had a massive say on the state our society is in right now. They are 'real world' issues as you put it.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 18, 2014 19:30:50 GMT
Russell Brand is as much of a comedian as Fred West was as a family liason officer Trust you to dig that one up dutchstokie ;-)
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 18, 2014 19:34:41 GMT
Don't blame the banks.......FFS i've heard it all now. I suspect anybody who takes this line is either a brain damaged moron or (more likely in this case) has vested interests for promoting such nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Beertricks Potter on Dec 18, 2014 23:01:15 GMT
Russell Brand is as much of a comedian as Fred West was as a family liason officer He's as funny as a tick in yer dick
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Dec 19, 2014 7:12:44 GMT
Russell Brand is as much of a comedian as Fred West was as a family liason officer Trust you to dig that one up dutchstokie ;-)
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 19, 2014 8:17:28 GMT
Trust you to dig that one up dutchstokie ;-) Maybe we need to bury Russ under the patio ;-)
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 19, 2014 10:23:31 GMT
As britsabroad points out below if you want to go down the brand route and insist the banks bought the economy down than it was also them that bought or kept the economy up, you can't have it both ways. The truth of the matter is as a country we have been overspending for a long time, that's why Gordon started to use PFI so much to hide how bad things were, one example everyone has known for decades is that pensions needed changing, people are living longer and someone has to pay for that but no one did anything because telling people to pay more and or work longer tends not to win any votes so everyone left it for the next lot to sort out. All Russell has to say about this is my mate Lee's pension blah de blah and having to run into burning buildings at the age of 60. 60 by the way is the retirement threshold amongst most of the fire services in the rest of the world I read somewhere. It's also the retirement age for the police and the army and the same as those two jobs unless you pass a fitness test you're out and unlike the fire service they don't get to spend most of their night shift sleeping either. But of course it's far easier to blame the banks than deal with some real world issues. Seeing as yourself and britsabroad are making similar points I'll address you both. Firstly with regards to the banks bringing the economy up/down you can absolutely have it both ways. Let's not kid ourselves here the financial crisis of 2008 didn't happen because of the government overspending on public services, it happened because the banks failed and they failed badly. The argument that they've been keeping the economy up and are therefore somehow immune from taking the blame for a financial crisis that they caused is absolute nonsense. It's no good pointing to their contribution to the economy prior to 2008 if the consequence of those contributions is needing to be bailed out by the government due to a flawed system and an awful lot of bankers not doing their jobs properly. Anything the banks have contributed since 2008 is a result of them doing their jobs properly so forgive me whilst I don't commend them too much for that. Taking on board your comments on government overspending I think there's definitely an argument that we were spending too much and some cuts needed to be made. But it's the scale of the cuts that's the issue, if we didn't have to bail out the banks we wouldn't have had to make the hard-hitting cuts that we have, a lot of people have suffered as a result of the cuts and the banks have had a massive contribution to the way things have gone. With regards to your point about the retirement age being 60 for firefighters around the world, our own government produced a report which said that two-thirds of firefighters are not fit enough for duty at the age of 55 never mind 60. If you're saying they should accept the rise in retirement age and get on with it then you're effectively saying it's fine for them to put their own lives and the lives of others at more risk than is necessary. Its a poor argument. So yeah it is easy to blame the banks, and it's also incredibly easy to blame tax avoidance because they have both had a massive say on the state our society is in right now. They are 'real world' issues as you put it. By Russells figures the claim is £80 billion stolen by the banks is the reason for the austerity, I can't find the actual figures anywhere but from a graph it looks like the period 2003-07 £50 billion was added to the national debt by the government "not" overspending on public services so it's not really all down to the banks is it. Seems we were bailing out public services quite regularly only no one noticed. During this time I think it's also fair to assume without the profits from all the dodgy things the banks were doing (and to grossly simplify it the banks were basically lending money they didn't have to people who couldn't afford to