|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 19, 2014 22:11:08 GMT
[quote author=" followyoudown" source="/post/4523001/thread" Seems we were bailing out public services quite regularly only no one noticed.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'.[/quote] My point about public services was if as Brand claims the bankers £80 billion was the cause of austerity, the £50 billion or so that had to be borrowed to spend on public services in preceding years was also in part to blame.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 19, 2014 22:16:06 GMT
A massive victory? A rent freeze for a year which I believe the other company were offering and then there will be rent increases as yet unspecified which you are assuming will be less than the other company were proposing yet you pull me up for making assumptions!
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 19, 2014 22:23:12 GMT
A massive victory? A rent freeze for a year which I believe the other company were offering and then there will be rent increases as yet unspecified which you are assuming will be less than the other company were proposing yet you pull me up for making assumptions! Show me where you've got the evidence there will be rent increases? Particularly to the tune that Westbrook were planning?
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 19, 2014 22:38:18 GMT
[quote author=" followyoudown" source="/post/4523001/thread" Seems we were bailing out public services quite regularly only no one noticed.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'. My point about public services was if as Brand claims the bankers £80 billion was the cause of austerity, the £50 billion or so that had to be borrowed to spend on public services in preceding years was also in part to blame.[/quote] He's not claiming it's the cause of austerity, I thought I'd made it clear in my last post. What he is saying is that it's ironic that a significant section of society is suffering through austerity to the tune of £80billion which was caused by the banks and yet they are able to pay themselves £81billion in bonuses.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 19, 2014 22:44:15 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. Where to start hard to argue if you will only take the downside of the banking industry although you seem happy to acknowledge there are additional costs you can lay at the feet of the bankers, you seem to want to ignore any contributions they made before, seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me.... I'll say it again the financial crisis provided a step change in people's attitude to public services, the public simply had no interest in cuts before this so the public sector was allowed to grow and stop focusing on core services. The amounts loaned to banks are small fry compared to the looming pensions problems, next time you get a statement on how your council tax is spent check out how much is going on pensions. You could even read the below article and maybe even send it to Russ he might understand about his mates pension then. www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9198756/IMF-warns-of-750bn-pensions-time-bomb.htmlThe government is trying to save money, pensions are paid when you reach retirement age, the government is raising the retirement age for firefighters - hopefully you can join the dots this time and see why the retirement age is being raised. As for Brand if I get chance early next week i'll search for directorships and we'll see how much a man of principle he really is.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 19, 2014 22:46:08 GMT
A massive victory? A rent freeze for a year which I believe the other company were offering and then there will be rent increases as yet unspecified which you are assuming will be less than the other company were proposing yet you pull me up for making assumptions! Show me where you've got the evidence there will be rent increases? Particularly to the tune that Westbrook were planning? Errmmm try reading your own links mate, follow the independent link to the guardian story....
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 19, 2014 22:51:41 GMT
Show me where you've got the evidence there will be rent increases? Particularly to the tune that Westbrook were planning? Errmmm try reading your own links mate, follow the independent link to the guardian story.... It doesn't say that increases will be so high that they will force the residents of out of their homes though does it? I bet you after a year, even after a few years the rent isn't increased in such a manner that the residents can no longer afford to live there. It's still a massive victory however you try and spin it.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 19, 2014 22:58:08 GMT
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'. My point about public services was if as Brand claims the bankers £80 billion was the cause of austerity, the £50 billion or so that had to be borrowed to spend on public services in preceding years was also in part to blame. He's not claiming it's the cause of austerity, I thought I'd made it clear in my last post. What he is saying is that it's ironic that a significant section of society is suffering through austerity to the tune of £80billion which was caused by the banks and yet they are able to pay themselves £81billion in bonuses. [/quote] It's not ironic it's because Labour failed to put any terms or conditions on the nation's debit card when they handed it over, although if they had it's highly likely that salaries would have just been increased to compensate for this. The other point to consider is that with the banks paying no dividends, the governments tax take would be a straight 20% of the £80 billion whereas if the money is paid out in bonuses the minimum rate it would be taxed at is 20% the lowest personal tax rate and there's a few bankers in the 40% and higher rate brackets so bonuses actually generate more tax for the government now that is truly ironic. So without the bonuses, less tax and how does that affect austerity as I said not quite as simple as Russel tries to make out.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 19, 2014 23:01:51 GMT
Errmmm try reading your own links mate, follow the independent link to the guardian story.... It doesn't say that increases will be so high that they will force the residents of out of their homes though does it? I bet you after a year, even after a few years the rent isn't increased in such a manner that the residents can no longer afford to live there. It's still a massive victory however you try and spin it. I'm spinning nothing just giving you the facts of the massive victory you seemingly weren't aware of. And my point was you pick me up on unproven assumptions in one post than quite happily make some of your own to suit your argument!
