Bash-A-Banker
It's Bash-A-Banker Week. Our MPs can hardly contain themselves.
Vince Cable wants to see them face the guillotine. Oh sorry, I forgot: he later said that that was a joke.
John Prescott is recruiting what he calls "an online army" to frighten them into submission and Hazel Blears wants women to storm bank boardrooms to clear out the excess testosterone. And all this before the "trial" of the "guilty men" - as many in Westminster hope they'll see when the Treasury Select Committee cross-examines Fred "the Shred" Goodwin, the man who made the RBS what it is today.
All this, of course, raises the question of what - if anything - can be done about those offending bonuses. The parties are much less clear than their rhetoric suggests. I'm going to try to find out what - if anything - they might actually do.
UPDATE 1300: As I suspected, there is a lot of political huff and puff about bonuses but few specific proposals for what should be done about them.
The prime minister, we're told, is "very angry". So angry that he wants bankers to consider waiving their bonuses voluntarily.
The Tory leader has attacked the government's slowness to act, declaring that "he who does the paying, does the saying", but he has not spelt out what more ministers could do. He too called on bankers to solve the problem, stating that they should "wake up and smell the coffee".
The Lib Dem leader has called the government's response "pathetic" and said he'd fully nationalise the failing banks. In the meantime, though, he says that bonus payments should be frozen in the semi-nationalised banks (ie RBS and Lloyds) whilst a new bonus structure is drawn up, based on shares and stock - not cash - which could only be cashed in after several years.
So why are the politicians finding rhetoric easier than concrete action?
All agree that the boards of semi-nationalised banks - RBS and Lloyds - shouldn't and will not get bonuses this year. All appear to agree that any ban on bonuses should not apply to the man or woman at the counter in a local bank branch.
All know that the real problem is those in-between - some of whom have contracts that guarantee them bonuses if they or their desk has performed well (even if their bank was saved from bankruptcy). RBS bought many businesses and now has them in 50 countries around the world. The body created by the government to look after the taxpayers' interests - the UKFI - is negotiating with RBS and Lloyds now.
All know that it will be easier to limit bonuses next year, as this can be made a condition for any bank taking advantage of the new plan to underwrite bank loans, so-called asset insurance.
All know that taxpayers picked up the bill to re-capitalise the banks last October after a weekend of emergency talks provoked by fears that some would collapse. Ministers promised that there would be "strings attached" for the billions of public money spent but, I'm told, "didn't have time" to work out which strings would be attached or how.
So, now our leaders are left sounding very, very cross but also rather impotent -rather as they have through much of this banking crisis.
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I have an American relative staying at the moment, and this morning he asked me who this Vince Cable was.
I replied that he was somebody who had done something else before becoming a politician.
Complain about this comment
The guillotine sounds frightening enough, but Haze; Blears suggestion of bringing the women in, sends shudders through any red-blooded man. The nasty Blears wants "women to storm bank boardrooms to clear out the excess testosterone." This sounds like sexism, but of course O'l Bleary Eyes can get away with it. The ultimate, ironic punishment would be to send in Jackboot Jackie, providing she can get out of her sister's spare room in time to deal with all the hormones!
Complain about this comment
OK - bankers taking bonuses is bad ...
MP's/ministers taking ridiculous expenses is all OK as within the rules (which MP's wrote themselves).
Can anyone else sense a rather large double standard ?
Fat cats versus hypocrites ?
Complain about this comment
Quite right..Fred Goodwin should face the msuic and hand back his bonus.
For the sake of consistency Gordon Brown should hand back hIs salary for having mismanaged the economy into a state of public sector bloated and overleveraged distress.
Jacqui Smith should hand back her £158,000 of ecpenses for last year.
Peter Mandelson should hand back his ermine for having helped out a Russian oligarch with a;uminium tariffs.
Ed Balls should handback his salary and public sector pension for his egregious managing down of eductaion standards.
Tony Blair should resign from his peace keeping mission as the man who promulgated an illegal war with Iraq clearly is not the man suited to keep the peace in the middle east.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
"I'm going to try to find out what - if anything - they might actually do."
Watch this space some real journalism coming up.
Complain about this comment
Treasury minister Yvette Cooper said any contractual or legal obligations on banks to pay bonuses at a time when they were making huge losses must be "challenged".
"We have made very clear that as major shareholders in these banks we won't accept bonuses for failure," she told the BBC. "These do need to be curtailed."
"I think there is a moral responsibility on some of these bankers, even if they are legally entitled to take bonuses, at a time when the bank is only still standing because of government intervention and why I think there is an important issue of needing to restore trust in the city, senior executives need to take responsibility and consider whether they should be taking bonuses."
===
Substitute "Government Ministers" for "bankers"
Substitute "Additional Costs Allowance" for "bonuses"
And what you have is the typical hypocrisy spoken by this kleptocratic government.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
Complain about this comment
Nobody in government seems prepared to come out and enforce bonus restrictions. Chief secretary to the treasury was on the news this morning wafflinf rhetoric and claiming the banks ought do do the morally rigth thing.
I am unsure as to what the government fears in demanding a bonuses clampdown by RBS and LBG.
I also find it insulting for government ministers to waffle on about morality of taking legally entitled bonuses when government ministers seem to have crossed the said moral line regarding legally entitled MP's expenses!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The opposition is correct. Labour has bungled this. Too little, too late.
The wrong message is being sent to the country.
Complain about this comment
Clearly some impetus is needed to get top bankers to realise the error of their ways. If they insist on taking huge bonuses, perhaps the government should introduce a special tax rate for bonuses - say 80% of all earnings over £100,000. Not only would this recoup some of the taxpayers money but it might also encourage those with high bonuses from other industries (are there any?) to put some pressure on their colleagues!
Complain about this comment
I'll tell you what can be done Nick: stop the bonuses now.
Complain about this comment
Hardly surprising that a Government more interested in spin than substance is taking maximum opportunity to bash banking staff over bonuses.
Had the Government properly understood the banking business it was bailing out, it would have looked into the whole issue of staff remuneration and factored an urgent review of pay and bonuses into its calculations; but such was the urgency to "save the world" that they jumped in with both feet and sacks of our money.
Something over 5% of the bail out funds is due to be paid out in contractual bonuses. In better times, that's about a year's worth of interest or recovery.
Some many jumping on the blame bandwagon, so few taking responsibility for their incompetence.
Which in a way, brings us neatly on to the latest "scam" alleged against a serving Government minister. Until our Government can start acting decently, morally and legally, why should any of us trust anything they tell us?
Complain about this comment
Politicians of all parties are competing with each other to see who can be the nastiest to wicked bankers. Great fun, and part of the class war loved by politicians. However, it needs to be tempered by an acknowledgement of how important the City still is to our economy (and remember that it's far larger than just the UK banks we have been discussing).
We need to distinguish between:
a) senior executives of UK banks that are partially owned by us and were in post before the current crisis: should receive no bonus
b) senior executives of UK banks that have been recruited since the crisis: cash bonus should be capped, but share options that cannot be exercised for at least 5 years may be granted
c) senior executives of UK banks that are not owned by us: same as b) above
d) the remaining 99% of bank staff: should be decided by bank management
e) staff and management working for foreign banks: should be decided by bank management unless restricted internationally.
The long term solution is to reward senior bankers by means of share options to reward long-term success. This should be co-ordinated internationally as part of a new regulatory framework.
We need a prosperous banking system as it's still a large slice of our economy but we also need, of course, to reward only responsible behaviour. Regulating bonuses are a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve this.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad the government has taken this step. The public will not be happy at all if they see top level bankers being rewarded with taxpayers money for failure
You can't subject the average bank worker to a no-bonus clause (if that's what they will do) as most have had nothing to do with the bad decisions made by top management
The top bankers need to be punished for their errors of judgement, we need to get back to rewarding people for good decision making - not short term profits. Bonuses should be linked to medium/long term success and not quarterly profits
If they start crying and threaten to leave - let them. We don't want them or need them. Let's start again with a different culture based on having a sound business
Complain about this comment
The self righteousness of this government is unbelieveable, not only are they using the bank bonuses as an excuse to hide their own incompetence, they seek public sympathy by claiming to be against the payment of bonuses to bankers. They will not stop the fat cats receiving their bonuses, what they will do is , stop the ordinary hard working bank employees who have probably earned their bonus from receiving it. It would be more in the public interest to come down hard on their own cabinet ministers who milk the system , as allegedly the home secretary has been doing over the last few years. This would be a good target for some investigative journalism from the BBC, but this I suspect will not happen because no doubt , you and your colleagues have already been warned off by the Nu Lab pit bulls.
Complain about this comment
No lessons have been learnt.
As soon as the banks get their confidence back (how long that will be, however, I guess no one knows), we'll be back on the same treadmill, to the same ends.
The ridiculous bonuses paid to Northern Rock and possibly to RBS show that even those that have ridden the gravy train to destruction still have the same old corporate mindset.
And the politicians will only bash for so long, in the end the money involved will turn their heads just as it has for the past 30 years.
Complain about this comment
The trouble with all this is that Govts have been complicit with the banks in causing the recession/depression. In this country Gordon Brown was more than happy to go along with things as on the surface the economy appeared to be so buoyant and did not want to do anything to rock the boat.
Now the truth has come out, Gordon has switched the blame game from the american sub prime market, as the cause of the recession, to the issue of bonuses planned for bank staff. The PM probably thinks there is more politicial mileage to be made by attacking the bankers which he hopes will be a popular move with the electorate.
One should not mess with a wounded animal in case it bites back. If the bankers feel they are being made a scap goat by the PM they may well join forces and turn on him. After all he was Chancellor for a decade and he knew full well what was going on and chose not to do anything about it. He is hardly in an ideal position to complain now.
It is rather ironic that one of his ministers (Ms Smith) appears to be paying off her sister`s mortgage whilst staying with her a few nights now and then. Calling a bedroom in her sister`s home her main residence is really stretching things a tad.
Ms Smith says she has done nothing wrong and everything is above board. No rules have been broken. Bit like the case with the bankers isn` it?
Prime Minister - If you live in a glass house one should not throw stones.
Don`t think we have heard the last of this.
Complain about this comment
What indeed....
one can already hear the gallop of hooves echoing sonorously into the distance, interrupted only by the hollow banging thud of the stable door....
Complain about this comment
Could you please explain the difference between Jacqui Smith and the Bankers?
They are both in receipt of public money, neither of them have done anything wrongboth should have seen the crisis coming and done something about it and both will carry on exactly as they have been doing filling their pockets at public exoense and then retire on very good pensions.
It is double standards for MPs to start calling for tighter standards for bankers than they are willing to impose on themselves.
Complain about this comment
I heard Yvette Cooper talking about bankers doing the "morally correct" thing this morning on the "Today Programme".
Does that apply to Govt ministers? Is it not morally questionable the way that she and Mr Balls, or Ms Smith have claimed their housing allowances? (that goes for any other MPO from any other party)
A couple of questions:
Is it right that Ms Smith needs extra funding for her personal protection because she "lives" with her sister for 3 nights a week and not in the Grace and Favour flat she is entitled to?.
Does Ms Smith's sister pay tax on the "income" she receives from her sister to live with her?
Complain about this comment
If the Government want to influence the bonuses of taxpayer supported banks (Lloyds Banking Group & RBS), then fine.
But what right do the Government have to influence the bonuses of privately owned, non-supported banks? Surely they are entitled to do whatever they want with their own money? And are the government forgetting the taxes they get off these large bonuses?
Complain about this comment
The simple answer is no bonuses. NO. It's a short word that can't be misunderstood.
The Great Leader and his sidekick chancellor ahve been asleep at the wheel regarding this issue (and many others).
I want to know how the Great Leader can claim to be leading the world (first he saved it, now he is leading it?!) in sweeping away the old short term bonus culture of the past and replacing it with a determination that there are no rewards for failure and rewards only for long-term success. I thought Obama made his announcment on this last week? Odd...
Also, how does the great Leader expect to make these changes when he has a banking insider doing the review?
I am normally poles apart politically from John Prescott but I will support his online campaign. The government and the banks are taking us all for fools and it has to stop!
I hope the Great Leader and his spin doctors are aware of the anger that is building in the country. It might jsut blow up in their faces.
Complain about this comment
Coal-face traders who have made genuine profits- the kind which are based on an actual gain, not a paper one which may be lost at any time- for their companies should be properly rewarded. I'm talking 6 figure sums at most, not the kind of nonsense we've seen before.
Those senior directors of many banks [who have not already paid with their jobs] where huge losses have been announced should get nothing. Those who were in charge of these banks when the decisions which led to the losses were made, 2002-7 in particular, should be fired and in many cases prosecuted for negligence / fraud.
Complain about this comment
I would have to agree with Vince Cable on his comments.
The only proviso is that there should be a minimum share price at which the share options should be exercised otherwise they will be making a killing in 5 years time.
I am fed up with people getting bonuses on performance when the stock market performs well, not taking a hit on the bear market, then getting another bonus on the inevitable bear that follows. Ratcheting bonuses should be banned.
The UK stockmarket is no higher than it was 10 years ago, investors and Pension funds are being skinned by these managers.
Complain about this comment
Alistair Darling was ridiculed last night after it emerged that the Treasury's new review into City bonuses will not be completed until the end of the year – by which stage some banks will have already partially paid out their 2009 rewards.
Sir David Walker, the former chairman of Morgan Stanley, has been ordered to "leave no stone unturned" in an independent review of the banking bonuses and corporate governance but, although Sir David will consider new controls over City bonuses, including caps on payments and claw-backs on cash paid in previous years, his review will do nothing to affect bonus policies either for 2008 or, most likely, for 2009.
Sir David will not publish his preliminary conclusions until the autumn and the final report will only arrive at the end of the year. Although the Treasury said his work would "inform" the Budget, by the time the final report is produced some banks will have already started paying out bonuses for this year.
===
Have a review.
Nothing is done.
Issue a statement "Lessons have been learned."
Soundbites in the press.
Nothing changes.
Complain about this comment
Is Nick Robinson operating some kind of job share with Robert Peston? Sorry to dismay the resurgent grandantidote and many other Labour supporters here, but for me the last line or two of this mornings Robinson offering is telling.
......... I'm going to try to find out what - if anything - they might actually do.......
What a shame Robinson can pursue a fairly anodyne subject whilst not not applying the same tenacity to Lord Mandelson and his new Russian friend.
No doubt at all though, whether the big banks won, lost or drew last year, those in charge probably have their bonuses set in stone in the form of a contract. I believe the weight of adverse publicity surrounding the sector will do more than any political pressure to determine whether or not bonuses are actually paid. I think Peston alluded to a similar thing last week and touched on the alternative of additional shares in lieu of cash, either way the "fat cats" won't be getting much slimmer in the foreseeable future.
Complain about this comment
You are correct when you say the Parties don't know what to do. I watched Cameron on TV this morning and he first said no Bank Employee should get a bonus. when asked about poorly paid cashiers, he went red amd immediately contradicted himself. Also for a man who goes on ad nauseum about not getting straight answers why can't he give a straight answer to questions about Lord Ashcroft?
Complain about this comment
When I worked for a huge financial institution six years ago, which shall remain nameless, our salary increases were dependent upon the grade given to us at our annual assessment by our managers. A grade 4 was an increase commensurate with the cost of living for instance.
The bonus, however, was at management's discretion and this was written into the contract of each member of staff. Therefore, when at the LAST recession we were initially given a lower percentage bonus and the subsequent FOUR years absolutely no bonus at all, there was complete acceptance.
Many people rely on their bonus to pay for their holidays, Christmas, etc. People should only rely on their guaranteed disposable income and not bonuses.
Complain about this comment
"Speaking in London on Monday morning Mr Brown said: "We are leading the world in sweeping away the old short term bonus culture of the past and replacing it with a determination that there are no rewards for failure and rewards only for long-term success." "
Yet more grandstanding and empty posturing from our delusional PM. If only he'd listened to the "do nothing" tories and stopped bonuses when we bailed out the banks. But as usual we get the predictable response: No decisive action, yet lots of strong words and another review.
Complain about this comment
Only one side of the story again Nick?
Even the staunchly unionist Scotsman manages Government and its former friends face uncomfortable day as links come under spotlight with some unusally anti-NuLab sentiment over the impending meeting of the Treasury select committee at Westmidden. I particularly liked the following snippet:
"What risks being exposed is not simply the mistakes of the bankers, but their closeness to Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, and Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, as well as the Labour hierarchy's part in the current economic collapse. One Treasury committee member told The Scotsman he would be checking for the Prime Minister's fingerprints on the 'smoking gun'."
Complain about this comment
Brown angry about city bonuses , I am very angry about ministers expenses claims . "they're within the rules" but what about personal responsibilty and judgement ? yet another snout in the taxpayers trough
Complain about this comment
Sounds to me like the ideal opportunity for the government to introduce some sort of personal 'windfall tax' for those receiving a bonus, who have not earned it in some quantifiable way, such as through improved productivity or profitability.
Or is that too simple?
Complain about this comment
What about the taxpayers justifiable anger at MPs and Peers who claim spurious second home, travel and "secretarial" expenses. Can we have a public enquiry about that?
Complain about this comment
Looks like Labour deflecting the heat from Gordon Browns' incompetencies of the last 12 years if you ask me.
I'm not saying the bankers don't deserve a damn good thrashing. But as the Chancelor who over saw (or even over looked) the impending crisis, he deserves to take a lot of the flak.
Complain about this comment
I suspect that most people will follow the politicians lead that it is morally reprehensible for bankers to take (big) bonuses that they may legitimately take because of their contract conditions.
Is it equally morally reprehensible for politicains (such as the Home Secretary) to lodge with relatives and then claim that their family home is the second home and so claim hundreds of thousand of pounds in allowances?
I believe that the House of Commons needs to get its own house in order - a crusade which should be helped and not hindered by the Speaker and the PM
Complain about this comment
Still can't understand why the government didn't draw up the lines at the time the money was being put into the banks. Commonsense at least, if not good business practice.
Now the question is - is the government merely following other world leaders - America and France - or making decisions based on the strong feeling in the country?
Either way, it is NOT leadership.
Complain about this comment
"I'm going to try to find out what - if anything - they might actually do."
Nick,
Well only the Labour party are in government and in a position to actually 'do' anything.
The government have routinely fobbed off journalists with waffle throughout this crisis. I wish you luck in getting any straight answers out of them.
Complain about this comment
I said at the time and I maintain now that it was wrong to save the banks. True some banks would have gone under, with some complications, but not all banks were up to the same tricks. The more conservative banks would have survived and taken the business of the failures.
The current question on bonuses would then not have arisen because those claiming the bonuses would not have a job.
My husband's company has not been able to give pay rises let alone bonuses for about two years now. It has recently announced a 10% cut in the workforce worldwide. It is obscene for bonuses to be paid to any staff working for now nationalised banks.
.
Complain about this comment
I have a dream....yes I have a dream and in that dream we get rid of most of the current government.
I'd like to to see a government to include:
Robert Peston, John Humphrys, Vince Cable, Richard Branson and of course, your good self, Nick. Let's sort this mess out.
Any more names?
Complain about this comment
What a wimp out!! Brown really avoids the situation - to say "executives should "consider whether they actually receive" bonuses even if legally entitled to them." -
Asking people who are planning to pay themselves a bung of money to decide if they should or not - that is just plain stupid, it is clear what they will decide. He needs to act like a leader and take action, or give up the job and retire. No good is coming of his wimpish management.
LOJO
Complain about this comment
If we are going to have a class war against the bankers (John Prescott and others) then on which side of the barricades are Premiership footballers? Some earn over 100,000 a week (5 million a year) and, as Scolari (Chelsea's manager) pointed out recently, this is paid however well or badly they play. Or even try, I would add.
Hope this isn't moderated. it is on topic.
Complain about this comment
Nice try Nick
"Labour activists are up in arms"
Is that the 'massage' I'm supposed to get from your topic.
It should have been done before at the time of the bailouts when Cameron & Cable were asking Brown what he would do about bonuses in the banks. (No mention of this)
As always Brown is never pinned down by the media so now we have an enquiry that will report after the Bankers have been paid their bonuses. (No mention of this failing)
The Brown Depression is going to devastate this country.
And all you can do is try to put out the best possible gloss for the government when they can be seen by everybody to have failed us.
Labour should resign.
And so should you.
Complain about this comment
The problem with employee bonuses in the banking system is that they tend to be contractual, as in set out in the employment contract. Some bonuses may be performance related, so there is scope for flexibility if the performance targets are capable of reassessment.
When bonuses are guaranteed, they are no different to a basic salary. This is where the fun starts because you cannot just go and chop wages. Employees have enforceable rights in the resepct.
Moving on, companies could adopt the same sort of stance as KPMG, the business advisers. They have asked staff if they would like to take 3 month sabbaticals, on a reduced pay or work only a 4 day week. If staff agree this is a voluntary change in the employment contract, and this then becomes an agreed change in terms between employer and employee.
Now, if the board of say, RBS says to staff, "Look team, the bank has not got the funds to pay bonuses this year. They only way in which we can do so is to borrow the money off several generations of British taxpayer. It would look better if we all refuse our bonuses this year."