pay it back to buy things from companies who in lots of cases weren't very well run) the deficit would have been bigger sooner. The banks were also supposed to be regulated properly this job fell to civil servants and the government both of whom failed badly, the same government also bears a major responsibility for the scale of the bank buyout, the run on Northern Rock was a major cause behind depth of the banking crisis in the UK, if Labour had chosen to sell a bank based in it's political heartlands just before a general election with the resulting redundancies to either Lloyds or Virgin we will never know if the bailout of pretty much the whole industry could have been avoided, Lloyds for example would not have pursued RBS acquisition. Labour chose their own political needs over what was best for the country. The financial crisis provided a step change in peoples attitudes, things like pensions which have been known for decades to be in need of reform have started to be addressed yet even know we have a National Health Service that can't provide cancer drugs for kids yet is knocking out tit and nose jobs, public services were and are badly in need of refocusing on key core areas. Coming back to firefighters, the same test to them applies to policeman and soldiers if you are not judged fit for duty at any point you are sacked so your argument is a non argument. Now forgive me if 2/3's of firefighters are't fit for service at 55 the notion of a 60 year old running into a building clearly becomes emotional nonsense and you hit the real crux of the dispute that firefighters will now have to wait 5 more years to draw their pensions much like the rest of the population are having to do. I fully understand that anyone would not like this but the truth is most people are now retired longer than they work so to keep pensions as they were you either bankrupt the country, or make people pay more or work longer. You seem anti Tax avoidance except when Russel Brand is actively engaged in it or supporting, despite all the guff he claims about paying his taxes I will guarentee you he takes his earnings out via a limited company thus avoiding national insurance and avoiding tax. Not quite as easy as Russel tries to make it sound is it.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 19, 2014 10:32:15 GMT
Don't blame the banks.......FFS i've heard it all now. I suspect anybody who takes this line is either a brain damaged moron or (more likely in this case) has vested interests for promoting such nonsense. Yes I have a vested interest just like you thanks to Gordon and his mob I part own half the banking industry . Anyone who thinks continually bashing the banks is helpful in these circumstances probably needs to educate themselves a bit more as you are effectively shooting yourself in the foot, regulate them properly going forward charge anyone found guilty of criminal conduct or negligence in the past (including civil servants) but get them out of public ownership as soon as we can get our money back.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Dec 19, 2014 10:35:12 GMT
Noone is absolving the banks of blame, but to think its only, or even primarily the banks fault is a fairly simplistic view.
The banking industry contributed 250 billion a year there or thereabouts. It cost the taxpayer a one off 80 billion. Thats not really a very big chunk for a fiscally responsible government. However, when the government has cosied up to them for so many years, forgiven their misdoings and, very important this one, neglected to develop any other parts of the economy, its a problem. The country had put all its eggs in one basket and was in a downward spiral.
Brown had frittered away every penny they had contributed, encouraged them to do whatever they could to grow the economy (because Brown had screwed up everything else that might generate money and saddled the country with huge liabilities) and then when it all went pop, conveniently convinced everyone who didnt know any better that it was all the banks doing.
When i think about it, maybe he wasnt so stupid after all.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 19, 2014 12:13:49 GMT
Quick to defend the bankers and all too willing to speak out against opponents of the cuts.
You'll be telling us more slices of the NHS would be better off in the hands of the bankers next.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 12:43:14 GMT
Quick to defend the bankers and all too willing to speak out against opponents of the cuts. You'll be telling us more slices of the NHS would be better off in the hands of the bankers next. tell you what...instead of just spouting the snippets you've read in Sun headlines and presuming that's the be all and end all, why don't you try to educate yourself a bit and actually try reading what Britsabroad is writing because it's actually factually true regardless of what your personal political leanings are!!! yes, the Bankers haven't helped matters (no-one is denying that) but to try to blame the whole thing on just them and their bonuses is "The Uk economic downfall for Primary school children" type of stuff!