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 19, 2014 23:05:23 GMT
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. Where to start hard to argue if you will only take the downside of the banking industry although you seem happy to acknowledge there are additional costs you can lay at the feet of the bankers, you seem to want to ignore any contributions they made before, seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me.... I'll say it again the financial crisis provided a step change in people's attitude to public services, the public simply had no interest in cuts before this so the public sector was allowed to grow and stop focusing on core services. The amounts loaned to banks are small fry compared to the looming pensions problems, next time you get a statement on how your council tax is spent check out how much is going on pensions. You could even read the below article and maybe even send it to Russ he might understand about his mates pension then. www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9198756/IMF-warns-of-750bn-pensions-time-bomb.htmlThe government is trying to save money, pensions are paid when you reach retirement age, the government is raising the retirement age for firefighters - hopefully you can join the dots this time and see why the retirement age is being raised. As for Brand if I get chance early next week i'll search for directorships and we'll see how much a man of principle he really is. Are you really trying to justify the financial crisis of 2008 because it's saved us from a pensions timebomb? Are you really saying I shouldn't be criticising the banks for that reason? I'm well aware there are justifiable reasons that cuts had to be made, I'm not denying that but it didn't have to be on the scale that we have been subjected to, and the banks as I've shown have had a massive role in our economic problems. The change in attitude to pensions that you are alluding to could have easily taken place without the need for banks to fail and plunge is into austerity. With regards to the contributions the banks have made prior to 2008 they clearly did so by the wrong means that's why they failed! I'm also not going to bow down at the altar and forgive the banks for screwing up just because they contribute a lot to our society. When they are contributing to society and not having to be bailed out it's exactly what they are supposed.to be doing. Their objective is to make lots of money, and that money should rightly be taxed. I'll repeat Russell Brand is right to criticise the banks.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 19, 2014 23:09:13 GMT
It doesn't say that increases will be so high that they will force the residents of out of their homes though does it? I bet you after a year, even after a few years the rent isn't increased in such a manner that the residents can no longer afford to live there. It's still a massive victory however you try and spin it. I'm spinning nothing just giving you the facts of the massive victory you seemingly weren't aware of. And my point was you pick me up on unproven assumptions in one post than quite happily make some of your own to suit your argument! Until the rent is raised so high that the New Era residents are forced out of their homes it remains a victory. There is no evidence that the rent will be raised in such a manner that it's too high for the current residents, come back to me when this is the case. The residents are clearly happy about it for a reason. Do you really think after seeing all the negative publicity the Benyons and Westbrook got the new owners will go down the same route. Particularly when they are known as an affordable housing provider?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 19, 2014 23:22:13 GMT
You really are hard work, Russel is trying to link his mates pension changes to Austerity caused by the bankers, i'm telling you pensions are and were a massive problem irrespective of this.
Pension problems have been known about for decades and no government had done anything substantial because to do so would have meant they'd almost certainly find themselves in opposition next time around.