There could still be more problems. RBS staff might like those at KPMG, see the long term benefit of cooperation and volunteer to give up their bonuses. They might lynch the management , they might move jobs (although vacancies are somewhat low) or still sue the bank, this time for being forced into changing their contract terms against their will.
I think that staff will try and hang on to their bonuses, as these are what drive many of them.
Note on share bonuses:
It is understood that many of these staff bonuses will only be paid out in shares, many of which are very low in value at the moment. We know as we have seen from past market crashes that share prices will rise up steeply when things straighten out. Share bonuses paid out in taxpayer supported banks have quite a good possibility of becoming very valuable.
I would be interested to see the small print in any new employee share plan. My guess is that even the esteemed members of the Treasury Select Committee do not appreciate what sort of benefits may result from share awards.
Note on other benefits:
Bank staff typically have the best pensions and cut price mortgages and other financial products too. Lets not forget the whole remuneration package.
Complain about this comment
Let all the bankers award themselves any amount of bonus, but just make this subject to a tax rate of 100%
Complain about this comment
Do the MP's have no sense of irony, criticising the bankers, whilst claiming expenses for their second homes?
Just as well the home secretary has done nothing technically illegal, would the Met be raiding her sisters house and arresting her?
Maybe the guillotone should extend to MP's and bankers
Complain about this comment
For shame Nick - all this talk of bankers bonuses and not a whisper about the latest devastating Labour scandal to hit the news. What about Jacqui Smith and her disgraceful misappropriation of taxpayer's funds. How on earth can lodging 3-4 days a week at her sister's place make this her 'main' residence. Even if the definition of 'the place where an MP spends most nights' is valid (which it shouldn't be!!, only the most supine of civil servants could have agreed to that) then what about holidays and those long periods when parliament isn't sitting. There needs to be a major shake up on parliamentary expenses. No claims allowed for second homes and secure accommodation provided and paid for by the state for those MPs staying in London away from home.
Just how many pensioners are shivering at home, trying to make ends meet, whilst these leeches milk the system for all they're worth.
Complain about this comment
I was made redundant last month.
I couldn't put into print exactly how I feel about this bunch of b......s. I'd probably get moderated.
Complain about this comment
Nick, it would help if some of our politicians owned up to their share of 'contributory negligence' to the banking bonus debacle - I can't recall many making much noise a couple of years ago when the City was generating vast 'profits' for the state as well as for its participants.
Lax regulation and oversight over the last decade or so has been a significant factor in getting us into this current recession. Methinks some of our politicians are making as much noise as they can in the hope we'll ignore their part until the news agenda moves on.
Light-touch regulation, anyone?
Complain about this comment
If RBS had been taken into administration, rather than a form of powerless nationalisation, there would be no talk of bonuses - just P45s.
The political question is why didn't this happen ? Is the answer because it was a Scottish bank and Brown and Darling are Scottish MPs?
Brown perhaps protests too much over bonuses to cover this.
Complain about this comment
Come on BBC. Almost 2 hours, 46 previous comments, not one moderated yet?
What is going on?
Complain about this comment
This story really seems to have legs - as Ben Brogan said on BBC, a handy distraction for ministers !
The solution, which should satisfy most reasonable objections - and objectives - is to pay bonus in shares that will only be worth anything if (a) the banks are not fully nationalised and (b) instead are sold back to the public sector at a profit to the taxpayer.
Complain about this comment
Strikes me as a little bit of smoke and mirrors to distract our attention from other more pressing issues - certainly a trick this government have pulled many a time before!
No word on Jackboot Jacqui's housing expenses? MP's expenses generally?Mandleson's mortgage or his stay on the yacht? Glenrothes by-election irregularity? Surveillance State 3.0 with the announcement of the travel database?
Personally I'm sick of hearing about the bankers and how they're all once-removed from Satan himself.
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick,
So no bog entry or investigation into Jacqui Smith’s expenses – why?
Let’s just surmise what the Mail has found out. Between 2001-2007 our Home Secretary claimed £116,000 under the second home allowance scheme. These monies were designed to help MPs fund second homes in London. Nothing wrong with that – any employer who requires their employee to work away from his or her home (for long periods) should reimburse living expenses.
During her time in London - Miss Smith is living in her sister’s house; for an average of 3-4 nights a week. For this she is paying what her office describes as a market rent. But what is the market rate? The Mail has quoted local estate agent estimates of £100 a week (£400 a month). This seems a bit low to me – so let’s double it. So £800 a month is a reasonable claim.
But Miss Smith has claimed £116,000 in 6 years, at a rate of £19,333.33 PA.
Divide 19,330 by 12 and we have a monthly claim of £1,610 or a weekly rate of £402.50. This is clearly well above the market rate. So either our Home Sec. is using taxpayer’s cash to subsidize her sister's mortgage or she is pocketing the difference. So a question for you Nick – have you or any other BBC journalist actually bothered to press her office as to how much she is paying her sister? If yes, why haven’t you told us of this enquiry and her reply?
But of course, Miss Smith is somewhat dubiously claiming that her London residence (with her sister) is her main home. Despite A) spending fewer nights per week at this address than her consistency home and B) her husband and children living in Redditch home. However, this definition creates a number of other problems – if her husband is looking after the children at home, whilst she is living and working in London, then how can he be her paid parliamentary assistant (circa £40,000 PA)? After all, common-sense would seem to dictate that a parliamentary assistant (as opposed to a constituency secretary) should be based in London; so as to work hand in glove with the MP – not based two hundred miles away from both parliament and the main residency of the said MP. It would certainly seem to be a curious and inefficient arrangement. Given his circumstances – can it really be argued that Mr. Smith was the best candidate for this publicly funded job? Unlikely. Has the BBC sought any reassurance or proof that Mr. Smith is carrying out the work for which he is paid? [Letters to local papers praising his wife anonymously don’t count].
After all, this affair has the whiff of Derek Conway about it and we know what happened to him. Quite right too – but why are the BBC and indeed – you yourself Nick – less interested in Labour / GVN sleaze than Tory sleaze? Remember, Peter Mandelson still hasn’t given a full account of his relationship with Oleg Deripaska. Why do you and your BBC colleagues repeatedly fail to ask our Business Secretary to account for this lack of transparency? Then there is cash for questions – the Hamilton’s do it and the BBC can’t stop talking about it. Quite right! But, in the labour Lords scandal the BBC take a back seat – where are the probing insights into Lord Moonie’s curious record of defence questions – no Parliamentary questions for three years, gains paid consultancy with Northrop Grumman Corp and then low and behold, 23 questions pertaining to defence work/contracts relating to Northrop. Yet from the BBC’s chief political correspondent, not even an enquiry.
You need to get on top of this story Nick. The public are sick and tried of sleaze from all quarters – no doubt the Tories are still up to their necks in it as well – and it won’t stop until reporters like you, hold our elected officials to count, by naming and shaming. So why not just ask our Home Secretary next time she’s on the telly, how she justifies charging the taxpayer £1610 per month, for a house share? It is not a market rent, it is a rip-off and if any her subordinates put in such a ludicrous claim they would be lucky to keep their job – many would argue that they should go to jail. So why should Jacqui be any different.
No wonder politicians and bankers seem to get on so well.
Complain about this comment
The politicians just don't get it, do they?
They're as guilty as the bankers for crafting and sustaining the monetary and regulatory frameworks that unleashed the bankers' greed. Between them, the two groups have connived to perform at best incompetently and at worst like dishonest, self-serving rogues.
The anger of our political masters with bankers is as nothing compared with the incandescent rage of ordinary people like me. We're about to endure at least 10 years of austerity, if we're lucky. Many businesses and indivduals will be ruined.
Meantime, the bankers will live off their immoral earnings of the past decade and the politicians will live off their gilded expense accounts and gold-plated pensions.
Since our democratic and political processes are now collapsing as fast as our economy, I wonder how long it will be before it gets to this in the UK?
http://tinyurl.com/cn5mh5
Complain about this comment
Anything to detract attention from Politicians earnings / expenses, lets put the boot in. Quite frankly there more than one kind of trough to feed from for some others. These particular parasitical captains of banking industry should be facing jail terms, period!
Complain about this comment
Given the state of the economy for which they are responible, presumably Hector Sants of the FSA, Mervyn King of the Bank of England and the numerous Treasury mandarins who monitor our economic well being will forgo the millions in bonuses due to be to be paid to them this year?
Complain about this comment
I cannot understand why this is such a difficult area for the Government to sort out. All they have to do is say any bank which is using tax payers money will not be giving bonuses. The Government now owns 70% of RBS and should be able to stipulate, that 1 Billion in bonus payments will not be paid. Government say they are having a review, but all the bonus payments will have been made by then.
However I am very suspicious of the Government in this area. I tend to believe that now they have made the banks public enemy no one, they want to keep the pressure on the banks and off their own failings in this crisis. For example, Browns change in regulation in 1997 and his inability to see this credit bubble mounting.
It also smacks of hypocrisy, when you consider also the amount MPs are making out of the tax payer as well, through their own expenses. Primarily those in the Labour Party.
Complain about this comment
My questions to bankers:
1. If you had a business unable to service its loan to you, you'd take over the business, wouldn't you?
2. If that happened, would you want the failing management how to tell you to fail all over again?
3. Would you sanction management paying themselves a massive bloody bonus just before defaulting on the covenants of the loan?
4. Would you bail them out and let them pay themselves another bonus afterwards?
5. If the answers to those are yes, no, no and no then do you begin to understand why your new banker HMG is feeling a bit pissed off?
6. If not, go and do 5 years unpaid charity work to develop sufficient sensitivity and responsibility to answer question five in the affirmative.
7. Are there any questions you'd like to ask us, as a disgraced banker who's brought the UK banking system to its knees?
Ok time's up: sod off then!
Complain about this comment
There is one thing that you can be sure.
It was Brown who made the banking law.
So we may all hanker,
To go bash a banker.
But Brown has some blame to endure!
clunkingfist
Complain about this comment
One the one hand ministers seem quick to condemn City bonuses but on the other shamefully milk the system over second homes allowances.
The double standards were laid bare by your colleague John Humphrys on the Today programme, when he confronted Yvette Cooper over the home secretary's second home and her own.
Real journalism at work there, Nick.
As I've pointed out, John captured a mood and didn't let a government minister get away with it.
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/scandal-of-second-homes-secretary-smith.html
Complain about this comment
With all these shenanigans going on with RBS and bonuses.
The current governments stock answer to have an inquiry on the matter. To prevent such unscrupulous things happening again.
Hang on don?t we now own RBS?
The question has to be asked.
Why the bloody hell can Brown and his amateurs not PLAN anything! There is never any for thought into what they do.
Yup the country will buy your bank to save it, but you can spend what you like one yourselves, it?s on our flick after all.
Yup we?ll invade your country and completely remove your infrastructure, creating mass unemployment, international resentment, and create an open door policy for foreign insurgency, resulting in many deaths.
Yup we?ll reduce the VAT on luxury goods for a year, at cost to the retailer and at the cost of a few billion quick ?to kick start the economy?
Northern Ireland
10p Tax
Foot and Mouth
There are more but I?m getting angry.
The bottom what was in the contract signed when the government took over the highest stake in the RBS? I?m guessing true to government form nothing to protect Tax payer?s interests as usual.
Every action the government takes is a scared knee jerk response to public outrage.
They chase the fancy sound bite, label it and issue it never with a thought of what the consequences may be.
The only clause that I recall that actually was given weeks of alimentary time and debate was Fox hunting, obviously an issue that greatly affects us all in our daily lives, and even that was a nonsense, and also un policeable.
We as a nation deserve much better than this.
Complain about this comment
"I'm going to try to find out what - if anything - they might actually do." Nick Robinson.
Well do you think that your update may appear before any of these 60~ish comments are moderated? It's been 2 hours plus and NOT ONE MODERATED YET?
Is this due to the BBC being: pathetic, appalling, amateurish, negligent, or incompetent?
Or all the above?
Complain about this comment
Well, all to the good if politicians have sensed as a serious political reality the anger underlying the public response to the economic dangers facing them, even if this seriousness is rather offset by the appearance of Hazel Blears in a bizarre cameo role. Perhaps as this post seems to be acquiring a flvaour of the Baftas I should close...
Complain about this comment
Good grief, two hours to moderate any post?
Very long lunchbreaks down at Wood Lane!!
Complain about this comment
"Speaking in London on Monday morning Mr Brown said: "We are leading the world in sweeping away the old short term bonus culture of the past and replacing it with a determination that there are no rewards for failure and rewards only for long-term success."
So where does that put the Crashmeister's claim to a bonus? Twelve years after taking charge, the country increasingly looks like we're back in the Seventies.
Also, is it only me, or is Gordon Brown's insistence that he is leading the world on everything not starting to sound more than just a little delusional?
Complain about this comment
'Global'(we can no longer call him Gordon) Brown & his team of stooges are using every trick in the book to try to deflect from their responsibility for the financial mess into which they have brought the UK.
The electorate will speak very clearly when the General Election comes.
Complain about this comment
How many Tory MPs have paid directorships of banks in addition to their MP salary? Should they really be paid twice by taxpayers?
Complain about this comment
I would love to be present at Dave and Georges monthly dinner party for Bankers when the pair explain that they are extremely cross with their Banking Buddies and that they are against any bonuses this year. You couldn't make it up could you?
Complain about this comment
So lets get this straight?
Flash Brown is very angry and wants bankers to consider waiving their right to their bonus’- I can hear the bankers quaking in their prada shoes (WITH LUAGHTER).
Yvette Cooper is trying to appeal to the Bankers moral righteous nature.
Harriet wants women to get a slice of the big bonus' (and not speak about her profitable sub letting on the backs of the tax payer)
Mr Darling says he really can understand the publics anger - honestly he can!
ITS COMICAL, SURELY WHEN THE WORLD HAS MANAGED TO STOPPED LUAGHING IT WILL BE WITHDRAWING ANY CONFIDENCE THAT’S LEFT AT THIS DRIED UP EXCUSE OF UNELECTED LEADERSHIP FOR OUR COUNTRY.
SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ? FAST ! (VINCE CABLE AS LEADER OF AN EMERGENCY GOVERNMENT ?)
BUT ALL WE GET IS SORROWFUL ATTEMPTS AT PR SOUND BYTES THAT CONTINUE TO INSULT AND ALIENATE THE MASS’.
Complain about this comment
If you have a large pack of very hungry guard dogs in a secure area, then they can do what they do best in safety. If you remove their boundaries by leaving gates wide open and they start eating the public, then who is to blame? The dogs or the people that removed the boundaries?
The Bankers were (wrongly) only doing what comes naturally to them. They are greedy by necessity. If they were not, then they would not make money at all. They are greedy nasty and awful people, but, when *appropriately* regulated they make a "modern society" work.
It was always a mistake to remove the checks and balances in the way that Gordon Brown did when he gave independence to the Bank of England and I do not write this purely from a sense of hindsight. I was writing these things when the Gordon Brown first made the bank independent. I take NO pleasure from being proved right.
Gordon was incompetent then, and now he owns 70% of RBS he is even MORE incompetent, impotent and irrelevant than ever!
Call an election so we can ALL write "none of the above" at the bottom of the ballot.
Complain about this comment
Fat cat politicians baying at fat cat bankers
Im still waiting for the update on the last post... much more interesting... any news.
1. I know more than a few female investment bankers, they make Ross Kemp look like a 7 year old girl.
2 This is all bull and rhetoric, They know it and you know it. If the city gets too restrictive or on unrewarding then at the click of a mouse the money will flow east.
And given that we dont actually make anything any longer and rely heavily on a cut from financial services and trading; our options are minimal.
This is just politicians jostling for prime pos in terms of who talks toughest.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Harriet - I mean Jaqui Smith, how could one possibly get those two mixed up!
Complain about this comment
22 Andy-London
I am normally poles apart politically from John Prescott but I will support his online campaign. The government and the banks are taking us all for fools and it has to stop!
..............................................................
I do agree with you, Andy. But I can't help wondering what's in it for John Prescott?
Complain about this comment
Utter incompetence!
That a 'No Bonus' condition wasn't written into the bailout breaks a new and frequently tested record for Labour ineptitude.
Complain about this comment
I find all of the Tory outrage about Jacqui Smith's expenses totally hypocritical after the Conway scandal and the Winterton's claiming expenses to pay the rent for a house that they actually owned. Still if you have a PR chief who worked for the News of The World until he was forced to resign what do you expect?
Complain about this comment
My response to Labour's position on bank bonuses:
Dither, obfuscation, hypocricy and spin.
But then, what's new?
Complain about this comment
These are banks that have simply failed. The contracts should be considered null and void as without our money they would not be employed. The rescue of the banks was not for there benefit but for the good of the country. The leaders of the banks have been obtaining these vast and overpaid bonuses knowing what was coming to the rest of us. No share or other payments should be made and as a previous comment suggested a special tax on any bonus perhaps 95% would discouage any foolhardy payments.
Next stop our MP's who have plenty of excess to be returned.
Complain about this comment
"The prime minister, we're told, is "very angry". So angry that he wants bankers to consider waiving their bonuses voluntarily."
Ha ha! Brilliant!
Did Gordon stamp his little feet when making this statement? Did he throw a little hissy fit at the end of the press conference?
The second you have to rely on somebody doing something voluntarily, the system will invariably fail. It just depends how long it takes to fail.
I think plenty of people have already given the example of MPs who are supposed to give best value for their expenses, something which evidently doesn't happen.
It doesn't happen because it's voluntary.
But let's make a point of being angry and see what happens, by all means. Let them do what they want but I will be angry if they do the wrong thing....
Hmmm, I think I'm starting to understand what has happened to the banking regulations in this country now...
Complain about this comment
It is not working is it?
That is, politicians painting the bankers as the bad guys when their own behaviour leaves so much to be desired.
In both cases, it has been a case of 'Heads I win, tails you lose'.
Bankers and politicans are in full receipt of the benefits of an asymetrical reward system.
It is not a valid to compare the pay of these two cohorts with say, heart surgeons.
So priviledged Mr. Osborne needs to apply some rigour to his statements ... I'm sure his colleague Mr. Cameron will remind him of that.
Complain about this comment
Thanks to moderation delays, no comments visible for an hour and a half. When they start to become visible, almost every single post makes the same point about Government hypocrisy and trying to make capital on the back of blaming "greedy" bankers.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, etc.
When will the Government (and the Opposition parties) realise that their numbers are up and start putting their houses in order?
Complain about this comment
johnharris66 wrote:
If we are going to have a class war against the bankers (John Prescott and others) then on which side of the barricades are Premiership footballers? Some earn over 100,000 a week (5 million a year) and, as Scolari (Chelsea's manager) pointed out recently, this is paid however well or badly they play. Or even try, I would add.
Hope this isn't moderated. it is on topic.
Footballer's wages are market driven - if clubs can't afford to pay the wages for the top players then they have two choices they either don't recruit the best players or they risk their future on winning trophys and increasing the fan base.
Scolari is partially correct that players get paid regardless of if they play well or not, however if they play badly then they don't get their bonus pay-offs (players typically get bonuses if their side win, or they score goals in games etc.)
But what Scolari hasn't pointed out that the fans pay their money regardless of the team's performance - the Chelsea fan's who attended the game on saturday didn't get a refund for watching a draw. So decreasing the players wage for a bad performance would just lead to increased profits for the club.
The government don't step in to assist if a football club struggles financially, and until they do taxpayers money will not be paying the bonuses of football players.
Complain about this comment
Bonuses and MP expenses should be paid in pigs swill. It is all they deserve.
I am sure that the government said that the 1st bail out came with "strings attached". As far as I can see the bankers are doing what they like and giving GB/AD the 2-fingered salute.
This government are clueless, toothless and rotten to the core. The only thing they have going for them is their brass neck.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I'll tell you what can be done about it:
Absolutely Nothing!
If Brown and Darling and their team of post-grad fops in the treasury had actually any sense, they would have built-in caps on bonuses as part of the first and second bank bailouts.
Any bank taking the money should have had to sign up to a set of statutory operating practices that prevented or capped bonuses.
Instead, the government didn't include much in the way of clauses and to be frank, even further its now debatable that anyone in the treasury saw the bank's books, or if they did, understood what they were reading. Because if they did, they'd have seen the huge debt the banks are sat on.
The whole thing stems from the rabbits-in-a-headlight mismanaged reaction to the banks announcing they were going under.
Now the bankers can sit back and smile, because they have the money and theres not a thing the government can do other than bluster and whinge.
No, Brown and Darling have painted themselves into a corner that they can't possibly get out of.
The bankers are laughing all the way to the er, bank (but not a British one I'll bet: more like a Lichtenstein or Cayman one).
Complain about this comment
Nick wrote:
"As I suspected, there is a lot of political huff and puff about bonuses but few specific proposals for what should be done about them."
or more accurately they have absolutely no intention of doing anything about bonuses. They will rant a while then hope we all forget about it.
I am not saying that when they leave office they will be guaranteed nice lucrative jobs as advisers to the banks - but one has to wonder!
I think we have a right to seek written assurances that none of the senior politicians (or senior civil servants) will get, or take jobs in the banks for thirty years after leaving office.
Complain about this comment
This is the death throws of the newlabour era.