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 19, 2014 12:46:05 GMT
The banks should shoulder a fair bit of blame in my view. And they are STILL taking the piss with their charges. I wouldn't want to spend ten minutes in the company of a top city banker boy, or Brand either.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 19, 2014 13:12:51 GMT
Quick to defend the bankers and all too willing to speak out against opponents of the cuts. You'll be telling us more slices of the NHS would be better off in the hands of the bankers next. tell you what...instead of just spouting the snippets you've read in Sun headlines and presuming that's the be all and end all, why don't you try to educate yourself a bit and actually try reading what Britsabroad is writing because it's actually factually true regardless of what your personal political leanings are!!! yes, the Bankers haven't helped matters (no-one is denying that) but to try to blame the whole thing on just them and their bonuses is "The Uk economic downfall for Primary school children" type of stuff! So, i read the Sun, i am uneducated in this area and i am blaming everything on the banks eh? Oh, and you accuse me of presumptions. What Britsabroad wrote is not "factually true" as you claim and i can't be arsed to argue it as i have learned from experience with him and a few others that their sole agenda is to defend the actions of the bankers and the establishment whilst at the same time sticking the boot into every section of society that is suffering for their criminal and morally bankrupt political policies. As a clue to yourself however, perhaps you should "educate yourself" as to the true cost to the taxpayer for the bankers actions............ 80 billion, my arse.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 19, 2014 13:13:23 GMT
Seeing as yourself and britsabroad are making similar points I'll address you both. Firstly with regards to the banks bringing the economy up/down you can absolutely have it both ways. Let's not kid ourselves here the financial crisis of 2008 didn't happen because of the government overspending on public services, it happened because the banks failed and they failed badly. The argument that they've been keeping the economy up and are therefore somehow immune from taking the blame for a financial crisis that they caused is absolute nonsense. It's no good pointing to their contribution to the economy prior to 2008 if the consequence of those contributions is needing to be bailed out by the government due to a flawed system and an awful lot of bankers not doing their jobs properly. Anything the banks have contributed since 2008 is a result of them doing their jobs properly so forgive me whilst I don't commend them too much for that. Taking on board your comments on government overspending I think there's definitely an argument that we were spending too much and some cuts needed to be made. But it's the scale of the cuts that's the issue, if we didn't have to bail out the banks we wouldn't have had to make the hard-hitting cuts that we have, a lot of people have suffered as a result of the cuts and the banks have had a massive contribution to the way things have gone. With regards to your point about the retirement age being 60 for firefighters around the world, our own government produced a report which said that two-thirds of firefighters are not fit enough for duty at the age of 55 never mind 60. If you're saying they should accept the rise in retirement age and get on with it then you're effectively saying it's fine for them to put their own lives and the lives of others at more risk than is necessary. Its a poor argument. So yeah it is easy to blame the banks, and it's also incredibly easy to blame tax avoidance because they have both had a massive say on the state our society is in right now. They are 'real world' issues as you put it. By Russells figures the claim is £80 billion stolen by the banks is the reason for the austerity, I can't find the actual figures anywhere but from a graph it looks like the period 2003-07 £50 billion was added to the national debt by the government "not" overspending on public services so it's not really all down to the banks is it. Seems we were bailing out public services quite regularly only no one noticed. During this time I think it's also fair to assume without the profits from all the dodgy things the banks were doing (and to grossly simplify it the banks were basically lending money they didn't have to people who couldn't afford to pay it back to buy things from companies who in lots of cases weren't very well run) the deficit would have been bigger sooner. The banks were also supposed to be regulated properly this job fell to civil servants and the government both of whom failed badly, the same government also bears a major responsibility for the scale of the bank buyout, the run on Northern Rock was a major cause behind depth of the banking crisis in the UK, if Labour had chosen to sell a bank based in it's political heartlands just before a general election with the resulting redundancies to either Lloyds or Virgin we will never know if the bailout of pretty much the whole industry could have been avoided, Lloyds for example would not have pursued RBS acquisition. Labour chose their own political needs over what was best for the country. The financial crisis provided a step change in peoples attitudes, things like pensions which have been known for decades to be in need of reform have started to be addressed yet even know we have a National Health Service that can't provide cancer drugs for kids yet is knocking out tit and nose jobs, public services were and are badly in need of refocusing on key core areas. Coming back to firefighters, the same test to them applies to policeman and soldiers if you are not judged fit for duty at any point you are sacked so your argument is a non argument. Now forgive me if 2/3's of firefighters are't fit for service at 55 the notion of a 60 year old running into a building clearly becomes emotional nonsense and you hit the real crux of the dispute that firefighters will now have to wait 5 more years to draw their pensions much like the rest of the population are having to do. I fully understand that anyone would not like this but the truth is most people are now retired longer than they work so to keep pensions as they were you either bankrupt the country, or make people pay more or work longer. You seem anti Tax avoidance except when Russel Brand is actively engaged in it or supporting, despite all the guff he claims about paying his taxes I will guarentee you he takes his earnings out via a limited company thus avoiding national insurance and avoiding tax. Not quite as easy as Russel tries to make it sound is it. Good post. I'm not making a Party Political point here because I don't differentiate between any Party, once they get into Office, they're all basically the same. But when Labour got back into Office, 2007, the very first thing that Chancellor Gordon Brown did was hand interest rate policy over to the Bank Of England. The so called 'light touch approach'. The Banks did fuck-up, Big Time, on a Global scale with Wall Street taking the lead role (as per usual). But Labour can hardly walk away, feigning innocence, from the smoking gun, when they'd helped load the bullets.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 19, 2014 13:29:45 GMT
Fair enough Wizz........But who was talking about Labour? When did this thread turn red vs blue again?