It's safe to assume this would have continued.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 19, 2014 23:31:12 GMT
I'm spinning nothing just giving you the facts of the massive victory you seemingly weren't aware of. And my point was you pick me up on unproven assumptions in one post than quite happily make some of your own to suit your argument! Until the rent is raised so high that the New Era residents are forced out of their homes it remains a victory. There is no evidence that the rent will be raised in such a manner that it's too high for the current residents, come back to me when this is the case. The residents are clearly happy about it for a reason. Do you really think after seeing all the negative publicity the Benyons and Westbrook got the new owners will go down the same route. Particularly when they are known as an affordable housing provider? There is no evidence at all on future rents as one of the residents says in your link. You have no evidence to claim a massive victory just assumptions which are seemingly ok if the are good assumptions about your Russel but my assumption on his tax affairs is not valid, I think i've got it now!
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 19, 2014 23:50:16 GMT
Incredible isn't it. The bankers get 81 billion in bonuses yet it still boils down to a "it's all Labours fault" argument. Very convenient smokescreen that.
And then there's the...."Oh hang on we should be grateful yeah..........if these bonuses weren't awarded then the tax on these bonuses wouldn't have been paid...........the logic.
Perhaps we should have awarded more bonuses, then they would have to pay more tax. It's just bizarre someone can fall for this shit, you must have vested interests Follow, nobody could be that stupid.
And to cap it all you talk about Russell's "mates". How greedy of them to not accept the changes imposed on them regarding their retirement, after all they are being so very unreasonable are they not. I mean, how stupid of them to be upset at the goalposts being moved, they should be so grateful that they even get a pension at all.
You, Followmedown, are a bankers apologist. Either on the payroll or profiting from the current system, or............a complete fucking idiot.
No offence like........I'm sure it's the former.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 0:14:16 GMT
Perhaps we should ask 'Manuel ',...he's from Barcelona...
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 20, 2014 2:32:03 GMT
[quote author=" followyoudown" source="/post/4523001/thread" Seems we were bailing out public services quite regularly only no one noticed.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'. My point about public services was if as Brand claims the bankers £80 billion was the cause of austerity, the £50 billion or so that had to be borrowed to spend on public services in preceding years was also in part to blame.[/quote] Say that again. I didn't quite catch that.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 20, 2014 9:15:25 GMT
Until the rent is raised so high that the New Era residents are forced out of their homes it remains a victory. There is no evidence that the rent will be raised in such a manner that it's too high for the current residents, come back to me when this is the case. The residents are clearly happy about it for a reason. Do you really think after seeing all the negative publicity the Benyons and Westbrook got the new owners will go down the same route. Particularly when they are known as an affordable housing provider? There is no evidence at all on future rents as one of the residents says in your link. You have no evidence to claim a massive victory just assumptions which are seemingly ok if the are good assumptions about your Russel but my assumption on his tax affairs is not valid, I think i've got it now! Instead of being taken over by Westbrook it is being taken over by a known affordable housing provider. If the rent increases to the point where the residents are forced out then I'm completely wrong and you can come back and rub my face in it but until then it's a victory.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 20, 2014 9:40:08 GMT
You really are hard work, Russel is trying to link his mates pension changes to Austerity caused by the bankers, i'm telling you pensions are and were a massive problem irrespective of this. Pension problems have been known about for decades and no government had done anything substantial because to do so would have meant they'd almost certainly find themselves in opposition next time around. It's safe to assume this would have continued. Nobody is saying that pensions didn't have to be looked at. I've said several times that I accept that some cuts needed to be made, I've also made the same point several times that if we didn't have to bail the banks out the cuts wouldn't have been as severe as they have had to be. The bankers have to take a large (but not all) portion of the blame for this because we've bailed them out to the tune of £123 billion and that money could have been better used elsewhere. You've referred to the tax paid on the income/bonuses for the bankers as another reason we should be grateful. What about the tax revenue we've lost from all those people who lost their jobs in the public services. What about the increased benefits taken up as a result of this? What about the cost of all the redundancy packages etc. Can you really not see the irony that the rest of society has been told it has to tighten its belt and take cuts left right and centre when the banking industry (that we've bailed out with taxpayers money) is able to hand out bonuses that would actually cover the cost of the cuts that have had to be made. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Dec 20, 2014 11:25:24 GMT
I really like what Brand is doing and the establishment is clearly a bit worried judging by the backlash in the media and in particular The Sun.