A decade of spin, spending and sleaze.
Another example of newlabour politicians completely out of control:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23637369-details/Revealed...+the+TfL+boses+who+earn+more+than+Gordon+Brown/article.do
The british public have been mislead by newlabour inot believing we were building a better Britain; actually they were lining each others' pockets faster than you can say 'spin machine' and it ahs got to stop.
The inability to simply say no to state owned banks is just another example fo the state of fright inot which newlabour and their apologists have sunk.
get rid of these greedy bankers.
Get rid of newlabour aparatchiks#
Get rid of newlabour
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
53#
Very very well said.
Same trough, different snouts, if I may plagiarise a contributor to Andrew Niel's blog.
Over to you Nicholas. You're meant to be the Political EDITOR for one of the most important broadcast organisations on the planet, not some two bit gumshoe hack straight out of night school.
Perfectly valid questions in need of answers.
Why are you not asking them?
Complain about this comment
"47. At 12:30pm on 09 Feb 2009, shellingout wrote:
I was made redundant last month."
Very sorry to hear that. I hope that you get a new job soon.
I agree with you about this bunch of b......s. though.
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick,
A clear consensus seems to be forming in the above comments....
We (your employers via the licence fee) would like you to stop blogging about the fake debate re:city bonuses. The public are wholeheartedly against such payments and our GVN knows it.
Instead, we would like you to concentrate on asking our MP's to justify their own unjustified bonus scheme - otherwise known as the 2nd home allowance.
In particular, we want answers from Jaqui Smith. The lunchtime news didn't even mention this story - WHY? The Home Sec. answer's to the Daily Mail don't add up...
She has been claiming £1600 a month - the market rate for a house share is £800 a month (tops). So whilst she may not have been breaking the letter of the law, she most certainly is brreaking the spirit of it.
Then there is her claim that her sister's house is her main residency. Leaving aside the obvious points that (a. she has no equity in this home. b. her husband and children live elsewhere) her defence of spending more nights at her sister's home does not add up. Even if in a typical working week we give her 4 nights in London (Mon, Tues, weds, Thurs) and only 3 nights in Reddich (Fri, Sat, Sun) this would not counteract the time spend at her consistuency home during the long parliamentary recesses. So by no definition is her sister's house her main home.
So start asking questions...
Complain about this comment
Nick,
surely even Gordon Brown is not stupid enough to say don't give the bankers their bonuses. Does nobody understand how much tax the bankers pay on these bonuses, if taken in cash. Many use the bonuses to reduce their loans from the very bank they work for, through a mortgage.
Just understand how much the bankers receive not only in direct payments but they also receive subsidized mortgages, at long term fixed rates. They receive car leasing arrangements, they get subsidized rail travel, access to cheap loans to buy shares, their pensions are based on final salary. Even in the late eighties as a senior manager I had access to a GBP30,000 dealing account for my own purposes. My bonus I would put into my pension scheme so as to avoid tax, and then used that when I commuted my pension into a lump sum, therefore avoiding legally taxes on the bonus.
If you were to pay a banker a proper wage then you are fixed with that wage for as long as that person works for you, so can you imagine what their final salary for pension purposes would be. That is why they get bonuses rather than salary increases. Low wages, high bonus, just like the old days if you worked for a stock broker, they always hooked you on the bonus, not your basic salary.
Complain about this comment
So Gordon is against the bankers getting these Bonuses is he?
Well given we own RBS what is he doing to prevent them.
Nothing!!
Just another cheap headline grabbing stunt, someone really should tell him that we no longer believe a word he or his Government say
Complain about this comment
I can only echo other comments made here about the Home Secretary.
I heard you on R4 this morning touting the party line that Ms Smith was 'within the rules' and it was a non-issue.
Whilst technically this may be correct surely you can see how disgusted many of us are at the latest episode of sleaze from this government.
Not only is Jacqui Smith claiming 20k a year for a home that is clearly her primary residence, she is costing the taxpayer 200k a year for police protection of her sisters home, money that would not be spent if she lived in the grace and favour apartment provided for her.
In other words she is happy to waste 200k of taxpayers money in order to get an extra 20k for herself.
Who cares about bankers bonuses when our politicians are so clearly on the fiddle?
Complain about this comment
"48. At 12:31pm on 09 Feb 2009, hughd22 wrote:
Nick, it would help if some of our politicians owned up to their share of 'contributory negligence' to the banking bonus debacle - I can't recall many making much noise a couple of years ago when the City was generating vast 'profits' for the state as well as for its participants. "
-------------------------------------------
Actually I seem to recall one G. Brown taking an awful lot of credit for the "profits" of the city and for the way banks were run and the regulatory frameworks in which they operated.
Ironically ,now that he actually does have an ownership sized stake in many of the city's banks, he will not take ANY responsibility for the state they are in, nor will he actually take action against the directors who he allowed and facilitated to create this crash!
Are they all members of Common Purpose?
Complain about this comment
Comments 6 & 19 and any others similar to these just about sum up this disastrous headline grabbing hypocrytical government.
Complain about this comment
Surely, and I'm just spitballing here, any staff bonuses paid out would be spent in the economy, providing a stimulus? Isn't that what the Golem wanted?
And why should Lloyds TSB miss out on their payments? Until the Golem stuck his oar in and engineered the takeover of HBoS, Lloyds TSB was in good shape. All of Lloyds problems relate to HBoS.
And all this pseudo anger is just an attempt to disguise the previous supplication of the government to the "masters of the universe in the city".
Furthermore, it wasn't the bankers per se who got us, or indeed themselves, into this mess, it was governments and regulators. The "housing bubbles" in America and Britain should've been stopped. Interest rates should've been much higher in 2005-2006. But, of course, when you've abolished boom and bust there is no need to worry about a possible bust.
Complain about this comment
I can see why this is a problem for all parties except the Lib Dems who seem to as always take the simplistic approach without worrying about detail.
At some point and as soon as possible the nationalised banks will need to be denationalised and they can only do this if they can operate commercially.
If the government start making them lend on different terms than their competitors then they will probably go into an ever decreasing cycle of state handouts. Similarly, they have to recruit and retain top staff on the same basis as their competitors which I'm afraid will mean bonuses at some point.
This is the root of the problem with any nationalised industry and is why we need to get them back into the private sector as soons as possible before we the taxpayer pours more money into the.
Complain about this comment
And what's gonna happen to the bonus of that banker who paid out wrongly all those billions of tax credits? And the banker who ran a budget deficit when the economy was growing above trend? And the regulator who let UK banks become the weakest-capitalised banks in any large country, incl. the US, by the end of 2006.
Oops, I think that banker and regulator may be one and the same person and currently has a job referred to as PM (some claim this now should be preceded by the S for ......... you figure it out)
Nice alliteration: "Brown Bashes Bankers' Bonuses". But Brown and Darling only until recently have asked these bankers for advice, knighted them or appointed them in some business advice council: Wanless, Crosby, Goodwin, Greenspan ....
Brown in his Mansion House Speech in 2006:
"I believe that we were right not to go down that road which in the United States led to Sarbannes-Oxley, and we were right to build upon our light touch system through the leadership of Sir Callum McCarthy - fair, proportionate, predictable and increasingly risk based."
"Let me say I see no case for a European single regulator and will continue to reject such a proposal ...."
Complain about this comment
"67. At 1:23pm on 09 Feb 2009, heskethpark wrote:
How many Tory MPs have paid directorships of banks in addition to their MP salary? Should they really be paid twice by taxpayers?"
------------------------------------------------
None. There may be MP's on the boards of other banks that have not been bailed out, but I am pretty sure that there are no Tory MP's on the boards of any high ST bank that may have received tax-payer's bailouts.
I stand to be corrected on that though!
Complain about this comment
Brown had 11 years to take action against obscene bank bonuses and yet to use his own phrase he did nothing! He was quite happy for the city bosses to be earning these bonuses when times were good and he need the tax collected on the bonuses to fund his public sector empire building and to cover up the hole left by the declining manufacturing base! It's just the same as tobacco isn't it? Government says it's not right yet where would they be without the tobacco duty money? Same principle applies here!
Complain about this comment
67/68#
Completely Irrelevant.
Cameron and Osborne werent at the wheel when this abberation happened.
Crash was. For the full 12 year stretch and if we are to believe him, he saw it coming twelve years ago and promptly did naff all apart from plot a coup to have Blair overthrown.
Try again Chaps. That was utterly feeble, uninformed, ill educated, class ridden twaddle.
Complain about this comment
How about Gordon Brown pays back his salary for introducing the regulatory system which failed to regulate, for overseeing one of the biggest house price bubbles in the western world, for giving the BoE an inflation target which explicitly excluded asset prices, for running up one of the biggest budget deficits in the western world, for overseeing one of the lowest savings ratios in the western world, for overseeing the highest level of personal debt in the western world, for cutting the net worth of the public sector in half since 1997 while at the same time public sector pension liabilities balloon out of control, for overseeing a 10 year decline in British productivity and a drastic fall in the competitiveness of UK businesses?
When Brown admits his responsibility for what happened then I'll take seriously his insistence that bankers do the same.
Complain about this comment
Ah, and Mrs Y. Cooper has joined the chorus, but maybe she and hubby should explain that one on their expenses, their normal residence and their constituency residence (or residences - I don't know) again!
Complain about this comment
54. At 12:42pm on 09 Feb 2009, moraymint wrote:
The politicians just don't get it, do they?
...Since our democratic and political processes are now collapsing as fast as our economy, I wonder how long it will be before it gets to this in the UK?
http://tinyurl.com/cn5mh5
===
Don't forget that the (Second) Home Secretary has ordered 30,000 tazer weapons for the police, so they are anticipating civil unrest.
Complain about this comment
"When will the Government (and the Opposition parties) realise that their numbers are up and start putting their houses in order?"
----------------------------------------
Well the government won't. Even though Hell has now frozen over, the infinite and unchanging constant that is labour sleaze, incompetence and waste remains. However the Tories have a long list of ways to clean up UK politics (if you believe them) but you will have to wait for Gordon Brown to grow a pair and call an election to see what is on that list.
Complain about this comment
Disingenuous is a polite word to use for a PM who is angry at the banks.
Although I like everyone else is angry at some of the decisions taken by banks I do find it an extreme irritant to see Gordon Brown being angry at them too.
He was so happy when he was seeing them pouring billions after billions year after year into the treasury.
No sign of him telling them then the boom had to come to an end before the big bust.
He became a spendaholic throwing money away on worthless schemes.
Is it the banks he is truly angry at or himself for being in La La land for too long?
Now he has no answers for the depression he has led us into would it not be better to admit it and blame himself instead of trying to find another scapegoat from wherever he can.
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
Today could have been a very great story about the comparisons between bank bonuses and the 'extras' our MP's get.
Both are tax-payer funded, both are in the headlines about 'excesses' and both are rewards for 'doing your job'.
Shame, that one is written into contracts and all above board and open, whilst the other is being fought tooth and nail to keep secret.
Just a point I thought you might like to raise today.
Xxxx
Complain about this comment
govt cant do anything?
stick a 100% income tax on bonuses
sorted
Complain about this comment
75. At 1:42pm on 09 Feb 2009, billatbasing wrote:
I find all of the Tory outrage about Jacqui Smith's expenses totally hypocritical after the Conway scandal and the Winterton's claiming expenses to pay the rent for a house that they actually owned. Still if you have a PR chief who worked for the News of The World until he was forced to resign what do you expect?
===
Labour are in power.
Conservatives are not.
Labour were elected on a no sleaze platform.
Labour are sleazy and hypocritical kleptocrats.
End of.
Move along now, nothing to see here.
Complain about this comment
The spectre of Government Ministers in the shape of John Prescott and Hazel Blears marching on the banks because of their sheer profligacy stinks of hypocrisy and frankly beggars belief. One of the major culprits in all of this was Chancellor Gordon Brown. This banker bashing is merely a ploy to deflect attention away from the secondary culprits in all of this.
Complain about this comment
It's Bash-A-Banker Week. You mean political fog week. Lets see clearly, say 2 billions in bank bonuses and the national debt at 1 trillion or put another way, 1000 billion.
Using my very mental arithmetic this is 2/1000 x 100= 0.2% This is testimony to the fact that the average voter, and there are lots and lots of them, are innumerate and do not understand how deep the hole is that the government is digging for us.
This is a government that did nothing. The Tories are a prospective government that will do nothing and Vince Cable's party is for the chop. This leaves err...nobody to do anything, except weep.
Complain about this comment
@88, "She has been claiming ?1600 a month - the market rate for a house share is ?800 a month (tops). So whilst she may not have been breaking the letter of the law, she most certainly is brreaking the spirit of it.
Then there is her claim that her sister's house is her main residency. Leaving aside the obvious points that (a. she has no equity in this home. b. her husband and children live elsewhere) her defence of spending more nights at her sister's home does not add up."
--------------------------------------
I agree. Benefit claimants are pursued by the state using anti-terrorist technology to see if someone else spends a night at their home in contravention of their benefit claims.
I cannot see ANY difference between benefit cheats and Jackie Smith's deceitful expenses claims.
OK I admit, there is a difference. The average benefit cheat does not claim as much money as the Home Secretary...
She is a disgrace and should be sacked.
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick
OH NO
Complain about this comment
What a lot of hot air in these blogs.
The Government thinks, like most all of us, that bonus's for failure are wrong but can't, constitutionally, interfere directly with this years trough. That's just the way it is - what more needs saying?
Still, I suppose Mr. Pestons' blogers do serve one useful purpose: to remind us all just what nasty, braying, hypocritical little oiks the (Tory) Central Office pack are.
Complain about this comment
# 62 purpleD
You ask:
Is this due to the BBC being: pathetic, appalling, amateurish, negligent, or incompetent?
Surely the BBC is merely following the leadership of those running the country!
ps. Sorry for the delayed reply - no doubt you'll have to wait to read this!!!
Complain about this comment
Seeing as were talking about fat cats:
Our Home Secretary earns £140,000 a year
Hubbie gets paid 40k a year for his administrative support
She claims 24k a year in expenses for her main home because she lodges with her sister during the week.
And thats the rubs isnt it, unless youre whiter than white you just cant point the finger at others and expect to be taken seriously.
Complain about this comment
When Conway and the Wintertons have been thrown out of the Tory Party and when we've found out about Mrs Spelman then the tory posters can be critical. As they represent the party of Hamilton, Aitken and Archer they should be the last people to point the finger.
Complain about this comment
"So, now our leaders are left sounding very, very cross but also rather impotent -rather as they have through much of this banking crisis."
My Goodness, Nick, I do hope you've cleared this veiled accusation of past failure by our glorious leader with the Downing Street press office.
If not, methinks your chances of a "gong" may just have been flushed down the big white telephone.
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick
OH NO ---its totally unjust to just blame the Bankers Politicians and watch dogs are EQUALLY AS GUILTY AS THE BANKERS---
whats more
"How many Markoff's are being hidden by the Governemnt, "? if the lines of Rehteric are to be believed then according to the US special Sentate investigations there are more in the pipe line to be exposed, Even Prince Charles has been hit by Markoff, and Dozens of Personalities and Politicians.
There is silence in Governemnt that has yet to explode, into the Public Domain as Whistle blowers accuse Governemnt Officials in the USA , of "evidence falling on Deaf Ears" , and that in the UK would be Ten times worse if exposed.!
Bankers have no doubt created the possiblity of Conflict, due to mass unemployment, Civil Unrest is a huge possiblity, and More Jarrow marches could pre empt severe problems for the politicains UNLESS THIS CRISIS is ended quickly,
" IT IS NOW UNEMPLOYMENT THAT IS THE ISSUE NOT BANKS." ---WE KNOW WHAT THEVE DONE.
They are making too many excuses, and not "doing enough" to pacify the General public, who are out raged at the way these issues have been dealt wiTH---
People are now suffering and against Bonus;s that is a moral crime and is
unjust ----
The back lash on this crisis is becoming a National problem not a world problem, amd saving Jobs is NOT PROTECTIONISM,
Complain about this comment
Nick,
we know that you read the comments on your blog.
I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of comments relate to the hypocrisy of the government for criticising bankers for taking bonuses that may be legally but not morally correct.
Most posters on here are more outraged about the revelations regarding the expenses claimed by Jacqui Smith, and Mr and Mrs Cooper-Balls and others.
There is also the continuing sleaze allegations against Labour peers.
Why on earth are you not doing a blog about the hypocrisy of this self-serving kleptocracy?
That is what matters to your readers/ contributors.
Complain about this comment
The government should stop bonuses in the bailed out banks - however they have not done this in Northern Rock so RBS is just the next bank to be honest.
They should then suggest if they wish to claim their contractual bonus they can sue, then they can name and shame those who wish to proceed. Embarrass them into complying, and we save cash. No bonus over £20k before all the money is paid back that has been borrowed.
We must start to look at working wages in banking/politics/councils etc. This is all far too expensive what the tax payer pays needs to be reviewed and quick - including pensions for councillors.
Complain about this comment
@107
This isn't Tory anger, I would be just as angry at a member of the Tory party in the same position. Any MP of any party should be slung out of parliament for so obviously lining their pockets at the taxpayers expense and that includes the Wintertons.
Complain about this comment
Here is a prediction:
Lost of activity, lots of promises of action, lots of things that are promised to change..
Result: nothing will happen, the bankers will trouser the bonus for this year because its probably too difficult for the government to do anything and the government will huff and puff a little more..
The review will report long after we have forgotten this and it will be slid out on a big news day - thats how Labour operate
They are in hock and in thrall to the financial sector and can't/won't do anything
Complain about this comment
Why not have a bash a banker week
Bankers have been bashing small business,s and individuals for some time ,Whlist falling over backwards to lend to anybody who asked for a few biilion anyone who asks for loans in millions must be a good risk!
Complain about this comment
Re- Jacqui Smith - as Home secretary it is her job to uphold law and order not to find ways of circumventing it for her own gain.
As for the bankers - pay them their bonuses in shares, so that they can share the pain of everyone who has lost their bank shares or who will get no dividends as decreed by Mr Darling until the bank loans are repaid.
Their bonuses would then be as worthless as our shares and pensions.
Complain about this comment
Not to forget that MPs' expenses are net of tax, so gross them up and see how that compares to gross pay outside the M25 outside the public sector.
Just a thought Jackie and Yvette!
PS Will Darling as chancellor look into what Brown conspicuously hasn't: the cash cost of public sector pensions?
Maybe that would be an interesting topic for Mr Robinson to investigate. But Mr Robinson conspicuously won't because his pension ...
... well, you figure it out! That's why the BBC leaves the topic of MPs' expenses and public sector pensions etc.
Complain about this comment
Mark (#81)
Thanks for your comments about Premiership footballers, with which I agree.
I raised the comparison to highlight why we object to banker's bonuses.
a) Almost everyone agrees that senior bankers should not be rewarded for failure. b) Most agree that senior bankers working for semi-nationalised banks should not be rewarded (though there is some confusion over bonuses paid to junior and middle-ranking staff, and even to senior managment who have been appointed to clear up the mess others have made)
c) Many others object to large bonuses precisely because they are large (regardless whether or not the bank is profitable or the employee has performed).
My comparison with Premiership footballers applies only to our attitude to the third category. I suspect more people object to a dealer in a profitable bank's trading room earning a fortune than they do to a footballer doing the same. Why is this? Perhaps banks are more associated with the middle-class, and it is less acceptable for a middle-class person to be seen to make money.
In my opinion curbing bonus culture is less a moral matter than an economic and regulatory one. Banks can never again be allowed to gamble with the future of the banking system, and by extension the economic system. This requires improved international banking regulation (bonuses were raised as issue by the IMF and G20 back in the autumn, and before our domestic politicians decided to run with it).
Complain about this comment
This may be a tad off-topic, but it involves responsibility. Ed Balls, has rightly rejected Sharon Shoesmith's declaration that she cannot be held responsible for poor Baby P's torture and subsequent death. As Head of Haringey Social Services, she must bear the responsibility for the the child suffering and dying whilst supposedly under the auspices of Social Services. By the same token, Ed Balls sits at the top of the 'pyramid' of agencies and services involved in the care, protection and safety of babies and children. He too should resign, and new people replace those who have failed our youth.
Complain about this comment
So Brown is now Mr Angry.
Shame he didn't think this problem through before he blindly brought the banks without any due diligence or in dept knowledge of their their liabilities.
No point in being angry, it would have been far better if he had been prudent but then prudence was only a 2 affair before he joined together in the duet with the banks and started singing Profligacy Profligacy Everyone's a winner babe, aided and abetted by PFI, funded by RBS and the other banks. Gordon Brown and his motley men are as guilty as the bankers and should suffer the same fate.
Resign and don't take the money. Or as Vince Cable suggests; "off with his head"
Complain about this comment
Aall well and good on the bank bonusses point, but shouldn't the same apply to governments and ministers who waste taxpayers money by witholding their pensions and expense accounts.....ask Alistair Darling how far Transport 2000 has got, or take a look at the MoD's track record of procurement.
Complain about this comment
115 Bill
Well when I was a young nipper I was told by my mum Two wrongs don't make a right.
Your point is?