It's how it always goes on here isn't it. Defend the victims of austerity cuts, critisise the bankers and the argument always turns on Labour, as if it's them we are defending and promoting in some way.
It's not.
If anything the banking crisis goes back to the Thacher era.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 19, 2014 13:40:25 GMT
Fair enough Wizz........But who was talking about Labour? When did this thread turn red vs blue again? It's how it always goes on here isn't it. Defend the victims of austerity cuts, critisise the bankers and the argument always turns on Labour, as if it's them we are defending and promoting in some way. It's not. People who read my posts know which way I vote but I try to be as objective as possible. It's no use preaching because it just annoys people and they become even more entrenched in their views/dogma. I could talk on here all day about the Conservative Partys failures..especially in Foreign Affairs/Economy but nobody would listen. So where's the merit in that? Once you nail your colours to the mast all your subsequent posts are interpreted in a different light and you will have very little influence on here. You just become part of a little clique who only comment on each others posts. Do you really want that Billy?
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Dec 19, 2014 13:53:06 GMT
Noone is absolving the banks of blame, but to think its only, or even primarily the banks fault is a fairly simplistic view. The banking industry contributed 250 billion a year there or thereabouts. It cost the taxpayer a one off 80 billion. Thats not really a very big chunk for a fiscally responsible government. However, when the government has cosied up to them for so many years, forgiven their misdoings and, very important this one, neglected to develop any other parts of the economy, its a problem. The country had put all its eggs in one basket and was in a downward spiral. Brown had frittered away every penny they had contributed, encouraged them to do whatever they could to grow the economy (because Brown had screwed up everything else that might generate money and saddled the country with huge liabilities) and then when it all went pop, conveniently convinced everyone who didnt know any better that it was all the banks doing. When i think about it, maybe he wasnt so stupid after all. How do the banks contribute £250 million a year. ?
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 19, 2014 13:56:44 GMT
No, of course i don't. The post wasn't meant as an attack on you personally but a comment on one of the diversionary tactics used by the banker apologists If it's not the previous regime it's the immigrants/unemployed/public sector workers..... ect ect.
Sorry if it came across as anything but.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 19, 2014 13:59:08 GMT
The UK's GDP is only about £400 billion The Banks probably contribute about 1% of that...many Banks of course have 'offshore operations' which means they probably AVOID paying £250 billion a year.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 19, 2014 14:04:00 GMT
No, of course i don't. The post wasn't meant as an attack on you personally but a comment on one of the diversionary tactics used by the banker apologists If it's not the previous regime it's the immigrants/unemployed/public sector workers..... ect ect. Sorry if it came across as anything but. I know that Billy no offence taken. Sometimes you can bang your head against a wall and remove a few bricks then start to dismantle the wall. But sometimes you can bang your head against granite and all you get is a head-ache
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 14:14:50 GMT
tell you what...instead of just spouting the snippets you've read in Sun headlines and presuming that's the be all and end all, why don't you try to educate yourself a bit and actually try reading what Britsabroad is writing because it's actually factually true regardless of what your personal political leanings are!!! yes, the Bankers haven't helped matters (no-one is denying that) but to try to blame the whole thing on just them and their bonuses is "The Uk economic downfall for Primary school children" type of stuff! So, i read the Sun, i am uneducated in this area and i am blaming everything on the banks eh? Oh, and you accuse me of presumptions. What Britsabroad wrote is not "factually true" as you claim and i can't be arsed to argue it as i have learned from experience with him and a few others that their sole agenda is to defend the actions of the bankers and the establishment whilst at the same time sticking the boot into every section of society that is suffering for their criminal and morally bankrupt political policies. As a clue to yourself however, perhaps you should "educate yourself" as to the true cost to the taxpayer for the bankers actions............ 80 billion, my arse. so you're ignoring them and just deciding it's "80 billion, my arse" without putting ANYTHING forward to back yourself up? brilliant mate, bravo you!