The problem is theres hardly any political will left in the citizens of the UK these days. The Trade Unions are much weaker and generally run by idiots as stupid as the leading politicians. Labour would do better to re-name themselves Conservative-Lite.
UKIP has won a lot of votes just because Farage doesnt come from the Eton schooled modern political background. But he is ultimately a wolf in sheeps clothing.
I think Brand will continue for some time but it wont lead to any significant change in the country. Everyone is just too apathetic to get off their arses and vote for change. You can tell by just reading some of the comments on here.
I presume not too many Stoke fans are bankers working in London. So it should be a surprise that so many people are openly willing to defend their bonuses and bail-outs. Its simply because we are fed so much tosh from the media establishment which is controlled by the powerful in our country.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 20, 2014 11:48:56 GMT
Incredible isn't it. The bankers get 81 billion in bonuses yet it still boils down to a "it's all Labours fault" argument. Very convenient smokescreen that. And then there's the...."Oh hang on we should be grateful yeah..........if these bonuses weren't awarded then the tax on these bonuses wouldn't have been paid...........the logic. Perhaps we should have awarded more bonuses, then they would have to pay more tax. It's just bizarre someone can fall for this shit, you must have vested interests Follow, nobody could be that stupid. And to cap it all you talk about Russell's "mates". How greedy of them to not accept the changes imposed on them regarding their retirement, after all they are being so very unreasonable are they not. I mean, how stupid of them to be upset at the goalposts being moved, they should be so grateful that they even get a pension at all. You, Followmedown, are a bankers apologist. Either on the payroll or profiting from the current system, or............a complete fucking idiot. No offence like........I'm sure it's the former.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 20, 2014 12:15:30 GMT
I really like what Brand is doing and the establishment is clearly a bit worried judging by the backlash in the media and in particular The Sun. The problem is theres hardly any political will left in the citizens of the UK these days. The Trade Unions are much weaker and generally run by idiots as stupid as the leading politicians. Labour would do better to re-name themselves Conservative-Lite. UKIP has won a lot of votes just because Farage doesnt come from the Eton schooled modern political background. But he is ultimately a wolf in sheeps clothing. I think Brand will continue for some time but it wont lead to any significant change in the country. Everyone is just too apathetic to get off their arses and vote for change. You can tell by just reading some of the comments on here. I presume not too many Stoke fans are bankers working in London. So it should be a surprise that so many people are openly willing to defend their bonuses and bail-outs. Its simply because we are fed so much tosh from the media establishment which is controlled by the powerful in our country. Some good points made there. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kieran-turner-dave/russell-brand-green-party_b_6328776.htmlI think the above article is very relevant, and in particular the quote below; "Politicians don't represent those who stay in on Election Day. They know that the unemployed, young people and ethnic minorities are less likely to turn out to vote than the wealthy, pensioners and homeowners. That's why the government have slashed funding for youth services, tripled tuition fees, scrapped EMA, and are now discussing preventing under-25s from claiming welfare. For people like me currently looking for work, the situation is dire. Only one in 40 jobs created since the financial crash are full-time; and ethnic minority workers are twice as likely to be unemployed than their white counterparts. If you don't do politics, politics ends up doing you."The reason the Conservatives got into power is because they are voted for by the older generation in our society. Too many young people are apathetic about politics and I'd really like to encourage more young people to get involved and vote. Change can actually come about as easily as getting more young people involved in politics and I actually think that Russell Brand is doing a great job of making young people more aware of whats going on.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 20, 2014 17:12:08 GMT