Complain about this comment
The Goverrnment should only get a rise if there is an increase in GDP that is larger than the global average. They should forego their gold plated pensions.
Complain about this comment
As someone who works for a bank and who will hopefully be getting a bonus, I feel that this needs to be put into perspective. I am not one of those alleged to be in receipt of huge bonuses and my "bonus" actually forms part of what is a fair reward for the work that I have done. It is very easy to single out "bankers" as being responsible for all of this but there is a much wider, collective, responsbility.
1- What about everyone who took on the huge loans that they could not afford? A lot of them are not suffering now because the interest rate has been cut so low that they are able to continue their irresponsible, profligate spending on goods they cannot afford and do not actually need. Obviously, the government likes this because it means that they will get the votes come the next election. The victims of the interest rate cut are those who have saved all of their lives to have some retirement income (and not all of them will be bankers).
2- What about the government? Acting in concert with others, they actively encouraged low central bank interest rates which allowed all of this to be born and eventually reach the terrifying conclusion we have recently seen.
So, if I'm due to loose my bonus then we should see penalties for others too:
1 - All of the pointless trash which people have built up over the years should be confiscated and auctioned off, with proceeds going to the pensioners. In parallel, the interest rate should be ratcheted up, so that those who overspent suffer the pain they deserve;
2 - Gordon has made such a mess out of the economy over the last few years that he should forego his salary (100% of it due to the lack of performance).
How does that sound? Remember, bankers are people too and we should not all be hung out to dry. If this kind of action was taking place in a public form against other groups there would be widespread outrage.
Complain about this comment
34. At 11:59am on 09 Feb 2009, CaptainJuJu wrote:
Looks like Labour deflecting the heat from Gordon Browns' incompetencies of the last 12 years if you ask me.
I'm not saying the bankers don't deserve a damn good thrashing. But as the Chancelor who over saw (or even over looked) the impending crisis, he deserves to take a lot of the flak.
=========
Exactly, it's all bull. Keep on blaming the banks, it takes the heat off of the REAL culprit in this whole fiasco - James Gordon Brown.
Who set up the regulatory framework under which these banks operated?
Who basked in the glory of the last 10 years of economic 'boom'?
Who doesn't have the slightest idea what to do about the inevitable consequences of the biggest credit boom ever?
Same guy. he's the problem and can never be the sol-yu-shon.
Complain about this comment
billatbasing wrote:
I find all of the Tory outrage about Jacqui Smith's expenses totally hypocritical after the Conway scandal
Conway was quickly expelled from the Conservative Parliamentary Party, and will not be standing at the next election. Since the Aitkin and Hamilton scandals the Conservative Party have, to their credit, made great efforts to clean up the party. Shame Labour refuse to put their own house in order.
If found guilty (and I do say, if) I trust Smith will be expelled and will not stand at the next election (other than on an independent pro-sleaze ticket, if she wished to do so).
Complain about this comment
"Don't forget that the (Second) Home Secretary has ordered 30,000 tazer weapons for the police, so they are anticipating civil unrest."
------------------------------------------
Yellowbelly, they are anticipating much more than civil unrest.
The Authorities have already issued traffic wardens and their army of "community support officers" and other overpaid tax parasites (the non-essential sort of public workers) a set of cards that will (at some point in the future) allow them to take on the full range of police duties. (full power of arrest, the power to enter property etc etc...)
This will be done in the event of civil unrest and will allow the police to be freed-up to take on military domestic defence duties alongside the army.
This Labour government has contingencies in place that are planning on going to war with the people of this country.
I would hope that the military would take the side of the people, over the corrupt, dictatorial Government in such an event. However, goons in uniform mindlessly obey their orders, wherever in the world they are used against the powerless and the weak.
I know that there is a HUGE amount of boiling anger, fury, rage compounded by incredible amounts of frustration building in this nation.... HOWEVER, we must all keep our powder dry. IF civil unrest erupts, Gordon will call a state of Emergency and then the election is OVER. This country is OVER.
Violent civil unrest plays into their hands. Violence must NEVER be used AT ALL.
We must simply, PEACEFULLY refuse to comply.
We have not had any opportunity to vote to accept or reject the functions of the organisation that creates most of our laws.
We should neither obey those laws, nor pay for them, as we have had NO input or representation in their creation...
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
Call an election and vote none of the above, (or if you MUST vote for a candidate, make it a local independent!)
Do NOT vote for the mainstream politicians. ALL mainstream parties are infected by an organisation that is currently busy training and creating the leaders of the "post democratic society."
These new leaders of the "post-democratic society" obviously have an interest in creating a society that is "post-democratic."
How do they do that? Simple. They use their current leadership positions in society to make wildly erratic and stupid and illogical decisions that result in the slow break-down of society.
People realise that things are NOT working anymore, there is no justice, too many immigrants get given too much whilst other deserving people get nothing. Crimes are not punished and victims are victimised, the economy crashes, more and more sleaze and corruption comes to light and all the anger builds until BANG!!!
Mass riots in the streets, buildings and property engulfed in flames. Politicians, police and other authority figures start being killed.
That is when the Civil Contingencies Act is called and elections ended.
In place of a democratic society, a new society is created that is "post-democratic" and the full weight of the technological stazi military police state fall upon us all, to be tagged, tracked and controlled utterly. NO rights to complain, demonstrate, or even have the freedom of choice over career or family. Children to be handed over to the state to be raised for the state's ends as property of the state.
The "post democratic" society is a socialist utopia, for the fat rulers. It will be a living hell for everyone else.
We must not allow it to happen.
Complain about this comment
Garthking ...
... please note that I'm not in the UK (thankfully) and wasn't allowed to vote for parliament whilst living in the UK (I'm from abroad, not a criminal).
What I noticed in the UK was how much of my tax money (silly me, I did pay) was wasted. Councils are criminal with their quasi monopoly on education and using 25% of your council tax to fund the local authorities pensions scheme! Looking at the sidewalks or the road pavements, the school buildings and what have you, it does not take a genius to figure out that most of UK tax payers' money gets wasted. It's offensive for those who contribute and hardly atke anything out of the system except bi-weekly garbage collection and unwanted five-a-day advice.
Apologies for my tangent rant, but the public sector fat cats are not just fat, but they don't even eat mice (i.e. they don't their work).
Cheeriu!
Complain about this comment
Hold on.... we OWN most of the banks.
It's quite simple - let them pay whatever bonusses they would have paid WITHOUT being dug out of the s**t with OUR money.
If the answer is that they would have gone bust then the answer to bonusses is NIL.
If they refuse to act sensibly then all Brown does is make ALL OUR money repayable immediately.
Simple isn't it? It's hardly a new issue though - it was raised BEFORE we gave them a penny. That it was not resolved at the time is just incompetence from Brown (understandably maybe as he was busy saving the world)...
By the way Nick, where's your condemnation of Jacqui Smith acting like a benefit cheat?
Complain about this comment
It's like them essex banking boys were given the keys to the ferrari company car but then they drunk & drive.
Complain about this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INAGMSARPYw
Oh, talking of economic armageddon, can I suggest that this link might provide a reliable insight into the real problems we face.
It really does give you the impression that politicians are just guessing. they haven't got a clue what to do other than throw more and more of OUR money at the problem.
Complain about this comment
pettifogger - no matter how sorry we may feel for you, the fact is that you work for a business that has gone bust.
Given that the business is bust, who do you expect to pay the cost of your bonus?
Would we expect the same sympathy for Woolies employees who didn't get their bonusses at year end? Shoudl I pay theirs as well?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hello,
Don't normally get 'wound-up' in matters Politics but could someone answer my question regarding these Bonuses for failure?
As we are the majority shareholder (taxpayers) can we not revoke the Bankers Bonuses?
Thanks,
Ben
Complain about this comment
The investigation into the Second Home Secretary's creative use of our money reveals that she is on the electoral roll both in London and in Redditch.
Isn't that illegal?
Also, if her main home is in London, then she is abusing the system by having a second home so that her children can get into local schools in Redditch. Should they not be going to school in London? After all, that is where she lives. The local authority should be investigating her under RIPA!
Or is it that she is legally estranged from her husband but we don't know about it? That would be easily resolved with an announcement.
And if her home is in London is it an efficient business arrangement to employ her husband on GBP40,000 a year of our money to be a researcher some 150 miles away?
Nick, I think we need and deserve to know!
Complain about this comment
pettifogger @ 131:
Well said. The truth may be unpalatable but it has to be faced!
Complain about this comment
# 102 yellowbelly1959
Thanks for picking up on my post. Just a point of detail. I think the Government intends to purchase 10,000 Taser Guns for use by up to 30,000 police officers ...
http://tinyurl.com/63y4kp
... but, it does make you wonder just what our glorious political leaders have in mind if they think that they might need our wonderful policemen to stun 10,000 citizens in the (presumably near) future? Are city centre Happy Hours really causing that much bother?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist or a wild survivalist-type, but I'm getting the creeping suspicion that civil unrest could be being contemplated by both sides at the moment: us punch-drunk, counter-sunk and soon-to-be-robbed-blind citizens on the one side, and our glorious political leaders on the other.
Should be interesting to see how the G20 Conference shapes up in London in April. Gordon Brown must be seriously worried about being upstaged there, I would imagine.
The Labour Government is losing control of this situation faster than most people care to imagine. This latest attempt at courting popularity by bashing bankers is just one more example of the Government's desparation. I think history tells us that desparate politicians can easily become dangerous politicians if the usual democratic norms can't be applied: and, sure as hell, this Government's track record is to suppress with a vengeance the democratic process. Our Supreme Leader's rise to power bears witness to this.
Who would have thought the Blair/Brown Dream Ticket would have come to this unholy mess, eh?
Complain about this comment
115. At 3:38pm on 09 Feb 2009, billatbasing wrote:
When Conway and the Wintertons have been thrown out of the Tory Party and when we've found out about Mrs Spelman then the tory posters can be critical. As they represent the party of Hamilton, Aitken and Archer they should be the last people to point the finger.
===
The Conservatives are not pointing the finger, it is the vast majority of posters on here. Do you not understand the anger of most of the electorate, or are you clinging to the Tory trolls conspiracy theory?
Complain about this comment
@131
Sorry but your post just makes me think you doth protest too much.
You doing your job was the whole of point one. allowing people to overstretch themselves. Its your and your kinds responsibility to stop them doing that.
In the past thats always how it was but now thanks to your bonus seeking target culture you took too much risk for your business.
Brown was wrong to bail out the money lenders. Let them fall! Joking or not Cable has it right, Off with the heads of everyone that had anything to do with this.
Complain about this comment
@133
She should be expelled before the investigation even gets underway, thats what they did to Conway was it not?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Crash maybe angry, but that is all he can be. He appear unable, yet again, to achieve anything so he is jumping on the band wagon critising those terrible bankers whose fault this re ... depression is!.
Wait a moment, I thought Crash has blamed the current problems on America, now it's the bankers, who next?
Of course it has nothing to do with him and his years of credit taking off the backs of those bankers.
Nick, stop allowing yourself to be distracted from the real culprits for this recession and pandering to the Labour Party line.
The blame lies fairly and squarely
PM Crash Gordon.
Ex-chancellor Crash Gordon.
And his 10 years of economic mismanagement of this country.
Stop being a stooge, Nick.
Complain about this comment
At 1.00p.m. nick added
"All know that taxpayers picked up the bill to re-capitalise the banks last October after a weekend of emergency talks provoked by fears that some would collapse. Ministers promised that there would be "strings attached" for the billions of public money spent but, I'm told, "didn't have time" to work out which strings would be attached or how.
So, now our leaders are left sounding very, very cross but also rather impotent -rather as they have through much of this banking crisis."
===
So from October through to February with no action from the Government on the issue of bonuses.
That makes Labour the "Do Nothing" party!!
Complain about this comment
I am starting to feel sorry for the bankers. Genuinely.
I mean, everyone was doing exactly the same thing (creating debt without assets to back them, selling them on, creating debt off the back of the new asset etc).
Why? Because they could and as soon as somebody did, they all had to do so in order to compete successfully. If they didn't, they failed. Natural selection using market forces.
Somebody was always going to do this in a system where the regulations allowed them to. And it was always going to pan out something like this.
I am reminded of the phrase:
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
It's the same point with Jacqui Smith.
The difference is that she is partly responsible for the rules of the game.
As Gordon Brown is partly responsible for the rules of the game concerning the bankers bonuses.
But Gordon is responsible for a lot more rules and regulations. Or lack thereof.
Complain about this comment
pettifogger wrote:
As someone who works for a bank and who will hopefully be getting a bonus, I feel that this needs to be put into perspective.
You mention that you work for a bank - but not which one. If you work a bank like HSBC or Barclays which appears to be both well run and profitable then the bank's profits will be paying your bonus.
However, if you work for a bank like RBS which has made a massive loss AND had billions of funding from the government then your bonus will be paid from the tax payer.
Most people don't have a problem with well run profitable companies paying their staff bonuses, but we do have a problem with companies which have had a massive injection of tax payers money handing out bonuses to staff who are lucky still to have a job.
1- What about everyone who took on the huge loans that they could not afford? A lot of them are not suffering now because the interest rate has been cut so low
I don't work in the banking sector but most loans I have seen usually have fixed rates of interest (so wouldn't benefit from rate cuts). Mortgages are different - and the banks having to call in the sub-prime mortgages is part of what caused this problem in the first place.
I believe that it is the lender's job to make sure (s)he lends to people who can pay it back - you wouldn't lend money to a man in a street without knowing if they were willing/able to pay it back.
So, if I'm due to loose my bonus then we should see penalties for others too:
1 - All of the pointless trash which people have built up over the years should be confiscated and auctioned off, with proceeds going to the pensioners. In parallel, the interest rate should be ratcheted up, so that those who overspent suffer the pain they deserve
Resulting in loans being called in and the banks getting goods which aren't worth the loan covering them - which means the banks lose more money and requiring more government cash to pay your bonuses?
How does that sound? Remember, bankers are people too and we should not all be hung out to dry. If this kind of action was taking place in a public form against other groups there would be widespread outrage.
Most people don't have a problem with the concept of a "bonus" for a job well done, however these bonuses have to be paid out of a company's profits and not money that they have been given by the government to keep trading.
Bankers are not being hung out to dry - the government have invested billions to save their jobs. If you want to see employees who have been hung out to dry speak to the people who used to work for Woolworths, or MFI or any of the hundreds of other companies that have gone bust. You may not get a bonus this year, boo hoo! But at least you still have a job.
Complain about this comment
131#
I'm not sure theres any "other groups" out there who the public are baling out and will end up in hock paying for, for at least a generation.
If you offer people cheap and easy money, constantly trying to outbid each other to give it away, what on earth do you expect, when the less bright and more profligate say "yes, we'll have some of that"??? The criteria under which individual banks chose to lend is not something the public can influence. Parliament or the BOE could impose restrictions, but have chosen not to. That has been a decision purely down to the banks. There aint no way you can shirk that off onto Joe Public.
In addition, arent 80% of these toxic loans to overseas companies and countries? Whats that got to do with Wayne and Waynetta maxing out their credit card on faux-luxury goods?
I took on a mortgage at the top of the market in Nov 07. I'm not suffering because of that, I can afford it - but things like life assurance, fuel bills, cost of petrol/diesel etc are what are doing the damage. What gives you the right to decide what is "worthless trash" and what isnt?
Those who have never worked in the City or in a bank seem to think that everyone gets wheelbarrow loads of cash every year when its bonus time. It isnt like that. My wife worked in the city in a treasury department for the best part of 20 years, she was damn good at what she did, the company were successful and the biggest bonus she ever saw was 1500. Eventually, she decided she'd had enough and got out.
I've only ever worked for one company in 30 years where there has been a bonus and that wasnt even 10% of salary, let alone multiples of salary.
Get over it man. Chances are, because we are ruled by a bunch of kleptocratic jellybacks who will say anything to stay in power chances are you'll still get your precious "bonus", whilst chances are, the pensioners who you think should get the proceeds of the auctioned off "trash" will still go cold... thanks to your compadres trading in energy derivatives in the summer fuelling their precious "bonuses"....
Sorry chap. Not going to find an awful lot of support on here.
Complain about this comment
Careful all you politicians! A huge case of the the pot calling the kettle black is clearly on display here.
I suggest that everyone at Westminster takes a very careful look at their own excesses - Yes MPs expenses - before they start finger pointing.
In biblical terrms (apologies to all non christians or non belivers) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
Now Gordon Brown - with his upbringing as the son of a Scottish Church Minister - should really be familiar with that one!
It makes me sick to the core when greedy bankers pay themselves for failure - that's what started the Wall Street crash and the Great Depression. But I vomit in disgust at self serving, double faced politicians who bay like a pack of wild dogs at others and protect themselves like a pack of wild dogs when attacked.
Bring on the good old fashioned British Lion (yes - it's us the voting nation) to devour these unsavory creatures who claim to bark in our name - but not in mine please.
Back to your den of iniquity you loathsome creatures!
Complain about this comment
#131 Pettifogger
I would reserve my sympathy for the pensioners who responsibly invested in banks many years ago and now have nothing, whose assets have been diminished and income from interest reduced to a pittance. They can receive no dividend but you should receive your bonus?
Pity the small business that trades profitably but needs the bank to fund the ebb and flow of funds - but the bank has withdrawn their credit facility. Pity the employees that have lost their jobs as a result.
These are the innocents, you have a job many would argue that many bankers should be receiving P45's not bonuses at this stage.
I make no excuse for the feckless people who have borrowed beyond their means or Gordon's fiscal incompetence but remember that bankers have now joined the ranks of the untouchables along with politicians, tabloid journalists and estate agents.
So sorry but my sympathies lie elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
The rest of Europe's laughing it's head off at the UK: the current line is that the absence of the UK from that Czech sculture was simply an indication of its government's management ability.
Complain about this comment
#46 Sparklet
Agreed.
We should go back to post war Austerity and put up Nissen huts in Green Park or the gardens of Buck House. MPs could sleep there for free but ban all 2nd home allowances.
There would still be queues to become parliamentary candidates in winnable seats.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
131 pettitfogger
As someone who works for a bank and who will hopefully be getting a bonus, I feel that this needs to be put into perspective. I am not one of those alleged to be in receipt of huge bonuses and my "bonus" actually forms part of what is a fair reward for the work that I have done.
.........................................................
As someone who pays taxes, and has seen quite a large proprtion of those taxes used to bail out the greedy banks, I feel that you should think yourself lucky to have a bloody job! Some of us out here do not have that luxury!
You'll forgive me if I don't share your views.
Complain about this comment
Alistair Darling has identified the correct question - why should a banker earn several orders of magnitude more than a heart surgeon.
The answer is that they shoudln't of course. Until we can curb human nature, we will keep coming up with imaginative , complex and ultimately flawed renumeration packages, all of which are fig leaves trying to cover human greed.
The current debacle has erupted like a volcano which periodically blows to relieve the underlying pressures. Yes, you have to clean up the mess made by the eruption, but you also need to address the underlying pressures which have been steadily building over the years.
In the case of the "credit crunch" it is greed, both personal and corporate. It is barely the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, but in the 150 years since "On the origin of species" was published, how far have we really managed to drag ourselves?
Complain about this comment
Guys, you can keep on bringing up Conway (expelled), Aitken (jailed, served his time), Archer (likewise), the Hamiltons (bankrupted, no longer in Parliament)... but it makes no odds. The Tories aint in power and havent been for over a decade. They paid the price for their sleaze! Zanu Lieboor havent yet, but they will at the next election.
You cant rebutt this, no this time.... Labour were elected on an anti sleaze ticket - we'll be whiter than white, Blair said - and have been spectacularly found out. You're every bit as bad as the Tories were, and if anything worse - because you've politicised the Police, no-one in Government has been sent down for what they've done. You cant spin your way out of this. Your defence of these kleptocratic jellybacks is not only hollow, but convinces nobody.
Complain about this comment
133:
Totally agree. On current polling indications Jacqui Smith will lose her parliamentary seat anyway so perhaps she is siphoning funds from the trough while she can and before she is chucked out.
Complain about this comment
There's a lot of people out there thinking the entire machine is tarred with the same stick from the extreme right, through the centre, to the extreme left.
In a word, the one qualification you need to be a politician, sounding plausible, is the one thing which should disqualify you from being allowed to stand. The place is rotten from end to end with failed teachers, failed lawyers, and failed actors. It's a pity they don't have some successful managers in there - Parliamentary Apprentice, anyone?
Complain about this comment
Re 131, the banker who says he deserves a bonus.
It is not clear whether you work for a bank which has been nationalised or bailed out by the tax payer. Either way your bank owes billions to the taxpayer and until its all paid off no banker deserves any bonus.
There are millions suffering today because of the negligence of Gordon Brown and the banks.
You don't get a bonus as a reward for doing your job. If your company is underperforming then tough. You should thank your lucky stars you still have a job.
If your bank was making a profit, only then will could you be entitled to a bonus and only then when every penny you owe the taxpayer is given back.
How many ordinary workers are loosing a bonus because of their firms inability to trade due to a lack of credit?
Complain about this comment
billatbasing
I find all of the Tory outrage about Jacqui Smith's expenses totally hypocritical after the Conway scandal
...........................................................