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 19, 2014 14:28:04 GMT
So, i read the Sun, i am uneducated in this area and i am blaming everything on the banks eh? Oh, and you accuse me of presumptions. What Britsabroad wrote is not "factually true" as you claim and i can't be arsed to argue it as i have learned from experience with him and a few others that their sole agenda is to defend the actions of the bankers and the establishment whilst at the same time sticking the boot into every section of society that is suffering for their criminal and morally bankrupt political policies. As a clue to yourself however, perhaps you should "educate yourself" as to the true cost to the taxpayer for the bankers actions............ 80 billion, my arse. so you're ignoring them and just deciding it's "80 billion, my arse" without putting ANYTHING forward to back yourself up? brilliant mate, bravo you! Sigh........... I kind of gave you your own advice though......."educate yourself".......and the a clue in which direction to take. It's up to you if you want to or not. You seem to have accepted the 80 billion figure as "factually correct" so perhaps there's no need in your mind. Either way i care not.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 14:32:26 GMT
so you're ignoring them and just deciding it's "80 billion, my arse" without putting ANYTHING forward to back yourself up? brilliant mate, bravo you! Sigh........... I kind of gave you your own advice though......."educate yourself".......and the a clue in which direction to take. It's up to you if you want to or not. You seem to have accepted the 80 billion figure as "factually correct" so perhaps there's no need in your mind. Either way i care not. and my point was that to say it's all simply down to the bankers and their bonuses is a ridiculously over-simplified way of looking at things and simply using an easy scapegoat because the media say it's true and you've bought wholesale into that. unfortunately though you're one of those who doesn't have the brain to work out that simply saying "It's not ALL down to the bankers" doesn't actually equate to defending and condoning them or anything they've done. you then accuse those who say that of blaming the rest of society, which absolutely no-one on this thread has even come close to doing. come back when you've finished building that straw man of yours dullard
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 19, 2014 15:14:10 GMT
Your posts from the off have been full of assumptions about me and they still continue.
Debate is pointless on this basis.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 16:07:55 GMT
Your posts from the off have been full of assumptions about me and they still continue. Debate is pointless on this basis. says the man who (and i quote) said "80 billion my arse" and presumes people will just believe him without any evidence to back anything up. yep...when you're faced with "Believe me without proof and if you disagree i'll merely insult you and accuse others of saying things they simply haven't" then debate is pointless!
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 19, 2014 16:21:53 GMT
[quote author=" followyoudown" source="/post/4523001/thread" Seems we were bailing out public services quite regularly only no one noticed.[/quote] I'm interested in this as a concept. Surely the very nature of Public Services is that they aren't and shouldn't be income generating, so any concept of 'bailing Public Services out' is irrelevant. Though perhaps indicative of the ideology of consumerism over care. In my opinion of course. I don't lay all the blame at the door of 'bankers', but successive Govts' laisez faire approach to the financial industry, whilst presiding over the decimation of other industries is what's galling. It started with the 'No such thing as Community' Thatcher, selling off Council houses etc etc, and was compounded by New Labour's aspirational ethos. Of course individuals have responsibility for their own financial predicament, but so many people were/are mis-sold financial products {see PPI, self cert. mortgages}, or 'doled' out cash willy nilly for stuff. Juggling credit cards to pay for over inflated energy bills and basics. Credit boom/credit crunch. Some of this was for the fundamentals of housing and transport {a car} to get to a minimum wage job. Affordable housing and effective public transport could have avoided the mess that many people find themselves in. All largely driven by protected profiteers. There is and was waste and excess in Public Services, as there is and was in the financial sector, both need addressing, so in that sense we can have it both ways. As for Mr Brand, as a wiser sage than me once said "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy." I'm happy to stick by my original contention, I'm glad that a figure from popular culture is posing a few questions and inspiring the debate. Like Weller once did, 'You'll see Kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns'.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 19, 2014 18:28:07 GMT