Incredible isn't it. The bankers get 81 billion in bonuses yet it still boils down to a "it's all Labours fault" argument. Very convenient smokescreen that. And then there's the...."Oh hang on we should be grateful yeah..........if these bonuses weren't awarded then the tax on these bonuses wouldn't have been paid...........the logic. Perhaps we should have awarded more bonuses, then they would have to pay more tax. It's just bizarre someone can fall for this shit, you must have vested interests Follow, nobody could be that stupid. And to cap it all you talk about Russell's "mates". How greedy of them to not accept the changes imposed on them regarding their retirement, after all they are being so very unreasonable are they not. I mean, how stupid of them to be upset at the goalposts being moved, they should be so grateful that they even get a pension at all. You, Followmedown, are a bankers apologist. Either on the payroll or profiting from the current system, or............a complete fucking idiot. No offence like........I'm sure it's the former. You seem a very angry and humourless man, you also seem to have incredible trouble reading or comprehending what has actually written. Feel free to point out where i've said it's all Labour's fault, i've pointed out where I believe they mishandled the bailout, i've pointed out they were responsible for regulating the banks (FACT), I pointed out when they bailed the banks out they failed to attach any terms or conditions to prevent the payment of bonuses (FACT), I also pointed out if they had done it would have made little difference as bankers would have taken the money via salaries anyway. Your response stamp your feet and cry about people criticising Labour add in some ridiculous miscomprehension and throw in a few insults. Where have I said we should be grateful that bonuses were awarded, i've said it's ironic paying bonuses currently generates more tax than not paying them. Seeing as how Russel is complaining about austerity it's a bit odd he'd want to do something that would lesson tax receipts and hence increase austerity. In case you missed it, the Labour party through Gordon's dividend tax raid fucked millions of people's pensions, ultimately resulting in the scrapping of final pension schemes for many many people. You also seem to have missed the country being skint, everyone is having to work longer and pay more. No one is particular happy about it, but in general people are living longer, one of many points you seem unable to understand is that pensions are unaffordable in the current format and have been for a very long time. Brand has tried to claim his mates pension is being affected due to the banks and austerity that's rubbish. I guess in another post where I put a grossly simplified cause of the financial crisis, was banks lending money they didn't have to people who couldn't afford to pay it back to buy things from companies that in many cases weren't very well run was in your mind some sort of praise.... If we're going to guess what someone does or did, i'll put you down for a retired nuclear scientist or brain surgeon, just my guess based on reading a few of your posts and your well reasoned arguments, oh yeah no offence like. PS it's best not to suggest someone is a complete fucking idiot if you're going to get their username wrong, makes you look a tad silly old bean.
|
|
|
Post by localloser on Dec 20, 2014 17:47:34 GMT
There is no evidence at all on future rents as one of the residents says in your link. You have no evidence to claim a massive victory just assumptions which are seemingly ok if the are good assumptions about your Russel but my assumption on his tax affairs is not valid, I think i've got it now! Instead of being taken over by Westbrook it is being taken over by a known affordable housing provider. If the rent increases to the point where the residents are forced out then I'm completely wrong and you can come back and rub my face in it but until then it's a victory. I believe it IS a great victory, but my understanding is that the campaign was led by three women who actually live on the estate. They also set up an online petition which gained over a quarter of a million signatures, including mine. So for the Indy to suggest that it's Russell Brand's victory seems to be to be a bit wide of the mark.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 20, 2014 17:56:58 GMT
You really are hard work, Russel is trying to link his mates pension changes to Austerity caused by the bankers, i'm telling you pensions are and were a massive problem irrespective of this. Pension problems have been known about for decades and no government had done anything substantial because to do so would have meant they'd almost certainly find themselves in opposition next time around. It's safe to assume this would have continued. Nobody is saying that pensions didn't have to be looked at. I've said several times that I accept that some cuts needed to be made, I've also made the same point several times that if we didn't have to bail the banks out the cuts wouldn't have been as severe as they have had to be. The bankers have to take a large (but not all) portion of the blame for this because we've bailed them out to the tune of £123 billion and that money could have been better used elsewhere. You've referred to the tax paid on the income/bonuses for the bankers as another reason we should be grateful. What about the tax revenue we've lost from all those people who lost their jobs in the public services. What about the increased benefits taken up as a result of this? What about the cost of all the redundancy packages etc. Can you really not see the irony that the rest of society has been told it has to tighten its belt and take cuts left right and centre when the banking industry (that we've bailed out with taxpayers money) is able to hand out bonuses that would actually cover the cost of the cuts that have had to be made. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp. We actually agree on quite a few things, without the bank bailout it's very likely they would have been no cuts as just like pension reforms and other long term reforms it would have been left to the next lot to sort out but eventually we would have reached the same point. Your point is the £123 billion bank bailout caused the tipping point, my point is even during the last few economic boom years the graph I saw had deficits of approx £50 billion in total over a number of years, back ended PFI's and an increasing structural deficit meant we'd have got to the same point without the bailout some time fairly soon. Again I've never said we should be grateful for the tax on bankers bonuses, I've said currently it will produce more tax than not paying it, i've not claimed it covers any losses from the crisis. The crisis has happened but unless you're going to propose stronger regulation or some sort of full nationalisation it's time to move on and concentrate on getting as much of our money back as quickly as possible otherwise we're just shooting ourselves in the foot. Yes it's unfair that bankers have taken bonuses but life is unfair and it's also wrong and a grossly simplified populist soundbite to suggest the bonuses would cover the austerity costs for a number of reasons including the fact tax has been paid on the bonuses otherwise the £80 billion austerity cuts would be higher, again this is no way saying we should be grateful but a simple fact. We also don't own 100% of the banks so it is not all our money being paid out, it really does show a childlike grasp of economics \ business for Brand to suggest this.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 20, 2014 17:57:25 GMT
Instead of being taken over by Westbrook it is being taken over by a known affordable housing provider. If the rent increases to the point where the residents are forced out then I'm completely wrong and you can come back and rub my face in it but until then it's a victory. I believe it IS a great victory, but my understanding is that the campaign was led by three women who actually live on the estate. They also set up an online petition which gained over a quarter of a million signatures, including mine. So for the Indy to suggest that it's Russell Brand's victory seems to be to be a bit wide of the mark. I understand the point you're making, but without Russell Brand I don't think they would have had the spotlight/platform to make their feelings so publicly known. Would they have got so many signatures without Brand? My personal view is that it's a great victory for the people of the estate and that its great to see people become organised and stand up for themselves and I think Brand made an important contribution to their cause.
|
|
|
Post by Matthews dad on Dec 20, 2014 17:57:53 GMT
That strut tho!! Lol
|
|
|
Post by localloser on Dec 20, 2014 18:24:41 GMT
I believe it IS a great victory, but my understanding is that the campaign was led by three women who actually live on the estate. They also set up an online petition which gained over a quarter of a million signatures, including mine. So for the Indy to suggest that it's Russell Brand's victory seems to be to be a bit wide of the mark. I understand the point you're making, but without Russell Brand I don't think they would have had the spotlight/platform to make their feelings so publicly known. Would they have got so many signatures without Brand? My personal view is that it's a great victory for the people of the estate and that its great to see people become organised and stand up for themselves and I think Brand made an important contribution to their cause. Neither you or I really know the answer to your question. I get much of my information from the Guardian which has featured the New Era campaign quite a lot. Russell Brand was barely mentioned in the Guardian (for whatever reason), and they focused on the three women who live on the estate. It was because of them that I signed their petition. I have Brand's book on my computer but I haven't got round to reading it yet. Incidentally, it was interesting that Boris Johnson (ever the populist) got involved with the campaign and helped to broker the successful deal. Doesn't miss many opportunities to garner votes does Boris! I do agree with you that it was wonderful to see the people stand up for themselves and to get a result.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 20, 2014 18:55:04 GMT