Bill - are you related to grandantidote?
Complain about this comment
Well, you found out what they're going to do. Didn't take long, did it? I'm surprised that Blears hasn't recommended an 'Army of Mums' to storm the boardrooms.
And, 'Wake up and smell the coffee'. Oh, dear me. Another meaningless phrase, much favoured by people who also tend to offer 'End of' and 'lighten up' as argument-clinchers.
Vince Cable's gilloutine... now that idea has some merits.
Complain about this comment
117. freecornwall
Have they discovered oil off St Ives?
Complain about this comment
What about some real journalism, Nick, instead of all this Gordon Brown pro Labour PR stuff ??? No credibility whatsoever!!!
Complain about this comment
115. At 3:38pm on 09 Feb 2009, billatbasing wrote:
When Conway and the Wintertons have been thrown out of the Tory Party and when we've found out about Mrs Spelman then the tory posters can be critical. As they represent the party of Hamilton, Aitken and Archer they should be the last people to point the finger.
=======
I've voted Tory all my life. There, I said it! But, as far as I'm concerned and I'd wager many other right leaning posters, Conway and Winterton as well as Spelman can get lost along with anyone else caught fiddling.
The left just don't seem to get it, do they. This isn't a party political thing, it's a politician thing. They, whatever rosette they hide behind, need to be responsible to US, the voter. I don't care what party is 'at it', I just want honest government.
Is that too much to ask?
Complain about this comment
#131 pettifogger
Get out of here you pariah! Begone! ;-)
You're right about perspective there.
Gordon is VERY ANGRY at RBS paying out £1bn in bonuses. As you say, it's part of your contractual remuneration, as a bank employee.
Well, he's in the perfect position to do something about it. So instead of being VERY ANGRY why doesn't he do something about it?
RBS cannot not pay it (excuse the double negative) - it's contractual. Their staff would be rightly aggrieved if it were not paid. RBS may, in fact, have been looking for a way out from the government.
Anyway, back to perspective, how much money will have been wasted as a result of this lack of regulation? A billion pounds of bonuses is a drop in the ocean. That's one days worth of snow, apparently.
Millions of people face serious financial hardship because of the deregulation that took place under Gordon Brown's time as chancellor. If he does not accept the responsibility for that, who cares whether the banks take responsibility for their role in it?
Pay the bonuses, I say. I wouldn't listen to Gordon Brown in this case either.
Complain about this comment
133. johnharris66
I dont think Ive ever seen anyone defend Conway on here.
I dont judge all MPs because of the way that one behaves, but I do judge the government on the way that it deals with the rogue elements and its refusal to get to grips with the corruption
Brown couldnt even be bothered to turn up and vote on the expenses issue.
Complain about this comment
142. yellowbelly195
Nick wont reply so I will....
Quick Quick look over there, its a greedy banker..
Complain about this comment
yellowbelly1959 wrote:
The investigation into the Second Home Secretary's creative use of our money reveals that she is on the electoral roll both in London and in Redditch.
Isn't that illegal?
You would certainly think so! But I think it may only be illegal if you vote in both places!
Although, as her main residence is in London then by rights she would vote there - which would mean that she wouldn't even get her own vote! She would still get at least one vote as I doubt her husband would want to lose his very well paid job on her staff!
Complain about this comment
Re: johnharris66
"If found guilty. I trust Smith will be expelled"
The Home Sec. will not be found guilty of breaking any Parliamentary rules. Although not because she is innocent; Jacqui Smith has clearly circumvented the truth about her living arrangements (on paper at least), to maximize her expenses. In any other walk of life, she would be facing certain dismissal and probably a police fraud investigation. But our Parliamentary masters have created a set of rules, with so many loopholes, and ill defined expressions – that a system supposedly designed to compensate MPs for the expense of keeping homes in both their consistencies and London, can be warped to buy holiday homes in the country. Or as in this case – help finance the main family home.
I’m afraid that MPs and other members of the Westminster bubble – like Mr. Robinson – have become so use to this sate of affairs that they cannot understand the public’s anger. Today on the Radio, Nick stated quite correctly, that as the case had been reported, no rules had been broken; ergo he claimed there was no story.
What a sorry state of affairs we have come to. The Home Secretary has broken the spirit of the rules. The spare-room at her sister’s house is not her main home, that much is as clear, as black is black and white is white; but because she lies with a straight face and without breaking some badly drafted rule, the BBC chose to turn a blind eye.
Nick – she is the Home Secretary. As custodian of that office she should both uphold the letter and the spirit of the law. That is what we – the electorate – expect. It is quite simple and it is not too much to ask. This is not a non-story because Parliament’s rules have not been broken. Quite the contrary, it is even more of a story because of this salient fact. It shows that MPs are incapable of governing their own pay and expenses. We are told that the Second Homes Allowance is difficult to administer, because defining what is and what is not a second vs. primary home, is problematic. Rubbish – in this instance, the primary home should be in the MPs constituency, while the second home, must be within the M25; one simple rule, eliminates all the confusion (and dare I say it fiddles). The fact that Jacqui will be exonerated, demonstrates why it is necessary for all MPs expenses to be published in full WITH receipts; because we cannot rely on either the parliamentary authorities or our state broadcaster to shine a light on our political master’s excesses.
Now I have nothing personal against our Home Sec. – she is working in an environment, where it is clearly deemed as acceptable to bend definitions to procure extra expenses. She is also maximizing her earnings, when she must know that come the next election, she will lose her job as Home Sec. and quite possibly her seat. She has a family to look after and no doubt she wants to secure her children’s future; as do we all. I suspect that she is naturally an honest woman, who entered the political world not for personal enrichment but to help her fellow countrymen and women. But for the longer-term health of our political discourse, her hypocrisy over expenses and that of her colleagues needs to be exposed. If only Nick was up to the job. Instead of being just one of the boys… Shame!
Complain about this comment
Nick, where are your thoughts on more Labour Sleaze thats in the papers today.
Are you not allowed to publish them?
Complain about this comment
Speaking in London, Mr Brown said: "We are leading the world in sweeping away the old short term bonus culture of the past and replacing it with a determination that there are no rewards for failure and rewards only for long-term success."
"Leading the world"....does he actually believe this stuff! He should be sectioned - he's clearly lost the plot. He mentions "France, America..." - what? What about them???? The only time they pay any attention to what Brown is on about is to criticise him! Why on earth would they follow what Brown is doing??
The funniest thing is that he made this statement I guess early this morning. Then when Downing Street realised this was a piping hot potato they released a statement saying he was "very angry"! What was the catalyst for this anger. Why wasn't he angry when he made the statement.
The man is a joke. The British public is hurtling down the M666 towards Economic Doomsville (population 60m) in a giant shed of a bus, driven by Brown. Darling's the conductor and we're all paying double. Apart from Jacqui Smith - we're dropping her off at her sister's, I mean at her primary address! Stop, I want to get off!!!
Complain about this comment
This government have raided our private sector pensions, while advancing the value of their own. We were encouraged to invest in business, by this government so we purchased stocks and shares. They have reduced in value by up to 40% in the past year.
The level of taxation has risen from 37% of GDP to 43% under this government. Do we see any quid pro quo for this additional charge? Not from where I am sitting. At the same time, we are persecuted for doing things that were legal before they arrived. This has led to 1000 new crimes we can be arrested for, and has led to an explosion of cost in publicly funded court fees, yet the serious criminals are rarely sent to jail. If they are, locked away, they are released early, to make room for others, also to be released early in due course. Our borders have disappeared, unless you have been resident in the UK and travel in which case you will be monitored as never before.
While all this is happening our Home Secretary chooses to claim support for a second home that is her sister’s house and we pay extra to protect her for so doing!!
I have a simple question, how much longer do they think we will tolerate this?
RJ
Complain about this comment
pettifogger 131
I too believe it is Government spin, it is a way of blaming the banks for everthing, so that Browns failure is hidden behind the anger at the banks. Unfortunately the public is falling for it. I know you are probably one of the many bank employees just doing the job you have always done, getting a small bonus once a year as a reward for small wages.
You were probably of of the many bank workers who could see this coming, when Brown who saved the world could not. You are probably one of the people who have acted responsibly and saved your money and are suffering now. No one sees it that way because the Government has deliberately made banks their target dispite the fact it is really only the top bankers who are to blame. The ones G. Brown has been hand in glove with for years, when he was making his fat profit out of them and allowing the credit bubble to mount. You are exactly right the interest rates should have gone up to stabilize the banks, but Brown chose votes instead.
You have my sympathy if no one elses.
Complain about this comment
The plethora of phoney politically driven anger merchants at banker bonuses should remember that some banks are still profitable and so have no reason not to pay bonuses.
But, as a retired banker, they should also note that some of us (including me) did lose a good part of some years' bonuses (through the restricted stock and option schemes) as the bank involved did not hit its performance targets in the timeframes identified under the schemes.
It is not, for many of us, as cosy as in some industries and authorities ( and dare I say perhaps government departments) where they pay bonuses irrespective of performance.
Should unprofitable banks pay bonuses? No! Is it right for government to dictate the level of bonus? No, unless, when they offer bail out money, they make that a precondition. But , even then, where there are contractual arrangements even governments (and oppositions) should realise that they have to abide by the law.
Complain about this comment
Yes it may be 'unfair' that bankers within failing institutions get bonuses. However consider this: within each bank there are multiple departments. Some of these departments have taken massive gambles and lost huge amounts of money. Quite clearly these departments do not deserve (and probably will not get) bonuses this year.
However within these same banks there will be departments, like corporate finance, which have been working away during the past year and have actually turned over profits. Now these profits may be shadowed by the deficits of other departments, so the bank as a whole is deemed to be failing, yet if the top people in these departments, who have been reaching and exceeding expectations, are subjected to the same blanket rule regarding no bonuses, then they will leave and go elsewhere where a bonus can be achieved. For a bank that may only have a few profitable departments, this would be a huge loss.
So when demanding the heads of all bankers, consider those who have done well this year and ask yourself whether you would prefer taxpayers' money to be looked after by the best in the business, or by whoever is willing to do the job with no bonus in sight.
Complain about this comment
Plenty of hand wringing from the Government...yet again. In any "normal" take over of a failed (bankrupt) company such as RBS the company now in charge call the shots....that includes from Day1 controlling the ethics of the Company. The taxpayer now owns 70% of RBS so what on earth is stopping the Government blocking all of the bonuses? To hide behind "contracts" is showing there is zero backbone.
Nick why do you never put a shot up this ineffective government?
Complain about this comment
#46 Ssparklet
#156 Brownedov
The answer is even simpler than that.
After the 2012 there will be empty accomodation blocks at the Olympics site.
There will also be a transport link into central London.
From 2012 any MP with a constituency outside the M25 perimeter can lodge free of charge at the Olympics site accomodation. No need for John Lewis lists, and no funding by us of MPs' mortgages.
Any MP with a constituency within the M25 can commute like millions of others.
If public transport is not to their liking, that would sharpen the minds of those that matter to improve it.
Sorted!
Complain about this comment
Anything to say about the 'bonuses' taken by MPs and Lords?
Waiting, waiting, waiting?
Complain about this comment
Of course it's obvious for all to see.
All this furore and bank bashing serves to incur the wrath of us all to such a degree that when Brown announces the part they will play in the New World Order we will all throw up our hands and say "thank God, it's got to be the answer".
Why have we heard nothing, not one dickybird from any Bank big wigs? Brown has the sticky tape across their mouths with the promise of a big slice of the pie in the new World Banks which will emerge.
Brown and Blair are masters of deception from climate change, the hoax which is fooling billions, to the current economic situation which should not have happened given that Brown himself actually set up the FSA which appears not to have done its job properly.
Well it did its job properly according to Brown's job description of it but not by the ordinary, unaware, deceived British public.
Complain about this comment
141. At 4:10pm on 09 Feb 2009, benprit wrote:
Hello,
Don't normally get 'wound-up' in matters Politics but could someone answer my question regarding these Bonuses for failure?
As we are the majority shareholder (taxpayers) can we not revoke the Bankers Bonuses?
Thanks,
Ben
Shareholders can not revoke contracts of employment.
Run this:
You work for a company, your contract says you get a basic salary of 100k plus 10 percent of the profits.
I buy a majority stake in this company and decide not to give you a bonus.
How you feeling?
Complain about this comment
Looks like your going to be reposting Mr Robinson, clarifying yet another one of your articles!.
Even if you wish to ignore the latest government scandal, I note that virtually all the posters have the same message to give...why don't you investigate Jacqui Smiths so called expenses?.
You are after all supposed to be the BBC's main political commentator, which I would have imagined meant that a political story that has been picked up by ALL news outlets in the UK, would have been exactly the sort of article you should have written.
Complain about this comment
161. rahere
Nahhh the moneys rubbish.
Complain about this comment
For the record, I work for a bank which has not taken any government money.
And in terms of being responsible for the actions of those who take loans that they cannot afford, that surely would amount to me being a social worker. In which case, if we follow the logic that has happened with a few social workers in the public sector over recent years when they've done wrong, we should be allowed to continue in our roles without any loss of payment or punishment. Obviously that's not going to happen - as one poster said, there's not going to be a lot of sympathy on this board for me or my ilk. But remember this - in the same way that the vast majority of social workers are very good at their job (which is normally financially undervalued), the majority of bank employees ("bankers") are also very good at their job (although most are not financially undervalued). As 143 said - "the truth may be unpalatable but it has to be faced".
Complain about this comment
136. graemepirie
The trouble is that the government bought into them as a going concern and did not allow them to go into liquidation and then just scoop up the assets.
So all the contracts of employment stand.
Complain about this comment
For both the bankers and Mr Brown, there are only 4 possibilities:
a) They saw the crash coming and deliberately chose to do nothing, in which case they're guilty of leading the country into economic destruction.
b) They saw it coming, didn't know what to do about it so did nothing and kept quiet, in which case they're guilty, dishonest, and cowardly.
c) They saw it coming, tried to do something about it but it didn’t work and still kept quiet, in which case they're guilty, dishonest, cowardly, and incompetent.
d) They didn’t see it coming, in which case they're deaf, stupid, and incompetent.
In none of these cases can I conceive of a bonus being appropriate. But at least the bankers never claimed to have "ended boom and bust".
Complain about this comment
161. rahere
What we actually need is 646 Martin Bells who will stand on an anti sleaze ticket.
Manifesto pledge
1. Suspend all normal operations for 6 months. (who,d notice)
2. Clean up politics with a whole new set of rules for MPs and Lords.
3. Reduce the number of MPs by half and double their pay.
4. Call an election on month 7.
Complain about this comment
pettifogger @131
It all depends which bank you work for.
If your bank did not take public money then it is truly none of my business.
If, on the other hand, my taxes (which I can ill afford) bailed out your bank, then you deserve zilch. In fact, you are lucky to have a job at all. Say 'thank you' and maintain a decent silence.
I agree that others are also at fault: stupid people who borrowed beyond their capacity to pay back; greedy investors who believed in an ever expanding balloon; and this criminally negligent government who presided over the whole fiasco. Hopefully they'll all get their comeuppance in due course (especially Brown and Darling).
Complain about this comment
It is not moral that the banks should pay bonuses whilst being propped up by the taxpayer. I am not getting a dividend on my TSB shares so why should anyone else profit.
G Brown has a short memory; when the floods covered a large proportion of the country last year did the bonuses for the dept of the enviornment get paid?
Why do civil servants have bonuses?
Why are we paying MPs expenses that we do not get receipts for, or have full knowledge about?
All very interesting this talk about morality from MPs. I look forward to the next instalment.
Complain about this comment
Just now on Channel 4 news.
Gordon Brown on the subject of bonuses:
'We are leading the world...'
The man's in a world of his own.
Complain about this comment
134#
Purple:
Theres no way the troops would take the side of the politicians. No way.
Not the way they've been treated by this shower.
Add to the fact, there isnt enough of them. And, a significant percentage are in Iraq or Afghan. You could fit the entire army into Wembley Stadium these days. The entire RAF into Old Trafford and still have room for the real Man U fans who were born there... and the whole of the navy into an average Championship ground, such as Coventry.
There isnt enough of them. And, they havent got the leadership to mount a coup, in the event of things turning really ugly.
Dunno how the cops would behave though. Given how much they've been politicised. Might find a few takers for it at ACPO level, but your average constable, outside of the big cities....
I sincerely hope you're being overdramatic.
That awful sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach tells me that perhaps you're not.
Complain about this comment
I find all of the Tory outrage about Jacqui Smith's expenses totally hypocritical after the Conway scandal
-----------------------------------------------------
As they represent the party of Hamilton, Aitken and Archer they should be the last people to point the finger.
----------------------------------------------------------
Aitken and Archer were Jailed, Hamilton was disgraced and lost his seat and as for Conway disgrace awaits him and he will also loose his seat.
Now what about the Labour sleaze merchants ?
Complain about this comment
Im assuming that there are some moderation jobs going.
Can I have an application form please.
Complain about this comment
If Labour insist on calling the Tories the "do nothing" party, then over the past 6 months Labour can be called:
The "Do anything at any cost to look like we're doing something" party.... with regard to the VAT cut that no-one has said was a good idea.
The "Rabbits-in-a-headlight throw money at the problem" party, for both bank bailouts.
"The spend taxpayers money without due dilligence" party, for buying banks that have collossal amounts of debt, without checking first.
The "Has deserted the poor after 12 years in power, just like the Tories did" party.
Or hows about the "Just like every other sleazy, self-serving, incompetant party" party.
I'd say call an election now, but who do you vote for?
We need an independant candidate in every ward to stand on a "none of the above" ticket. And for everyone to get out there and work for them and vote for them.
Lets get these quasi-criminals out of office, before they make us all real criminals.
Complain about this comment
Like it or not we need the banking system. Brown knows this but has to show his normal hypocritical side to save face.
Otherwise why has it been o.k. for the banks to operate unchecked while labour have been in power. Brown has known all along what was going on but his greed for tax revenue kept him quiet.
It can be guaranteed that the banks will pay out a bonus in some way or other. The politicians may windbag about this but they are not going to bite off the hand that either does or will in the future feed them.
If Brown really belives success and not failure should be rewarded he should quit today. He is the biggest failure!!
Complain about this comment
The bonuses which these bankers are due to receive should be put into a fund which remains the property of the bank/taxpayer until they have invested it wisely enough and the fund has grown to level where their bonuses can be paid to them but the original bonus fund remains in the bank for better use for its customers. See if they can make a reasonable level of interest in this climate ans show us they know their stuff.
Complain about this comment
#2 phoenixarisenq
"but Haze; Blears suggestion of bringing the women in, sends shudders through any red-blooded man."
Look, many, perhaps even most, women in high profile jobs send shudders through any red-blooded woman. They can be seen to be letting the side down you see. But don't be fooled. There are plenty women out there who could take on anyone and win.
Those embarrassing Labour women are not representative of all of us, thankfully.
Complain about this comment
Two thoughts - bit crazy really.
Firstly. The bonuses really annoy me, because I, like so many people, worked to targets with the aim of improving the organisation I worked for. I didn't get a bonus because improving your performance is what everyone should be working towards, otherwise how can you justify a pay rise? Anyway, I think that the government should tax all bonuses above 20% of the annual salary (I'm feeling generous) at 99%.
Secondly we should show our disapproval of the banks by all going to our branches on the same day and withdrawing a sum of money in cash (could be £10, could be up to the maximum thay allow). If you do the sums, it wouldn't take much for branches to run short of cash. The sums of money involved wouldn't put the banks at risk, but it would put these barrow boys with posh accents in their place.
Complain about this comment
Sarah:
No disrespect, but if a generation of debt buys us the "best in the business", you can keep it, thanks very much....
Complain about this comment
We are talking about two UK taxpayer-supported banks here- who between them pay only a tiny fraction of the bonuses paid to UK-based finance staff- most are paid by overseas-registered banks- nothing to do with the UK government. Very few people at Lloyds-HBOS are affected, so it's really RBS staff who are the taxpayer's chief concern.
There's a very clear distinction to be made between those 1% at very senior levels of RBS who were involved in the calamities of 2002-7, and the other 99%- the bank's foot-soldiers- who had absolutely nothing to do with toxic debt, or any of the massive losses- except in some cases to be made redundant through no fault of their own. Some of these people who produced large profits for RBS and Lloyds/HBOS are hard-working, talented people who have the option (like Premiership footballers) to transfer to another bank.
Look at the losses made by RBS thus far- around 20 Billion on the ABN Amro takeover- for which Fred Goodwin and a couple of others only should take the blame, and around the same amount on toxic mainly US mortgaged-backed debt. This was the responsibility of a very small number of people at the top of RBS- those responsible for the bank's overall strategy. Few of them are left, and there's little to be gained in blaming the recently-appointed directors for their predecessors' crimes / negligence.
Bonuses at all banks should be kept to a minimum, but it would be bad for the taxpayer not to pay any to the deserving, profit-making staff at RBS and LLoyds / HBOS.
Without their efforts and the profits they made, 2008 would have been even worse. Without these people, the taxpayer stands less chance of getting a decent return on the UK banks.