Seeing as yourself and britsabroad are making similar points I'll address you both. Firstly with regards to the banks bringing the economy up/down you can absolutely have it both ways. Let's not kid ourselves here the financial crisis of 2008 didn't happen because of the government overspending on public services, it happened because the banks failed and they failed badly. The argument that they've been keeping the economy up and are therefore somehow immune from taking the blame for a financial crisis that they caused is absolute nonsense. It's no good pointing to their contribution to the economy prior to 2008 if the consequence of those contributions is needing to be bailed out by the government due to a flawed system and an awful lot of bankers not doing their jobs properly. Anything the banks have contributed since 2008 is a result of them doing their jobs properly so forgive me whilst I don't commend them too much for that. Taking on board your comments on government overspending I think there's definitely an argument that we were spending too much and some cuts needed to be made. But it's the scale of the cuts that's the issue, if we didn't have to bail out the banks we wouldn't have had to make the hard-hitting cuts that we have, a lot of people have suffered as a result of the cuts and the banks have had a massive contribution to the way things have gone. With regards to your point about the retirement age being 60 for firefighters around the world, our own government produced a report which said that two-thirds of firefighters are not fit enough for duty at the age of 55 never mind 60. If you're saying they should accept the rise in retirement age and get on with it then you're effectively saying it's fine for them to put their own lives and the lives of others at more risk than is necessary. Its a poor argument. So yeah it is easy to blame the banks, and it's also incredibly easy to blame tax avoidance because they have both had a massive say on the state our society is in right now. They are 'real world' issues as you put it. By Russells figures the claim is £80 billion stolen by the banks is the reason for the austerity, I can't find the actual figures anywhere but from a graph it looks like the period 2003-07 £50 billion was added to the national debt by the government "not" overspending on public services so it's not really all down to the banks is it. Seems we were bailing out public services quite regularly only no one noticed. During this time I think it's also fair to assume without the profits from all the dodgy things the banks were doing (and to grossly simplify it the banks were basically lending money they didn't have to people who couldn't afford to pay it back to buy things from companies who in lots of cases weren't very well run) the deficit would have been bigger sooner. The banks were also supposed to be regulated properly this job fell to civil servants and the government both of whom failed badly, the same government also bears a major responsibility for the scale of the bank buyout, the run on Northern Rock was a major cause behind depth of the banking crisis in the UK, if Labour had chosen to sell a bank based in it's political heartlands just before a general election with the resulting redundancies to either Lloyds or Virgin we will never know if the bailout of pretty much the whole industry could have been avoided, Lloyds for example would not have pursued RBS acquisition. Labour chose their own political needs over what was best for the country. The financial crisis provided a step change in peoples attitudes, things like pensions which have been known for decades to be in need of reform have started to be addressed yet even know we have a National Health Service that can't provide cancer drugs for kids yet is knocking out tit and nose jobs, public services were and are badly in need of refocusing on key core areas. Coming back to firefighters, the same test to them applies to policeman and soldiers if you are not judged fit for duty at any point you are sacked so your argument is a non argument. Now forgive me if 2/3's of firefighters are't fit for service at 55 the notion of a 60 year old running into a building clearly becomes emotional nonsense and you hit the real crux of the dispute that firefighters will now have to wait 5 more years to draw their pensions much like the rest of the population are having to do. I fully understand that anyone would not like this but the truth is most people are now retired longer than they work so to keep pensions as they were you either bankrupt the country, or make people pay more or work longer. You seem anti Tax avoidance except when Russel Brand is actively engaged in it or supporting, despite all the guff he claims about paying his taxes I will guarentee you he takes his earnings out via a limited company thus avoiding national insurance and avoiding tax. Not quite as easy as Russel tries to make it sound is it. Right I've got a few points to make By Russells figures the claim is £80 billion stolen by the banks is the reason for the austerity, I can't find the actual figures anywhere but from a graph it looks like the period 2003-07 £50 billion was added to the national debt by the government "not" overspending on public services so it's not really all down to the banks is it. Seems we were bailing out public services quite regularly only no one noticed.The £80 billion Russell brings up is just bankers bonuses that have been paid since 2008, his point is that its a bit ironic that plenty of public sector workers have either lost their jobs or received pay cuts due to the £80billion made in cuts since the financial crisis when bankers are being paid £80 billion in bonuses. Secondly if you trust the Guardian I'll take your £50billion overspending on public services and raise you £123.93billion "Since 2007 the UK has committed to spending £1.162 trillion at various points on bailing out the banks. This figure has however fluctuated wildly during the period and by March 2011 it was £456.33bn. That total outstanding support was equivalent to 31% of GDP in March.