Nobody is saying that pensions didn't have to be looked at. I've said several times that I accept that some cuts needed to be made, I've also made the same point several times that if we didn't have to bail the banks out the cuts wouldn't have been as severe as they have had to be. The bankers have to take a large (but not all) portion of the blame for this because we've bailed them out to the tune of £123 billion and that money could have been better used elsewhere. You've referred to the tax paid on the income/bonuses for the bankers as another reason we should be grateful. What about the tax revenue we've lost from all those people who lost their jobs in the public services. What about the increased benefits taken up as a result of this? What about the cost of all the redundancy packages etc. Can you really not see the irony that the rest of society has been told it has to tighten its belt and take cuts left right and centre when the banking industry (that we've bailed out with taxpayers money) is able to hand out bonuses that would actually cover the cost of the cuts that have had to be made. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp. We actually agree on quite a few things, without the bank bailout it's very likely they would have been no cuts as just like pension reforms and other long term reforms it would have been left to the next lot to sort out but eventually we would have reached the same point. Your point is the £123 billion bank bailout caused the tipping point, my point is even during the last few economic boom years the graph I saw had deficits of approx £50 billion in total over a number of years, back ended PFI's and an increasing structural deficit meant we'd have got to the same point without the bailout some time fairly soon. Again I've never said we should be grateful for the tax on bankers bonuses, I've said currently it will produce more tax than not paying it, i've not claimed it covers any losses from the crisis. The crisis has happened but unless you're going to propose stronger regulation or some sort of full nationalisation it's time to move on and concentrate on getting as much of our money back as quickly as possible otherwise we're just shooting ourselves in the foot. Yes it's unfair that bankers have taken bonuses but life is unfair and it's also wrong and a grossly simplified populist soundbite to suggest the bonuses would cover the austerity costs for a number of reasons including the fact tax has been paid on the bonuses otherwise the £80 billion austerity cuts would be higher, again this is no way saying we should be grateful but a simple fact. We also don't own 100% of the banks so it is not all our money being paid out, it really does show a childlike grasp of economics \ business for Brand to suggest this. I think you're taking what Russell Brand has been saying a bit too literally. I'll try and make my point in the simplest way I can. On one hand we've got the bankers, they've been on a gravy train, they're getting rewarded well for the work they're doing but because they've been doing it wrong we end up in the financial crisis of 2008 and the banks get bailed out by the government. Despite this the gravy train doesn't stop, the bankers don't feel the effects of the damage they've caused and they continue to be rewarded handsomely with £81billion paid in bonuses. The banking industry doesn't seem like its had to face any consequences for its actions, not with bonuses like that being handed out. On the other hand we've got the rest of society and in particular the public sector for which drastic cuts are being made all over the place, people are losing their jobs and services that are vital to our society such as firefighters, the NHS etc are facing the consequences. We've identified that some cuts needed to be made and that the governments should have done more about this, but really the main problem is that our society is suffering through economic austerity as a result of a financial crisis (the banking bail-outs of £123billion) that the public sector didn't cause. This is why myself and many others as well as Russell Brand are being so vociferous in our blaming of the banks. Anyone can see that what I've just described above isn't fair. To quote yourself; "Yes it's unfair that bankers have taken bonuses but life is unfair" If life is unfair you don't just shrug your shoulders and think oh well there's nothing we can do about it because its already happened. We have to try and address the unfairness and make things more equal and balanced and we have to start this by looking at those who are riding the gravy train.