People making the same old hysterical, exaggerated comments on this forum should take deep breaths and think before spouting the same old drivel. We do not need knee-jerk populist reactions here, but a properly thought-out strategy to do what's in our own best interests as a nation.
The natural response is to blame all bank employees for the crimes of a few at the top. We are probably talking about fewer than 1000 people worldwide, let alone in the UK, who had anything to do with any bank decisions to invest in toxic assets.
RBS has 170, 000 employees, of whom only about 30-40 had any input into the disastrous decisions in the end sanctioned by a handful of senior directors. The directors should be prosecuted, but it serves no purpose to encourage any of RBS' profit-making employees to join other banks.
Complain about this comment
Very simple. Simply tax performance related pay at a much higher rate than basic salary. Not only would the state claw back a goodly chunk of the bonuses but coppers could stop being paid for nicking people and be paid for keeping the peace and surgeons could get on with saving lives instead of doing body counts.
Complain about this comment
Where is the meadow with the long grass?
Is'nt it full by now of Brown appointees setting 3 and 6 month dates to complete?
Should not the BBC be exposing political corruption using its vast resources instead of leaving it to the despised red tops?
Do we have any honest men or women left in public life?
Complain about this comment
Never mind when the public have stopped blaming the bankers then the public will only be left with Gordo to blame. How low can you go on the polls.
Complain about this comment
What's the betting that many of the comments above are about Jacqui Smith and her creative accounting?
Going to write an article of politcal comment about 'Labour Sleaze'?
Thought not.
Complain about this comment
So, Nick, Ministers didn't have time to work the details out ?
That would be because the Chancellor at that time decided to b**ger off to his bed during the rescue plan negotiations.
In other words (cameron's perhaps) "sleeping on the job" ?
Complain about this comment
#172 - ngodinhdiem
The Smith woman is systematically stripping the British people of their basic democratic rights and, at the same time, stealing from them. She is unfit for public office.
Complain about this comment
This, of course, is tomorrow's story but using it today sidesteps the responsibility of commenting on today's story - Jacqui Smith, the RIGHT HONOURABLE Home Secretary blatantly theiving from the taxpayer.
Complain about this comment
183#
AND the shares that the government has bought are ordinary shares. Without any voting rights. Not preferential ones.
Now how do you feel?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
178 sarah
Great post, you are one of a very few on this forum who did not leap to the most obvious response, which would not serve the interests of taxpayers.
176 susan
Hello again, agree with you about it being a handful of bankers (per bank) who caused all of the losses, while the vast majority are hard-working and some are even talented profit-makers.
You are joking though about Brown, Darling etc. being hand in glove with wealthy City bankers? Think about what you are actually saying. The UK's senior bankers are practically all card-carrying members of the Conservative Party- although from some of the views I've heard from them they'd vote / fund either UKIP or BNP if they thought either had a chance. They are to the right of Norman Tebbit, and would give Enoch a run for his money, if he were alive.
Who is the treasurer of the Conservative Party? (Hedge-Fund boss), and another senior Conservative is the Chief exec. of the largest Brokerage House in the City. You do not seriously think that the upper echelons of City Bankers [typical motto: 'what's yours is mine'] are a bunch of pinko Guardian-readers?? They wouldn't even eat their lobster 'n' frites out of it.
Complain about this comment
OH YAWN
MORE PIOUS RUBBISH
FROM THE IDIOT
WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE SAVED THE WORLD.
ASLEEP ON THE JOB AGAIN NU LABOUR!!
Complain about this comment
TIME AND TIME AGAIN NULABOUR PROVE
THAT THEY NO CLUE AS TO WHAT TO DO
OR WHAT MESS THEY HAVE PLUNGED THE
UK INTO.
5,900,000 plus on OUT OF WORK BENEFITS
RECORD BALANCE OF PAYMENT DEFICITS
RECORD PUBLIC DEBT INCL PFI
RECORD OF POLITICAL SCANDALS
LIES RE IRAQ WAR ETC ETC ETC.
Complain about this comment
This might be simplistic, but surely we can take the money back out and let the banks go bust? Then we buy the bits of the busted bank, possibly everything except the bonuses.
If any of the employees of the old bank want a job with the new bank then they can sign a new contract. If they wish, they can sue the old legal entity that is now bankrupt and wait in line with all the other creditors.
As to the incompetence of the deal makers of the bailouts, two of the most glaring things about the banks were a) their management had been paying themselves way over the odds with both salary and bonuses and b) they were lying through their teeth about the value of their assets. No matter how little time there was to construct a deal, these two most basic of points should have been covered.
The effective halving of the value of the banks only months after the deals and the complete inability of the government to impose any sense of social justice with respect to bonuses would be enough to sink any government. Any government except this one it would seem, whose lack of wits is only matched by its lack of shame.
Will this nightmare ever end?
Complain about this comment
167 Bluematter
"I've voted Tory all my life. There, I said it!"
=========
No, really? We'd never have guessed. Better to be "out" though.
Like 90% of your mates on here then.
The same people on the one hand condemning Johnathon Ross and then applauding Clarkson's ouburst without any sense of irony at the hypocrisy. Now I wonder what the reaction will be in a couple of years when some "left wing" outspoken "personallity" describes Cameron as a "Public School, Snooty Dimwit" I think we know it will be back to synthetic outrage.
And then there's the absolute political necessity for the current Global Financial Crisis to be pinned on Brown. Yes that's clearly right, its not "Global" its not rooted in "Banking" its all down to Brown and Regulation, Banks accross the world were forced to make high risk lending and investments by Brown and it was also his idea to re-package these loans as asset backed securities and sell them on to other unsuspectinng banks, Yep all Brown.
If only the world had heeded the wise words of Cameron and Osbourn who warned against the excesses of the Banks years a go when they demanded tighter regulation (yeah right).
And then, there's the name calling, "Gordon the Golem" "Jack Boot Jacquie" and it goes on. Perhaps you should show some efforts to your kids, they'd be so proud.
Not forgetting the obsession with BBC "bias" so blue are those tinted specs that any objective journalism is seen as Labour spin, even to the extent of codemning Nick Robinson who's only party affiliation has been Conservative but not right wing enough for the blogging neo Con extremeists on here.
Well "Tomorrow belongs to you" I guess. I suspect Cameron will be as extreme a right wing Tory as we've ever seen. Here's betting Ken Clarke will resign well before he's pushed when he gets to know his neo mates a bit better.
Complain about this comment
#180 yellowbelly1959
Fair enough - using Olympic accommodation is actually too good for them - I'd suggest Wormwood Scrubs if they hadn't filled it already.
From Autumn 2012 it's a pretty good idea as the economy won't have recovered enough to sell it at the profit Jowell's fag packet calculations guessed.
For the next 3.5 years, Nissen huts should be fine, and they could sleep in army tents from tomorrow until those have been erected and plumbed in.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
So Ed Balls tells us that this is the worst recession for 100 years.
If he has evidence for this assertion can he provide it, please.
If he has no evidence he should resign. These kinds of blustering comments seriously undermine confidence in the UK economy. One minute we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Next minute we're told to very afraid.
So what's going to happen, Mr Balls? Collapse of the banking system? Collapse of the pound? Collapse of international trade? Inflation? Deflation? A major industrialised country unable to finance its debt? World war? Labour to lose the election (now that's really serious).
Confusion, confusion, confusion.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
unless my memory is really failing me then does nobody else remember the labour MPs cheering when the government announced that they had nationalised the banks. Well some of the banks and some of the MPs, but enough for me to think that was what they had done.
However, let us be honest, they have not nationalised the banks. Where are the bank clerks who are now civil servanys, where is the government appointed directors. Where is the Official Secrets Act, signed by all civil servants. You get my drift.
This has never been a nationalisation. It is a lie, the sooner the government admits that it has no control the better.
It is the bankers taking over the government, not the other way around. A typical British cop out.
Complain about this comment
203. At 8:12pm on 09 Feb 2009, threnodio wrote:
Very simple. Simply tax performance related pay at a much higher rate than basic salary. Not only would the state claw back a goodly chunk of the bonuses
ROFLMAO
Yep that should do it, that should really do it.
That should get all us wealth creators really motivated to perform.
You actually think that its a good idea to pay someone more to actually attend that to perform.
With thinking like that I assume you have a nice little public sector number.
You dont work for the potato council by any chance do you?
Complain about this comment
Bankers bonuses under threat?
Why didnt they create themselves an 'Unearned Bonuses Insurance Scheme' - they could even have repackaged it as a 'valuable' asset and sold it on..
Complain about this comment
199. aye_write
It's scarey - Blears, Jackboots Jackie, Harperson, she might as well have cried "Bring on the clowns!" Serves us right really. How some of us used to mock Cherie, compared to this mob she was an icon of good taste and beauty. Now Sarah Palin, they could bring her on anytime!
Complain about this comment
The latest Populus poll for The Times, undertaken at the weekend, shows that the bounce in Mr Brown’s ratings after the banking rescue has now been largely wiped out. Labour has dropped by 5 points to 28 per cent since last month, its lowest level for nearly six months. This is still above the low of 26 per cent last summer
The Tories have slipped back 1 point since early January however to 42 per cent, still 4 points fewer than their peak last year. The Liberal Democrats are up 3 points to 18 per cent, their highest level since late August.
===
This latest poll will give Brown something else to be "very angry" about.
Wouldn't want to be a Downing Street Nokia tonight!
Complain about this comment
Interesting, as stated before,awaiting the next instalment.
The Labour party talking about the the morality and now we find another minister collecting allowances although not actually having a second property, because the rules allow it. Just because it is allowed in their crazy system does mean it is morally accectable.
All MPS should do the RIGHT think and sort out this terrible anomally that is offensive to us the electorate, and should put their own house in order.
Complain about this comment
Ed Balls, the Children's and Schools Secretary, said the downturn was likely to be the most serious for 100 years, and his comments appeared to raise the prospect of a return to the Far Right politics of the 1930s and the rise of Facism.
He told Labour's Yorkshire conference: "The economy is going to define our politics in this region and in Britain in the next year, the next five years, the next 10 and even the next 15 years.
"I think that this is a financial crisis more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s and we all remember how the politics of that era were shaped by the economy."
The remarks are significant because Mr Balls was a key adviser to Mr Brown during his decade at the Treasury as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr Balls said that he believed this to be "the most serious global recession for over 100 years".
===
Worst recession in 100 years says Gordon Brown's close ally.
We really are stuffed!
Where are those green shoots now, they must be hidden by the snow!?
You really wouldn't want to be a Nokia in Downing Street tonight.
Complain about this comment
#186 Pettifogger
It is called corporate responsibility - I know many bankers work extremley hard but your masters have turned you into salemen and have set you unreasonable targets, the only way to achieve targets is push unsuitable products.
My bank now 70% owned by the taxpayer is very good to me because I don't need them - I know how much support they would give me if I needed help.
I would be quite happy to see some of the disgraced chairmen behind bars, some of the rights issues were verging on fraudulent, given the information they had.
...and as for the public sector don't even get me started on that subject!
Complain about this comment
Can I join the lengthy queue of posters wishing to comment on the disgrace full failure of the BBC to report the serious accusations against a certain Jackie Smith but cant because of the moderation policy currently being applied on here !
Complain about this comment
#202 MunichMadrid wrote:
We do not need knee-jerk populist reactions here, but a properly thought-out strategy to do what's in our own best interests as a nation.
I couldn't agree more. Your post is really excellent, and I strongly recommend it to anyone who wants to think before bashing the keyboard.
#200 boilerbill wrote:
it would put these barrow boys with posh accents in their place
This confirms my suspicion as to the motivation of many on this blog. You have successfully managed to communicate a distaste for both the uppity working class and the new rich at the same time. T.S.Eliot did the same thing:
One of the low on whom assurance sits
Like a silk hat on a Bradford millionaire
(The Wasteland,1922)
Indeed if Ed Balls is right a wasteland is where we're all going to end up.
Complain about this comment
#216 Eatonrifle
There, do you feel better for letting all that pent-up anger go?
Eaton, just remind, us which party has been in power for the last 12 years?
Who was the architect of the tripartite regulation system of the banks?
Who is presiding over what Ed Balls claims will be the worst recession for 100 years?
Complain about this comment
Gordon, Alistair, what you gonna do?
Bankers, love 'em. Don't wanna disincentivise 'em. We all know they messed up. But legal contracts, so tricky, what d'ya do??
Make a mini-Budget statement.
Retrospective tax on bonuses for last 4 years over £10,000.
Escrow all present bonuses.
Watch your popularity soar in the opinion polls.
Be brave, do it..
Complain about this comment
#212 MunichMadrid7980
"You are joking though about Brown, Darling etc. being hand in glove with wealthy City bankers?"
Didn't you notice the fawning admiration of the NuLab leadership for the rich and powerful?
A better metaphor, however, would be "the wealthy city bankers leading Brown, Darling etc by the hand".
How else did they get the lax regulatory regime that they wanted?
Complain about this comment
216#
Those taste very much like very sour grapes Eaton.... not noble rot, but really, really sour...
Complain about this comment
216 wrote:
'And then there's the absolute political necessity for the current Global Financial Crisis to be pinned on Brown. Yes that's clearly right, its not "Global" its not rooted in "Banking" its all down to Brown and Regulation, Banks accross the world were forced to make high risk lending and investments by Brown and it was also his idea to re-package these loans as asset backed securities and sell them on to other unsuspectinng banks, Yep all Brown.'
This is really becoming tiresome. For the very last time. YES THE GLOBAL CREDIT CRISIS BEGAN IN THE US HOUSING MARKET AND WAS MADE WORSE BY THE BANKERS. NO GORDON BROWN IS NOT TOTALLY TO BLAME. YES HE MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEAVING US THE WORST PREPARED FOR THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN BECAUSE OF HIS BORROWING AND SPENDING POLICIES AS CHANCELLOR. HOPE THIS IS CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU!
Complain about this comment
Eatonrifle wrote:
The same people on the one hand condemning Johnathon Ross and then applauding Clarkson's ouburst without any sense of irony at the hypocrisy. Now I wonder what the reaction will be in a couple of years when some "left wing" outspoken "personallity" describes Cameron as a "Public School, Snooty Dimwit" I think we know it will be back to synthetic outrage.
You must be able to see the difference between Clarkson's comments (and how they were made) and what Ross did?
Clarkson made a comment about an elected official - which I think that a large percentage of the population would agree was fair comment (even some Labour voters!). If Brown doesn't want to be picked on by comics then he can do the country a favour and stand down.
Ross phoned up an old man and left abusive messages on his answerphone ( which is actually a criminal offence)
As for comments about Cameron being a Public School boy and snooty - there have been jokes like that since he got elected leader. He hasn't been called a dimwit - but that is because he hasn't really acted like one.
Brown however has acted like an idiot - he attacks other parties plans and then repackages them as his own, he accuses the Tories of talking down the economy and then says we are in a depression. He gives the impression of someone who is so busy trying to convince others that things aren't too bad that he has also convinced himself. Only an idiot believes his own lies!
Complain about this comment
Bad luck Nick - you've been had!
I just saw you interviewing an RBS "Employee" on the 10 o'clock news.
No surprise that he was saying that no-one in the Bank should get a bonus.
He was a "contractor". Under any performance appraisal scheme or pay system he wouldn't be entitled to any sort or bonus.
What else would he have said?
Perhaps you should try asking a bank teller in an East London or Birmingham branch whether they think that having worked their socks off all year and exceeded all the targets set for the branch in providing excellent customer service they shouldn't get a £400 bonus.
Complain about this comment
Eaton Rifle
I understand the hurt you feel at the way Blair and Brown have desecrated the ideals of the Labour Party, but it's no use taking it out on the people who spotted Tony Blair as a lawyer 10 years ago.
Complain about this comment
#134 purpleDogzzz Good evening
Another excellent post, nice one.
....I know that there is a HUGE amount of boiling anger, fury, rage compounded by incredible amounts of frustration building in this nation.... HOWEVER, we must all keep our powder dry. IF civil unrest erupts, Gordon will call a state of Emergency and then the election is OVER. This country is OVER......
I won't repeat the whole thing, but nothing about Gordon Brown clinging to power by his fingertips would surprise me.
At Christmas 1988 or 1989, I forget which, maybe it was earlier, Nicolae Ceausescu and his Missus in Romania were excecuted, once the news got out most of that country celebrated in a huge wave of relief and euphoria. A tenuous comparison I realise, but I can honestly visualise the UK celebrating in a similar fashion come 2010.
Personally, I can't wait for that May/October night/early morning as the UK bids farewell to the most inept and awful Government in my political memory. How can we hold ourselves up as paragons of virtue, sitting in judgement over despotic regimes such as Mugabe, when large parts of our pesent administration appear to be little better?
-----
#75 billatbasing
Conway recently and in years gone by, Aitken, Archer et al were rightly brought to book, and so they should have been. Politicians of whatever persuasion play the system and seem to use a different rule book from Joe public. Jacqui Smith & Yvette Cooper and anyone else under scrutiny, Labour/Tory/Lib Dem or whoever should be made to pay, preferably with their job.
Complain about this comment
yellowbelly1959 wrote:
Who is presiding over what Ed Balls claims will be the worst recession for 100 years?
Now that isn't fair - we all know it is a global recession that started in America - unlike the Britain only boom which was started by Gordon Brown time travelling back into the last Tory government and planting the seeds of growth. :)
Complain about this comment
Being apolitical, does anyone REALLY think that the tories/lib dems/old labour/new labour/monster raving loonies would say any different? Polititians are all the same - look after number one
Complain about this comment
Having read these comments, how many NON-BANKERS have received either a bonus or a pay rise (based on cost-of-living) this year?
Complain about this comment
MadofHitchin wrote:
Perhaps you should try asking a bank teller in an East London or Birmingham branch whether they think that having worked their socks off all year and exceeded all the targets set for the branch in providing excellent customer service they shouldn't get a ?400 bonus.
And just for fun, at the same time as asking the RBS bank teller maybe you should ask a Woolworth's cashier if they think that staff members at failed banks deserve a bonus?
Just in case you forgot neither the banks or the government did anything to help keep Woolworths afloat.
Perhaps the government should pay bonuses for all employees who work for a company that failed to meet targets?
Complain about this comment
The difference is that a retailer is a service provider, a bank holds the deeds to your house.
Complain about this comment
Would the government bail out every company who got into difficulty? builder fails, no direct national problem, a major bank fails....?
Complain about this comment
#222 phoenixarisenq
"It's scarey - Blears, Jackboots Jackie, Harperson, she might as well have cried "Bring on the clowns!" Serves us right really. How some of us used to mock Cherie, compared to this mob she was an icon of good taste and beauty."
It's very scary! I apologise on behalf of women for them!
"Now Sarah Palin, they could bring her on anytime!"
Aw, did you like her? She had a certain something, but she was a bit nutty though, no?
A spark she did have though ;-)
Complain about this comment
Is there anyone else who thinks this country should NOT borrowed and spent as if the BOOM might never end.
Who did that.... Gordon Brown
Who ran the regulation of this Gov'ts banking system, who had a large say in the shaping of those policies.
Gordon Brown
Who sold the Gold, raided our pension system, put 3p on National Insurance, and still needed more money ?
Gordon
Who broke his own borrowing limits ?
Please Go, Gordon !
Lesson 1 in finance... spend less than you earn..... SOME OF THE TIME !
Complain about this comment
Blears clearly hasn't been near a Bank senior mgmt team in her life. The most reckless bosses I've worked for were female, there seemed almost to be a culture of out-ladding the lads.
Heres a tip: If you want to minimise risk, try empowering your watchdog and risk managers, and make it illegal to sack whistleblowers.
By the way pf those 170,000 RBS employees, 169,000 will get zero bonus this year. Guess which ones they'll be?
Complain about this comment
"At Christmas 1988 or 1989, I forget which, maybe it was earlier, Nicolae Ceausescu and his Missus in Romania were excecuted, once the news got out most of that country celebrated in a huge wave of relief and euphoria."
Trouble with Nicolae '2 Dacias' Ceausescu was that HE didn't have the interweb for all his unhappy subjects to let off steam on,
Otherwise he'd proably still be there - with a country full of people sitting apoplectic at their keyboards yet not putting one foot outside the door.
Complain about this comment
one small crumb of comfort is that the recipients of these bonuses will, in most cases, have to pay at least 40% back to the government in tax........
Complain about this comment
Pettifogger's post @131 is a classic example of the sickening entitlement mentality that the bankers have. Their arrogance is wrenchingly sickening and he claims bankers are human too? Well sure thay are human, so what? So were the Nazis, who were backed financially by bankers. Every oppressive regime in history has been supported by banks.
If a bank has been bailed out by the tax-payers, then they have failed and they should NOT get a penny in bonuses. NOT a capped bonus, but NO BONUS AT ALL!!!
As for the poor bankers at street branch level? TOUGH! there are LOTS of people in other businesses, viable businesses with a strong demand for their products, that are no longer viable due solely and exclusively to the banks inflexibility in allowing overdrafts to cover temporary or seasonal shortfalls in cashflow. The people the work for these companies are losing their jobs, those lucky enough to keep their jobs are facing pay cuts. Bonuses are fantasy items now.