The £456.33bn figure breaks down into £123.93bn in loan or share purchases, which required a cash injection from the government to the banks, and £332.4bn in guarantees and indemnities which haven't actually been paid, but were offered to shore up the failing bank system"www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/12/reality-check-banking-bailoutThose figures say it all the banks have to take a huge part of the blame for the current austerity we find ourselves in because they are clearly the main culprits. I'm not arguing that the government weren't overspending and that cuts didn't need to made because its clear they did. It's the scale of the cuts that is the issue and the banks have to take a large portion of the blame. To suggest anything otherwise is utter nonsense and quoted below is an excellent point which shows the actual cost is far higher. "Economic losses associated with recession driven by financial crisis. This is obviously problematic, and if you're aiming to calculate only what is it that we are on the hook for, then perhaps it should be excluded. But at the end of the day, we are on the hook for paying more benefits to those who lost work, for the emergency stimulus packages, for the bailouts of collaterally damaged industries (see Midlands car industry for example). IF you accept this crisis is one stemming from within the financial sector for shenanigans, rather than good business practices, than I think it's valid to consider this as a cost, at least in part."So don't try and tell me that Russell Brand shouldn't be criticising the banks because you're talking absolute rubbish. With regards to the firefighters if two-thirds of firefighters are unfit for service at 55 then whats the point of raising the retirement age to 60? It doesn't make any sense. And finally " You seem anti Tax avoidance except when Russel Brand is actively engaged in it or supporting despite all the guff he claims about paying his taxes I will guarentee you he takes his earnings out via a limited company thus avoiding national insurance and avoiding tax. Not quite as easy as Russel tries to make it sound is it" What on earth are you talking about here? I've never said such any such thing I'm anti tax avoidance in all cases, what I have tried to say is that there is a big difference between the tax avoidance the likes of Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc are doing and the tax breaks offered to small-medium businesses. With regards to your second point in that quote about Russell Brand's own taxes your basing that on absolutely no evidence at all so until proven your point is completely invalid.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 19, 2014 18:47:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 19, 2014 21:28:33 GMT
I think one of the reasons why Brand is popular with a lot of young people is because there is no authentic Left Wing Party anymore. Labour have not only accepted Thatcherism but taken it a step further. In effect, by default, we have become like America..Right Wing Party (Republican/Conservative) and Centre Right Party ( Democrat/Labour).
As a result of this shift to the Right over the last 30 years..Policies that looked moderate in the 1980s now look almost Revolutionary (I:e Nationalisation). Brand, in this sense, is simply trying to offer the electorate a wider Political choice by introducing subjects that the Right had try to erase from the Political Landscape.