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 20, 2014 19:38:01 GMT
Incredible isn't it. The bankers get 81 billion in bonuses yet it still boils down to a "it's all Labours fault" argument. Very convenient smokescreen that. And then there's the...."Oh hang on we should be grateful yeah..........if these bonuses weren't awarded then the tax on these bonuses wouldn't have been paid...........the logic. Perhaps we should have awarded more bonuses, then they would have to pay more tax. It's just bizarre someone can fall for this shit, you must have vested interests Follow, nobody could be that stupid. And to cap it all you talk about Russell's "mates". How greedy of them to not accept the changes imposed on them regarding their retirement, after all they are being so very unreasonable are they not. I mean, how stupid of them to be upset at the goalposts being moved, they should be so grateful that they even get a pension at all. You, Followmedown, are a bankers apologist. Either on the payroll or profiting from the current system, or............a complete fucking idiot. No offence like........I'm sure it's the former. You seem a very angry and humourless man, you also seem to have incredible trouble reading or comprehending what has actually written. Feel free to point out where i've said it's all Labour's fault, i've pointed out where I believe they mishandled the bailout, i've pointed out they were responsible for regulating the banks (FACT), I pointed out when they bailed the banks out they failed to attach any terms or conditions to prevent the payment of bonuses (FACT), I also pointed out if they had done it would have made little difference as bankers would have taken the money via salaries anyway. Your response stamp your feet and cry about people criticising Labour add in some ridiculous miscomprehension and throw in a few insults. Where have I said we should be grateful that bonuses were awarded, i've said it's ironic paying bonuses currently generates more tax than not paying them. Seeing as how Russel is complaining about austerity it's a bit odd he'd want to do something that would lesson tax receipts and hence increase austerity. In case you missed it, the Labour party through Gordon's dividend tax raid fucked millions of people's pensions, ultimately resulting in the scrapping of final pension schemes for many many people. You also seem to have missed the country being skint, everyone is having to work longer and pay more. No one is particular happy about it, but in general people are living longer, one of many points you seem unable to understand is that pensions are unaffordable in the current format and have been for a very long time. Brand has tried to claim his mates pension is being affected due to the banks and austerity that's rubbish. I guess in another post where I put a grossly simplified cause of the financial crisis, was banks lending money they didn't have to people who couldn't afford to pay it back to buy things from companies that in many cases weren't very well run was in your mind some sort of praise.... If we're going to guess what someone does or did, i'll put you down for a retired nuclear scientist or brain surgeon, just my guess based on reading a few of your posts and your well reasoned arguments, oh yeah no offence like. PS it's best not to suggest someone is a complete fucking idiot if you're going to get their username wrong, makes you look a tad silly old bean. No, i see it clearly thanks. "You seem"......... all assumption, all wrong. You divert attention away from the bankers by blaming the previous administrations inability to reign them in through regulation......... still the bankers doing it though wasn't it (FACT). P.s. As per, you conveniently fail to condemn the bankers bonuses but yet again but use the opportunity to stress how the country is skint, like "i seemed" to have missed. All in it together are we mate? Sorry for getting you name wrong, but thanks for pulling me up on it.......like it makes your argument somehow more worthy, Old Bean, or should i say FollowyouCLOWN. Humorous enough for you? (see what i did there).
|
|
|
Post by blackpoolred on Dec 20, 2014 21:07:51 GMT
I believe it IS a great victory, but my understanding is that the campaign was led by three women who actually live on the estate. They also set up an online petition which gained over a quarter of a million signatures, including mine. So for the Indy to suggest that it's Russell Brand's victory seems to be to be a bit wide of the mark. I understand the point you're making, but without Russell Brand I don't think they would have had the spotlight/platform to make their feelings so publicly known. Would they have got so many signatures without Brand? My personal view is that it's a great victory for the people of the estate and that its great to see people become organised and stand up for themselves and I think Brand made an important contribution to their cause. It was brought to my attention by Brand haters posting on my facebook wall. I browsed a few articles and ended up signing the petition. Love him or hate him he is high profile and brought more attention to this cause than it would have otherwise been afforded. I find him a bit annoying to be honest, but I do like his trew news channel - where he provides an alternative interpretation of the news - which is actually quite refreshing. www.russellbrandtrews.com/russell-brand-trews-e215-how-to-beat-a-corporation-by-new-era/#comment-1524
|
|