The ONLY banks that should still pay bonuses are the banks that have not had a penny of government bail-out money, have made profits and are not closing businesses for no good reason!
Labour are trying to blame the banks and the banks are pretending it's not their fault..
So who is to blame? BOTH! Labour and the banks were shoulder deep with their faces in the trough with the tories desperate to join the party.
Complain about this comment
MunichMadrid 7980 202
Good morning
Now you will be surprised to know that I am totally in agreement with your post. Indeed a lot of the oridinary bank clerks I know are saying how hostile the public are to them, when they are just doing their job as they have always done. Im glad I am not in that business any more.
Sorry though cannot agree on Brown, he is supposed to stand for Labour values, which is the working man, not the rich and famous. He allowed the city to run riot. I still go back to his change in regulation in 1997, which both Osborne and Cable are now saying was the cause of the credit bubble in Britain.
Nice to talk to you again.
Complain about this comment
"By the way pf those 170,000 RBS employees, 169,000 will get zero bonus this year. Guess which ones they'll be? "
---------------------------------------------
Of those 170,000 employees, 170,000 should NOT get bonuses and neither should any of the Directors.
Complain about this comment
Can't quite believe the Evan Davis interview this morning on "Today" talking to some chap about Jacquie Smith's allowances. Totally one sided and trying to kill off the issue. Words like "to be fair to Jacquie, she hasn't made use of the Grace & Favour flat".....where the heck was the follow up question like:
1. Because if she did she wouldn't be entitled to claim expenses on her other house!
or
2. and because she doesn't use the Grace and favour flat, the increase cost of Personal protection officers at her sister's flat is around £200,000 per year to the tax-payer!
Come on the BBC....play fair and do your job!
Complain about this comment
Banks receiving tax payers money as part of a bail out should NOT pay bonuses. Contractual obligations or not, let them take to litigation.
Bringing failed bankers before the Treasury Select Committee today is pure distraction. This Government are intent on putting all the blame on them and shaming them in public. This way they hope to mitigate their own irresponsible involvement.
After ten years as Chancellor, Brown's finger prints are all over the crime scene. The Government are absolutely desperate to hide the fact Brown is part architect to this crisis. He removed regulatory powers from the Bank of England, thereby disabled their ability to monitor other banks behaviour regarding use and abuse of collateralised loan obligations regarding sub-prime markets. They were also unable to control securitisation and allowed them to operate outside normal banking laws. Brown also created the toothless and inexperienced FSA watchdog that was asleep on the job.
Bank's greed was encouraged because of virtually no regulatory standards and Brown's false claim to have succeeded in finishing the cycle of boom and bust. With Brown's encouragement, banks indulged in a 'free for all' taking too many and too high risks until the crash.
Brown metaphorically removed one of the wheels from the vehicle and expected it to operate faster until it crashed. The accident investigators definitively blamed the removal of the wheel as the cause of the accident; but Brown, as the driver, refused to accept responsibility. His blustering denial is no longer acceptable.
The bankers may be in the public stocks today, but Brown has lost the confidence of the British people and he must resign. For how much longer will this pantomime of a Government keep playing?
The only thing to restore confidence will be a for Brown to call a General Election soonest.
Complain about this comment
@ 247. At 01:01am on 10 Feb 2009, lambrettaforever wrote:
"Otherwise he'd proably still be there - with a country full of people sitting apoplectic at their keyboards yet not putting one foot outside the door."
------------------------------------------------
So what exactly are you proposing, lambretta? Direct action? Violent reprisals? Terrorism?
IF there were to be an uprising, then Brown will call on the Civil Contingencies act to suspend Parliament, cancel elections and impose a direct dictatorship, opposition to which would result in being shot.
The only thing we can do is USE the one tool that our forefathers left for us; Democracy. We must keep our powder dry and sit at our keyboards informing as many people as possible as to the true nature of the government of the day. Then we must use our collective power at the next election to make a massive change. Step one would be the eradication of the Labour party as a corrupt political force forever.
I would personally prefer it if we ALL voted for a local independent candidate or if we cannot do that, then we spoil our ballot papers in protest at the failure of the mainstream parties to govern in OUR interests as their electors.
I am pragmatic enough to realise that many many people are still hypnotised into the belief system that the election will be a contest between labour and tory for control. Given that choice, I would prefer for the hypnotised masses to vote tory and then we just might, possibly, maybe, get some protection from the overbearing state, a reduction in the surveillance society and a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty so we can again stick two fingers up to the EU again and prevent this nation AND the continent of Europe from being overtaken by the post-democratic society that would render us powerless serfs to an oligarchic elite.
Encouraging direct action would be to play into their hands. Do not give them the excuse to crush us all!
Complain about this comment
Susan-Croft: "Sorry though cannot agree on Brown, he is supposed to stand for Labour values, which is the working man, not the rich and famous. He allowed the city to run riot. I still go back to his change in regulation in 1997, which both Osborne and Cable are now saying was the cause of the credit bubble in Britain."
----------------------------------------
The former governor of the Bank of England also blames that change in regulation. Apparently, back at that time in 1997, he had a massive stand up row with Blair and Brown over the decision to remove the regulatory oversight from the bank of England and told them that this crash would be the result!
Complain about this comment
purpleDogzzz 249
I agree with you about RBS because 70% of it is now in Government hands and any money they use will be tax payers money.
However Pittifogger 131 says he does not work for a bank that has took a bail out. We must remember that the ordinary worker is just doing what they are told to do, they may think it is wrong, but they have to do it. I remember, when I worked at a bank, it was my first job that the salary was not that good and it was the bonus which made up the wages. These people are losing their jobs as well.
I do not know what position Pittifogger holds he does not say, but his anger may be mistaken for arrogance, as he may be one those who has done nothing wrong. He feels the public themselves should have been more responsible, we cannot argue with that, we all know what we can afford and what we cannot. He also feels the ones that have been irresponsible are doing the best out of this Government and again he is right. I think it was Sicilian 29 who said 'the truth is unpalatable but it must be faced' that kind of puts it in a nutshell.
Complain about this comment
250 susan
morning, we really must stop agreeing on things, but nice to read another rational post on this blog to go with Sarah's [I forget which number]
Surprise surprise that Osborne and Cable are saying that GB should have regulated UK banks more [but they're silent on overseas banks- who contributed about half of all lending in the UK until recently].
Funny, every time any regulation of any industry has ever been proposed in this country [back to the 17th century] the Tory party has resisted, pointing out the dangers and folly of the Nanny State, or its 17th-20th Century equivalents.
For all his worthiness, I do not recall Cable suggesting tighter bank regulation either before 2008.
Even if GB could have taken steps to stop RBS buying ABN Amro in 2007 [what steps? I don't recall Osborne asking Brown to prevent this reckless purchase], how was GB supposed to regulate the actions of RBS in the US mortgage market, and elsewhere outside of the UK? Without these two calamities, RBS would be in at least as good a position now as say HSBC.
Do you honestly think that Fred Goodwin and his counterparts at Citibank, UBS etc would have taken instruction from GB? They would have been more likely to listen to Cameron and his pals. After all, the Conservatives have been getting support [financial and other] not only from hedge-fund bosses [inc. their current treasurer] but also their natural supporters in the City, including a now ex-director of Lehman Brothers.
The fact of the matter is that the world's top 1 per cent of bankers [the ones who need regulating] are quite difficult to regulate! Even now that many large banks are state-owned, the US, Europe and Switzerland are still finding that their state-supported banks are paying bonuses, even though these are considerably lower than in previous years.
Complain about this comment
@252:
"Come on the BBC....play fair and do your job!"
------------------------------------------
I agree. What, morally, is the difference between Mrs Smith being deceitful about her main home to claim expenses and a benefit fraudster being deceitful about their lodging arrangements to claim benefits to which they would otherwise not be entitled?
I cannot see any difference? Can anyone else?
Complain about this comment
BROWN IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WORK.
HE LEADETH ME BESIDE STILL FACTORIES.
HE RESTORETH MY FAITH IN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
HE GUIDETH ME TO THE PATH OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
YEA, THOUGH I WAIT FOR MY DOLE,
I OWN THE BANK THAT REFUSES ME.
BROWN HAS ANOINTED MY INCOME WITH TAXES,
MY EXPENSES RUNNETH OVER MY INCOME,
SURELY, POVERTY AND HARD LIVING WILL FOLLOW ME ALL THE
DAYS OF HIS TERM.
FROM HENCE FORTH WE WILL LIVE ALL THE DAYS
OF OUR LIVES IN A RENTED HOME WITH AN OVERSEAS LANDLORD.
I AM GLAD I AM BRITISH,
I AM GLAD THAT I AM FREE.
BUT I WISH I WAS A DOG
AND BROWN WAS A TREE.
Whoever composed this certainly has an insight into politics.
Complain about this comment
All this "outrage" by MPs and cabinet ministers, what a joke. The bankers are their pals, all Turkeys together and we know what they don't vote for. As for the select committe well thats going to be akin to a mauling by a bunch of cuddly toys.Politicians,who's own "bonus's" (expenses) are just as immoral as those of the bankers.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
How about taking note of the vast majority of comments which come to the conclusion that Ms Smith, Cooper & Balls etc. are equally despised by the public as the bankers. When are you going to shift from being a Labour supporter and introduce some balanced journalism underlining the hypocrisy? You could start by asking a lot more about Mendelson, Smith and the rest of the rotten politicians.
Complain about this comment
244. aye_write wrote:
#222 phoenixarisenq
"Now Sarah Palin, they could bring her on anytime!"
Aw, did you like her? She had a certain something, but she was a bit nutty though, no?
A spark she did have though ;-)
========================
Couldn't find any nuts there. Only criticism - her spectacles reminded me of the NHS ones of my childhood.
Have a nice day!
Complain about this comment
Nick,
how interesting that we are not allowed to comment on the bankers now being interviewed by the select committee. This is no doubt so that you can now say 'as I was the first to say' I mean get real.
My first comment would be that none of these 'bankers' have any formal banking qualifications. I mean when does a banker become a banker. It would seem to me that very few people have banking qualifications. What on earth.
Please note I used to work for an Investment Bank which was owned by a clearing bank. I never had any formal banking qualifications. I retired as a senior manager and was responsible for setting up banking systems.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
there was something in my day called the Institute of Bankers. I sat the training courses but felt that only a boring conformist would actually sit and pass the exams. One of the problems was that the 'bankers' all went through the same process and all thought the same. They honestly did not have an idea. Now if only they had studied psychology.
Complain about this comment
#262 phoenixarisenq
"Couldn't find any nuts there."
Ah, you're funny!
(We women don't have any 'hot' male politicians ;-)
Complain about this comment
Nick and the Moderators,
come on get a grip as my boss used to say. Why does it take so long to moderate, why not open up your blog for comments on the bankers being interviewed, I know, as I was the first the say.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
what becomes more interesting is that the FSA does not appear to have formally interviewed these 'bankers' before they took control. I put the bankers into quotes because I fail to understand how anybody who has not got any formal banking qualifications can actually call themselves a banker. on that basis the lowest clerk at the till could be described as a banker. They are not they are bank clerks, not bankers.
Complain about this comment
At the top of this thread, I commented that Vince Cable was a politician who had done 'something else' (he was an economist) before becoming a politician.
It does seem that for some professions e.g. politics and teaching, it is highly advantageous to have done 'something else' before moving onto those jobs.
However, when it comes to banking, especially if parachuted in at the highest level, then we can see from recent experience e.g. Hornby, Killop, Goodwin, that this is not a good idea at all.
Banking is most definately a profession that needs experienced bankers at the top.
Complain about this comment
265. At 10:48am on 10 Feb 2009, aye_write wrote:
#262 phoenixarisenq
"Couldn't find any nuts there."
Ah, you're funny!
(We women don't have any 'hot' male politicians ;-)
Alas, I must leave the computer for the day.
It was nice exchanging comments with you, and I'll leave you with this profound thought:
"In the land of the poorly endowed, the Millipede and Lord Mandy are kings!"
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
I as many, am interested to see how the issue of bonuses is resolved by the government.
I recently heard that a foreign bank has paid bonuses, not in cash, but in
the very assets that these executives have invested in. This has meant:
1- No default on the payments of bonuses, so no legal implications.
2- Much of the bad assets are taken out of the books, and valued equivalent to the total bonuses paid.
3- Healthier balance sheet for the bank.
4- Eventually, those executive who are capable will be able to manage the
assets they have received and even profit from such action.
This looks like a win, win, win situation.
Complain about this comment
The arrogance of these so called "ordinary bank employees" One was heard to say when interviewed the other evening "I WORK VERY HARD FOR MY SALARY £95000!!! AND HAVE ACHIEVED MORE THAN I WAS ASKED, I DESERVE MY BONUS" I am afraid until the likes of these so called ordinary people wake up and smell the coffee, nothing will change. We, I fear, will be forced to ram the coffee right up their noses.
Complain about this comment
I was glad to see so many of your posts pointing out the hypocrisy of this fiasco. How long does this government think it can go on blaming the bankers for everything and claiming yet again to be leading the way-Brown- in their dealings with them? Is it truly a medical problem that the PM suffers from? Is there a condition called 'pious posturing'?
Complain about this comment
Its funny how MP's bash the Bankers and say they shouldn't get a bonus - but the MP's have in the time of the labour govt taken billions from everyone's pension funds in tax (something that the average person still hasn't realised and likely blame insurance companies for just 'performing' badly) and at the same time the MP's have voted gold plated improvements to their own pension scheme! MP's are not the people to throw stones in this glass house!
Complain about this comment
Just popped in to say, I have never heard such nonsense on the BBC Radio 4. How can bankers receive formal qualifications Who will educate them? Rather a case of the unsighted leading the unsighted (politically correct language). Imagine NVQ courses, or at the best, fifth rate qualifications at the so-called new universities. Once great technical colleges now pretending to be universities. True Bankers, and I don't mean clerks, learned their skills on the street, wheeling and dealing in the halls of finance. Banks, once trained youngsters, starting them off in the most modest chores, and when they showed diligence and intelligence, gradually moved them up the scale. Today, youths and lassies, still green behind the ears are called managers, and never know their customers, as the clients are now called. A bank employee progressed through the ranks, learning each part of an intricate profession, whereas now time in a call centre and so-called marketing, take the place of understanding book-keeping. If heaven forbid, a computer or calculator breaks down the "banker" is lost. Bring back standards, standards of skill and standards of morality. Or is it too late?
Complain about this comment
MunichMadrid 7980 257
I have been listening to the bankers being grilled. I am shocked I have to say to you. I thought the FSA was partly to blame, but now I am of the firm belief that Brown and the regulation is mostly to blame. The banks over extended themselves that much is true, but with the knowledge of the FSA. That the FSA was aware and passed Amro as a good deal when is was widely known it was not. That they were aware of the bonus culture and thought it was acceptable to pass these vast amounts of money.
The monthly reports that had always been sent to Government on the state of banks was stopped by Brown making it impossible, almost for anyone in Government to know what was happening in banks.
The FSA being warned about the problems arising and not acting. Them allowing members onto the board of banks without proper interview and knowing the business model of the bank. That the FSA re-captialized these banks without any knowledge of the toxic debt they had in them because they had not done a proper assessment. This means they were propping up a bank that they had no idea how much debt was going to eventually fall on the tax payer. This is absolutely shocking.
Its a wonder to me that the situation is not worse when you have banks under no scutiny at all.
Brown set up the FSA therefore he is definitely culpable. We need a witch hunt but it should be aimed at the FSA, Government and Brown particularly.
I would feel the same if it was a Conservative, Lib/Dem any Government. You cannot blame the Conservatives they were not in power.
Complain about this comment
Listening to Nick Robinsons report on today this morning he refered to bankers as some of the most intelligent people in the country. Not the first time I've heard this said by a BBC reporter.
Surely this is an insult to those of us who actually have to think for a living !
Maybe the definition of inteligence for these financial types is one who is the greatest ability to line thier own pockets. Is blindly gambling using instruments you do not understand a sign of intelligence ?
Complain about this comment
The goverment simpley need to say NO
The bank went bust they havent got the money for bonus's full stop.
The tax payer has helped save them but did not agree to pay bonus's (lucky to have Job)
the money is to save them and the Goverment should say No as bonus should only be paid when a company profits not loses money
The Goverment never had a contract to pay bonus;s
They bailed them out
Lucky to still have a job let alone bonus
Lots of people are losing theres
So fingers crossed they have the balls to say no enough is enough be happy you have a job to go too and if you want a bonus then start running it correct and maybe next year they will deserve one lol
Complain about this comment
275 susan
Of course you are free to blame who you want to.
The takeover of ABN Amro by RBS was approved by 90% of shareholders- mainly fund managers etc. Not much the FSA or any UK authority could do to prevent that. Cost: 20billion.
RBS' activities in the US mortgage market- not a lot the FSA nor any other UK authority could do about that. Cost: 20billion so far...
The facts are there. The appication of free-market principles to their logical end in pursuit of an ever bigger bank with an ever bigger set of assets is what cost RBS 40 billion. Not every bank did the same thing [Lloyds being an honourable example] and no politician or civil servant could have stopped them in a free society- without massive state intervention of the kind we are seeing now, but would never have been allowed before October.
If the Govt. had tried to stop RBS engaging in its legitimate commercial activities before 2008 you'd have heard the cry of 'Commies' all the way from the Daily Mail offices to Central Office. It was only when things went so badly wrong that the taxpayer was graciously allowed to clear up [let's hope] the free- markets' mess. Even then, Cameron and Osborne had to be dragged all the way to accept this solution- they wanted the banks to be allowed to fall, and the UK's finance industry with them. Anything, even long-term disaster for the UK, but state intervention.
Complain about this comment
Something to ponder .....
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome becomes bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
-- Cicero, 55 BC
Complain about this comment
Phoenixarisenq 274
When you start as a clerk in the banks, you have to learn all the different jobs eg cashier, foreign etc. You also had to be able to do the work manually in case the computers went down. Obviously you could not have clients who could not get their money. If you wanted, as well, you could take banking exams which would help your career to move on. I think these are the qualifications they were talking about. At least this is how it was when I worked for them. Someone may correct me if I am wrong about how it is now.
Complain about this comment
Interesting to read that Lord Stevenson of ex-HBOS infamy is also the head of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
Is there no end to the rot in our political hierarchy? How big is the trough?
And, more importantly, when are we the people going to do something about it ?
Complain about this comment
259#
Very good. Very good indeed.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
absolutely amazing. People called to face the select committee then within two hours it is announced that there will be over 2,000 job losses. The gutless people wait until their interrogation ends before the news leaks out on the basis apparently that it was to come out tomorrow. They should hold their heads in shame.
Complain about this comment
#283
Wrong.
We should hang their heads....
Complain about this comment
#284
Have to be a little bit careful. Many readers know that I used to work for an Investment Bank in the City.
I know what I would have asked. What was the share price movements during the period when they were priced for the purposes of taking your bonuses.
What people do not seem to understand is that there is usually a ten day period when shares are monitored and then if you were given a bonus they would divide the bonus by the share price to calculate how many shares were allocated to you. Now try this for an exclusive Nick, rather than that Peston fellow. What was the scale of short selling during the period I refer to earlier, surely it would not be in the interests of people for the share price to actually fall.
Complain about this comment
280. Susan-Croft
You are correct Susan-Croft in what you state.
Unlike you, I didn't make a career in banking. I did, however, when very young, work for a short while in commerce and remember colleagues and friends studying for banking and accountancy qualifications.
Today, I am afraid, there is a general "dumbing down" and you need only spend perhaps ten minutes with an average local bank officer, and I think you will find I am right. They are drilled in certain procedures, think like clones, act like clones and are clones!
Complain about this comment
When will The Select Committee be convened in order to grill Government Ministers on the subject of The Credit Crisis? They must share partial responsibility for this mess. PMQs is a charade where questions are either left unanswered or avoided by posing counter questions.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
when will somebody say the obvious, never borrow short and lend long. That is what these bankers did. Furthermore, where were the accountants/auditors. Please.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
You and the BBC may think that ignoring the scandal engulfing Ms Smith will make it go away......tragically the European press has now picked up the story, and let me make it very clear to you, not one of the articles is supportive of Ms Smith, or how the House of Commons seems incapable of punishing government MP's.
Complain about this comment
229 Yellowbelly
asked
Eaton, just remind, us which party has been in power for the last 12 years?
Who was the architect of the tripartite regulation system of the banks?
Who is presiding over what Ed Balls claims will be the worst recession for 100 years?
===========
Sorry for delay, not a full time blogger like yourself, I do something we call work.
Glad to answer your three questions but will pose three of my own, I assume you'll do the same, agreed?
1) Party in power over the last 12 years is Labour. That's because they won the last three elections, we call it democracy.
2) The Tri-partite reg system was put in by the Treasury under Brown, a national regulatory system, which like every other country's regulation has not been able to insulate us from the international failure of the banking system.
3) Presiding over the recession are Bush/Obama, Sarkozy, Merkle, Brown, Berlusconi, Cowen, Putin, Rudd etc etc and despite what I think some seem to think, this isn't the biggest coincidence in history, all countries experiencing a home spun recession (ie like those under your party in 1981 and 1990) at the same time, its all the same GLOBAL Credit Crunch driven recession.