Like it or not, Brand is preaching a message that won't go away. Most British people aren't really interested in academic political debate, they just want fairness and justice and Politicians to do something about it. Brand is capitalising on that rich vein of feeling, whether he has the will or capacity to do something about it, remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 19, 2014 22:06:37 GMT
By Russells figures the claim is £80 billion stolen by the banks is the reason for the austerity, I can't find the actual figures anywhere but from a graph it looks like the period 2003-07 £50 billion was added to the national debt by the government "not" overspending on public services so it's not really all down to the banks is it. Seems we were bailing out public services quite regularly only no one noticed. During this time I think it's also fair to assume without the profits from all the dodgy things the banks were doing (and to grossly simplify it the banks were basically lending money they didn't have to people who couldn't afford to pay it back to buy things from companies who in lots of cases weren't very well run) the deficit would have been bigger sooner. The banks were also supposed to be regulated properly this job fell to civil servants and the government both of whom failed badly, the same government also bears a major responsibility for the scale of the bank buyout, the run on Northern Rock was a major cause behind depth of the banking crisis in the UK, if Labour had chosen to sell a bank based in it's political heartlands just before a general election with the resulting redundancies to either Lloyds or Virgin we will never know if the bailout of pretty much the whole industry could have been avoided, Lloyds for example would not have pursued RBS acquisition. Labour chose their own political needs over what was best for the country. The financial crisis provided a step change in peoples attitudes, things like pensions which have been known for decades to be in need of reform have started to be addressed yet even know we have a National Health Service that can't provide cancer drugs for kids yet is knocking out tit and nose jobs, public services were and are badly in need of refocusing on key core areas. Coming back to firefighters, the same test to them applies to policeman and soldiers if you are not judged fit for duty at any point you are sacked so your argument is a non argument. Now forgive me if 2/3's of firefighters are't fit for service at 55 the notion of a 60 year old running into a building clearly becomes emotional nonsense and you hit the real crux of the dispute that firefighters will now have to wait 5 more years to draw their pensions much like the rest of the population are having to do. I fully understand that anyone would not like this but the truth is most people are now retired longer than they work so to keep pensions as they were you either bankrupt the country, or make people pay more or work longer. You seem anti Tax avoidance except when Russel Brand is actively engaged in it or supporting, despite all the guff he claims about paying his taxes I will guarentee you he takes his earnings out via a limited company thus avoiding national insurance and avoiding tax. Not quite as easy as Russel tries to make it sound is it. Right I've got a few points to make By Russells figures the claim is £80 billion stolen by the banks is the reason for the austerity, I can't find the actual figures anywhere but from a graph it looks like the period 2003-07 £50 billion was added to the national debt by the government "not" overspending on public services so it's not really all down to the banks is it. Seems we were bailing out public services quite regularly only no one noticed.The £80 billion Russell brings up is just bankers bonuses that have been paid since 2008, his point is that its a bit ironic that plenty of public sector workers have either lost their jobs or received pay cuts due to the £80billion made in cuts since the financial crisis when bankers are being paid £80 billion in bonuses. Secondly if you trust the Guardian I'll take your £50billion overspending on public services and raise you £123.93billion "Since 2007 the UK has committed to spending £1.162 trillion at various points on bailing out the banks. This figure has however fluctuated wildly during the period and by March 2011 it was £456.33bn. That total outstanding support was equivalent to 31% of GDP in March.
The £456.33bn figure breaks down into £123.93bn in loan or share purchases, which required a cash injection from the government to the banks, and £332.4bn in guarantees and indemnities which haven't actually been paid, but were offered to shore up the failing bank system"www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/12/reality-check-banking-bailoutThose figures say it all the banks have to take a huge part of the blame for the current austerity we find ourselves in because they are clearly the main culprits. I'm not arguing that the government weren't overspending and that cuts didn't need to made because its clear they did. It's the scale of the cuts that is the issue and the banks have to take a large portion of the blame. To suggest anything otherwise is utter nonsense and quoted below is an excellent point which shows the actual cost is far higher. "Economic losses associated with recession driven by financial crisis. This is obviously problematic, and if you're aiming to calculate only what is it that we are on the hook for, then perhaps it should be excluded. But at the end of the day, we are on the hook for paying more benefits to those who lost work, for the emergency stimulus packages, for the bailouts of collaterally damaged industries (see Midlands car industry for example). IF you accept this crisis is one stemming from within the financial sector for shenanigans, rather than good business practices, than I think it's valid to consider this as a cost, at least in part."So don't try and tell me that Russell Brand shouldn't be criticising the banks because you're talking absolute rubbish. With regards to the firefighters if two-thirds of firefighters are unfit for service at 55 then whats the point of raising the retirement age to 60? It doesn't make any sense. And finally " You seem anti Tax avoidance except when Russel Brand is actively engaged in it or supporting despite all the guff he claims about paying his taxes I will guarentee you he takes his earnings out via a limited company thus avoiding national insurance and avoiding tax. Not quite as easy as Russel tries to make it sound is it" What on earth are you talking about here? I've never said such any such thing I'm anti tax avoidance in all cases, what I have tried to say is that there is a big difference between the tax avoidance the likes of Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc are doing and the tax breaks offered to small-medium businesses. With regards to your second point in that quote about Russell Brand's own taxes your basing that on absolutely no evidence at all so until proven your point is completely invalid. Great stuff, all valid. Sadly yet again an inconvenient truth for the Daily Mail Brigade on here.
|
|