Right, now mine.
1) Would we have avoided the current recession, had any other party been power for the last 12 years. ie been the only economy in the G20 to escape?
2) When did Cameron or Osbourne champion heavier touch, rather than what is described as light touch regulation in the UK, without current hindsight.
3) Who made the investment and lending decisions of the various financial institutions accross the world who have now gone bang or been rescued eg Lehman, Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac, RBS, Fortis,NR etc Bankers or Politicians?
Look forward to a reply. Over to you.
Complain about this comment
The Government is using the bankers as a convenient smoke screen to cover their own culpability in the banking crisis. Gordon Brown set up the regulatory framework for the banks shortly after Labour took power. Only recently, Gordon Brown was praising the banks' role in his economic miracle.
The media feeding frenzy is concentrating on the wrong target. The bankers made mistakes, but it was the Government's lack of regulation that allowed the problem time to develop into a crisis. The man in charge of the nation's economy is where the buck stops. That man is Gordon Brown.
Complain about this comment
When is the UK going to get some effective leadership, and when are the political and commercial leaders going to be suitably remunerated?
Question: How do we, the masses, manage politicians, bankers, and others at the top of the pile within UK Plc? Staged apologies by Bankers, Industry Leaders, and Politicians offer us nothing other than an immediate feeling of extreme nauseous reaction akin to stuffing your whole arm down your throat and particularly as the "Defendents" criticised simply smirk to their colleagues afterwards and walk away knowing they are still on to a winner!
Answer: Look to history!
Remember Voltaire's famous acknowledgement of 18th Century England's Man Management Motivational Technique as experienced by Admiral Byng.
"The English consider that it is a good idea from time to time to kill an admiral (in this case a politician, industrial/commercial leader or banker) in order to encourage the others".
Remember also the award to Robespiere as a lawyer provided by a far from satisfied electorate at the end of his tenure in power. The French didn't call on him to apologise - they simply cut of his head. Several recent UK failed or retired political leaders who are also lawyers should have been similarly accommodated!
Seriously, we somehow need to ensure that remunerations and rewards to those in high places are properly constructed and properly awarded - and are based solely on longer term net positive outcomes for shareholders and constituents. The UK in the last 20-30 years has had many examples of excessive benefits being provided at higher levels based solely on manipulated short term "apparent" benefits and profits!
Complain about this comment
#291:
Absolutely right and for most the penny is just about beginning to drop!
Complain about this comment
278 Munich
What a great post.
Clearly it won't wash wth the Neo Con extremests on here but (IMO) you're exactly right.
On numerous occasions on here I've made points about the red herring that blaming regulation is.
The banks made disasterous high risk lending and investment decisions as they were allowed to do as PLCs. As you say, if any government had tried to intervene the first to object would have been the Tory Free Marketeers.
Remember, There's no hypocrit like a Tory Hypocrit
Complain about this comment
As the banking industry are close bed fellows to this government and in one way or another, have taken full advantage if the lax rules brought in by our previous chancellor, the PM can get as angry as he chooses. We ( the public) know full well that he will not do anything that will isolate him or the government from the banking industry. Maybe he is aware of just how powerful they really are, and rocking that particular boat is not something he wants to do. Bonuses, alas, are part of the culture of banking and finance, so for this administration to start laying down tough rules, appears to me to be a bit of a red herring. As long as the media along with the communications office of no10, keep putting out the same message with regards to bankers and their bonuses, then the public will not turn their attention to the 'scams' used by our parliamentarians to fleece public money for their own ends. Another point to make that nearly everyone on this forum knows, with the exception of your good self, is that it is Labour in office and not the Tories, so point scoring off Cameron is also a very large red herring, and serves no purpose to anyone. This has happened under Labour's watch, time to be that little bit more analytical and critical of those calling the shots please. Thanks
Complain about this comment
'294:
The word is hypocrite with an 'e'. Are you saying that The Government would have run scared of a bunch of Tory Free Marketeers? Please!
Complain about this comment
For those saying that the little people in the failed banks are not to blame well that's perfectly fair. No right minded person should vent their frustration with the bank teller in the local bank. It's also reasonable to say that tax payers have no say in how banks that have not failed should reward their valued employees.
However, few of the 'good' banks refused to lend beyond 3.5x salary for mortgages, refrained from issuing unnecessary credit cards or didn't encourage people to borrow against their inflated homes. Most banks fuelled the credit bubble to some degree and have to accept some of the blame. Even if the architects of the crisis are restricted to a few senior executives, evil only prospers when good men do nothing. There must have been an awful lot of good men "doing nothing" or "going along", "following orders" for so much evil to have been perpetrated.
£1B is a lot of money. Is this the accumulated bonus of several years or is it just for 2008. Did the little people get bonuses in the boom years? Are they sure they didn't enjoy some share of the excessive profits that were ultimately proven to be based on false earnings?
For those liberal minded folks demanding that we biggots see the bigger picture, I ask "Why shouldn't those in the finance industry, even those in good banks, not accept collective responsibility for the havoc their industry has caused? Shouldn't the bonuses even in good banks be kept back to help those they've encouraged to over extend or to support loyal business customers through temporary cash flow problems?"
For those saying its not fair to hold back rewards for hard work just because they're bankers, I say there are many like me who have not contributed to this recession. I've not borrowed against my house or run up debts on credit cards, and yet my house is worth less and my pension has been decimated. Can I claim some exemption from this recession when it's my country, my banks, my politicians that have failed me and mine so badly? No, I have to accept collective responsibility for these failings. I expect all bankers to suffer some hardship; to carry some of the burden their industry has caused.
For those in the failed banks, look to the likes of the four miscreants in the dock today for your redress. They may have lost their jobs, they may be sorry, they may even have invested their bonus in now worthless shares, but they still have 6-figure consultancy fees and 6-figure pensions. Surely these are rewards for failure?
And if a bonus is finally offered from the public purse, ask yourself where that money comes from. It could be used to save some struggling companies, pay for someone's operation or a child's education, maybe even to pay for some grit to keep our roads open. Before you take what's due, ask yourself if someone or something more deserving is going to be denied. Would it not be better to be thankful for the good years and thankful for your continued employment?
For Munich and the others, there is always a bigger picture.
Complain about this comment
I am not always agreed with the 'man in the street', but the ready connexion in many people's minds between the word banker and another rhyming word occurs not merely because of a linguisitic felicity.
I am sure there are many 'nice' bankers. However, while I do not believe there is an automatic read-through of every characteristic of an individual into whether the organisational behaviour they are repsonsible for is 'good' for people, there is some connexion. Ruthless, greedy people are unlikely to come up with organisational behaviours and policies which are good for the rest of the world. These are not laws of nature they are divining - the world is what we create it - and I would rather not have it created in the image of bankers, whether they think they are gods or no.
Complain about this comment
the bankers at the treasury select committee did not impress me one bit their apolopgy was half-hearted and insincere to the point of arrogance , it was a disgrace , although Mr Fcfall who headed the proceedings asked some importent questions he did not press hard enough to burst there arrogance , when one of the committee pressed the point of what qualified 2 of these banking bosses to get the job when they had no idea of how to run a financial institution like a bank they had to admit they were out of their depth , the truth is they should not have got the job, i would like to know who recommended them for the job because they should be sacked and any pension accrued cancelled . They have to [the goverment] put in place something to punish these bankers and the only thing these people understand is money so they should be made to pay all bonuses paid over the last 3 years and banned from being in charge of any other financial institution , i suspect and i think it will come out soon enough that they knew exactly was going to happen 18 months ago when an advisor to the boss of one of these banks warned him the dire trouble to happen if they carried on doing theses dodgy deals and for his trouble he was sacked he went to a tribunal and won his case the public did not hear of it it was hushed up and a undisclosed amount of money paid the aspects of that case should be brought to the attention of the general public because one way or another the tax payer paid the settlement an inquiry should be put in place to weed out these unscruplous people and name and shame them the sooner the better.
Complain about this comment
MunichMadrid 7980
Eatonrifle 294
Good morning
I see you have found a pal MuchichMadrid.Very good.
First lets take the case of Nothern Rock, Northern Rock was a British Bank, lending to British people with no outside UK interests. Why did it go under, the simple answer is that it had not enough capital and liquidity in reserve. Now it is the job of the regulator to make sure that enough is in the banks in reserve should it need to call on it. Nothern Rock should never have been nationalized it was far too expensive on the tax payer, it should have been taken under the wing of the Bank of England and ran aggressively to recoup what it could.
In the case of RBS the regulator passed the ABN Amro as a good deal before the shareholders even got sight of it. This came out in the questioning of bankers yesterday. It is the job of the regulator to prevent over expansion of banks, and not to set capital and cash requirements too low within banks. Instead the regulator allowed mergers to happen which it should not and allowed the management to overstretch its balance sheets. This is and always has been the job of the regulator. If the capital requirement had been set at the right level and checks had been done as they should have been done RBS would not be in the position it is now.
You ask about what the conservatives have been doing, well they apparently have for years, warned that the regulator was not doing its job properly. That the capital requirement to lending was to low and was very dangerous. To give you some idea, when the Conservatives left office lending to capital was at 23% in 2008 it had reached a huge 34% this is much too high.
RBS should be broken up, made a much smaller bank, outside uk interests sold to raise capital, wages cut for top managers etc to make a much smaller and leaner bank.
The regulator allowed people onto the board of banks with no scutiny at all. No interviews were undertaken and the fact these people had no experience was ignored again this the regulators job.
HBOS should never have been taken over by Lloyds it has made Lloyds a much weaker bank and cut competition in the market, again HBOS should have been made smaller and run aggressively.
It is the duty of the regulator to oversee banks this it has not done, but its single failure to keep sufficient capital within the banks would have brought weaker banks down in any recession.
The bank of England should now be given much greater powers to regulate the banks. I would go further and make it the sole regulator, as happens in other countries where Central Bank is the only regulator. They have the knowledge and skill to run banks.
When the truth is known we will find that Brown, by his change in regulation in 1997 was completely to blame for this crisis.
Complain about this comment
eatonrifle 294
Actually reading your post again you make my point for me. All the points you mention like high risk lending, are the job of the Regulator. In monthly reports which used to go to the Government and the Bank Of England the state of the banks was reported. Brown stopped these reports and allowed the regulator to be the sole caretaker of our banks. They failed badly.
Complain about this comment
#294:
Lack of regulation is not a red herring. The Government were ultimately responsible for these practices and had a loose hand on the tiller. Their own lending and borrowing habits added to the frenzy and renders them partially responsible for the mess that we are in. To say that people who promote the truth of this are neo Con extremists is frankly ridiculous but judging from your previous posts does not surprise me in the least.
Complain about this comment
294:
I think this article in The Press today sums up my thoughts rather well:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-new-labour-encouraged-every-aspect-of-this-avarice-1606275.html
Complain about this comment
Eatonrifle 290
Sorry to pick on you, but your posts stand out, by the way its nice to hear from you.
But I feel there is a bit of confusion here. There is a Global credit crunch, of that there is no doubt.
There are two things happening at once. I think you have been listening to Brown too much. The problems we have here and in America are our own credit bubbles. This is nothing to do with the credit crunch.
Our banking system is in meltdown this is purely down to Brown, the regulator and banks in this country. The debt the Government has racked up over the good years and the mis-management of our economy has ensured we are the worst placed country to ride the recession/depression. Thus you have the run on the pound as outside countries have no faith in our economy. So buy your wine and other goods now as imports in the future as the shops run out of reserves, are due to get very expensive.
Complain about this comment
#Susan:
Clearly you and I are singing from the same hymn book whereas Munich and rifle have formed an unholy alliance based on the argument that The Labour Government couldn't control the regulators because The Conservatives and so called 'Commies' would have protested bitterly. A weaker response to the charge that Gordon Brown is totally innocent I couldn't imagine. The Independent agree with us!
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-new-labour-encouraged-every-aspect-of-this-avarice-1606275.html
Complain about this comment
Sicilian 29 305
Absolutely, put in simple terms this bank crisis could not have happened before 1997, because it would not have been allowed to happen by the regulator.
Complain about this comment
Lost in these comments is my warning to you all for the umpteenth time that this "apology" was staged and acted.
What you must all REALLY think about is that Brown and those whom he can coerce around the world is hell bent on revolutionising the world into a NEW WORLD ORDER.
He wants the world banks nationalised and in control globally. He wants a central government to control the world.
Look it up on Google and Youtube. New World Order.
If enough people tumble him he will have to water down his plans.
Saying he will create thousands more jobs for those who have lost their jobs is just one of his ploys. He wants most people in the private sector so he can control them too.
He is a dangerous, secretive and unsafe Prime Minister to have - and he was not elected by the people no matter which way you look at it so neither was this government because he appointed his ministers.
Complain about this comment
Susan read this :
In case you need further clarification Please Please Please read this:
http://antireptilian.blog.co.uk/2008/01/08/gordon_brown_and_the_new_world_order~3546786/
Complain about this comment
Susan, please don't take offence, but
When you make statements like 'this crisis could not have happened before 1997' it becomes obvious that your knowledge of the good old world of investment banking is somewhat limited.
You clearly were otherwise engaged when the LTCM crisis, Asian crisis, Russia crisis, Latin America crisis, Japan crisis, Barings collapse, BCCI collapse, Savings-and Loan crisis, Junk Bond crisis, to name but a few, happened. All in the glorous days before Brown wrecked capitalism... and the Boys in Blue were keeping a tight lid on the Banks' excesses...
Brown failed to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Credit Suisse and UBS, Citibank and Merrill Lynch, Lehmans and Soc. Gen., Deutsche Bank and Fortis. He's clearly a serial failed regulator!
Complain about this comment
Eaton 290
I look forward to the answers to your questions, but better not let expectations get too high, as the remuneration committees of banks now say.
Far more likely is that they will resort to even more hyperbole and abuse, a device which might keep the painful truth at bay.
The free-market economic philosophy is broke.
Complain about this comment
MunichMadrid 7980 309
With respect you have not read mine at 300 and you have not answered nor has Eatonrifle. We are talking about our credit bubble, America had one too no one says that did not.
The regulator is the protector of our banks in the UK, as I have said at 300, the world crisis would not explain N. Rock.
I have worked on regulation of banks in the past and you do not seem to understand how it works. If you cut the investment arm off from RBS it would still not have had enough capital reserve to keep it afloat. It is the job of the regulator that no bank whether dealing with UK assets or anywhere else in the world does not overstretch its balance sheet and has enough capital in reserve to cope. The regulator failed.
Complain about this comment
I feel physically sick. This noontime, on BBC TV I saw my bete noir (hope this word isn't politiclly incorrect) Hazel Blears on "Daily Politics". They mentioned that at age 5 she appeared in a "Taste of Honey". Today, more like a taste of arsenic!
Complain about this comment
Nick, I think you have moved within polical circles for to long and are loosing sight of what is acceptable and what is not. Even for that which is within the rules. It is "Not" acceptable to ripp off the tax payer . Years ago it was within the rules to stash cash offshore, Caymans etc, tax free. Yet ministers resigned when caught doing so, because it went against the spirit of setting a good example. It was ethically and morally, if not legally corrupt. On that basis alone, I believe you owe it to your readers to follow this story through, against the minister concerned and not chicken out as you tried to do this morning, on the Politics show.
Complain about this comment
#311
Susan, I wouldn't expect a reply too soon.
MunichMadrid is of the Gordon Brown school of argument, namely "list stuff". He's off making a list of crises that Gordon Brown isn't responsible for. To prove what, I don't know.
The guy clearly doesn't understand the points you have made.
Complain about this comment
311.
I'm not sure when you worked in bank regulation, but if only...
NR and B&B, and even HBOS, are drops in the ocean. There's no US credit bubble/ crunch and UK credit bubble/ crunch. They're one and the same thing.
The rug was pulled up from under NR because those who invest wholesale money did not trust any property-leveraged banks anywhere in the world, following the pricking of the US bubble. At that stage you will recall that UK property prices were still rising... some small German banks with the same issues went at around the same time as NR.
RBS went wrong because of ABN and because of its US activities. You want to blame GB for the FSA failing to regulate these away- you really want free-market capitalism to be run that way? Me too, but it could never have happened in the West before October 2008- and the actions of a certain Scotsman.
Complain about this comment
Good Banks/Bad Banks
It would appear that Barclays are coming out of all this smelling like roses. Was it 6.5 billion profits? Where would they be if their determined efforts to purchase the Dutch "bank" had been successful? Conversely ,where would RBS have been? Probably in the same position as they seemed to want to buy everything in sight at the time.
Complain about this comment
Where to start?
307/8 Pat
I say this as a friend. Please seek help, therapy perhaps and urgently.
300 Susan
said
"First lets take the case of Nothern Rock, Northern Rock was a British Bank, lending to British people with no outside UK interests"
Of course they had outside UK interests, they were raising the majority of their lending funds by borrowing in the international markets. This dried up and left them exposed. They were also exposed to the US derived Asset based securities based on sub prime US lending. Did you not see the excellent recent programme by Evan Davis? They were in every way involved in international banking.
Have a look at this, from 2007
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article2317498.ece
If you don't however, this is one para;
"Northern Rock’s share price is likely to have been propped up by hedge funds and other investors buying stock to cover short positions they had taken earlier. On Wednesday, the bank tried to calm investors’ fears, saying it had £275 million invested in US residential mortgage-backed securities and collateralised debt obligations."
So do you really feel your description of NR as above is correct?
Sicilian 302 etc
First thanks fo the spelling lesson. Once a Teacher eh? Be careful though being an ex public servant with your index linked gold plated pension you're practically "the enemy" on here.
Many on here I do feel fit the description "Neo Con extremest" of course not yourself. Forgive me however for pointing out that your opinions are just that opinions, not as you say at 302 "the truth"
The least anyone should be able to say on here is that toughts on the economic situation are opinion rather than fact.
BTW feel free to address the quetions at 290
Complain about this comment
#312:
I thought Eric Pickles made mincemeat of her.
Complain about this comment
MunichMadrid 315
In my post I stated that I had worked "on" not "in" bank regulation , I wish I had, I would be worth a fortune!
Im sorry but Im afraid the post you sent is incorrect. I find it quite strange for anyone to deny we had a credit bubble. So no bank in this country including N. Rock over extended itself, it was all America. That makes Cable, Osborne, Clarke and even Brown all wrong then.
Complain about this comment
Eatonrifle 317
And your point is what, I do not know what you are trying to say here. You are confirming exactly what I have said to you, you are making my case for me.
My discription is correct you have just confirmed it.
Do you understand what outside Uk interests mean? Have you read my post at 300.
Complain about this comment
#317:
Gold plated pension my rear end. I was forced to retire through ill health on 1 grand a month. Hardly gold plated.
Complain about this comment
ColonelDigby 314
Good morning,
Only just spotted yours, yes I am beginning to understand now, I have been a bit naive. I spent a lot of time writing it because I thought I was helping someone to understand how regulation works, but I was obviously wasting my time, it will not happen again.
To deny facts just to prop up belief in a political party is very strange to me.
You live and learn.
Complain about this comment
susan
Of course there was a credit bubble in the UK [I apologise if my posts are unclear] but this was no Union Jack-embossed bubble floating proudly above Canary Wharf.
It is better understood as an investment bubble.
The entire Chinese budget surplus looking for a safe home, paying 6% plus, when US rates were 1-2%.
Some of it had to blow our way, as it did to all the G7.
Did the banks [who made shedloads for being the middleman] need to hold some junk in order to sell it on to the investors? Yes.
Did they need to hold so much of it that the collapse in its value would threaten their solvency?
No.
Did some banks have to believe their own hype, and indulge in takeovers which made them in effect holders of even more junk?
No.
Those banks [eg Lloyds, JP Morgan, HSBC] who did not overeat at the feast did not get a nasty case of indigestion.
Could the feast have been better regulated?
Every time banks faced calls for tighter regulation, they threatened to pull out of the jurisidiction concerned. In the US in particular the idea of regulating the investment banks' legitimate business was called 'un-American' and (horror of horrors) 'socialist'...
It's only when many of the banks realised that they had terminal gout that they agreed to some state-sponsored controls on their consumption of vintage port and foie gras.
On 'denying facts...' I am well to the right of Nu Lab, and well to the left of Thatcher's children. I believe in a mixed capitalist economy. I think Brown should be applauded for intervening to save the banking system in October- against his own cautious instincts. I do not support quite a few other things he has done as PM and Chancellor.
By comparison to the overwhelming number of proto-BNP, crank conspiracy-theorist, right of Enoch, right of Tebbit, right of Franco, right of Friedman, views posted on this forum, I dare say it's forgivable for you to think I'm a pinko.
Complain about this comment
323. At 10:38am on 12 Feb 2009, MunichMadrid7980
"On 'denying facts...' I am well to the right of Nu Lab, and well to the left of Thatcher's children"
===
Here's a challenge for you, and all other bloggers on here as well.
Visit http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
Do the test, see what your political compass is, and compare it to the political party you currently support.
My results are:
Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46
I don't support any political party. I am opposed to the current regime though, therefore I am "Anybody But Labour".
Complain about this comment
Labour ministers are furious at a decision to release official statistics that highlight the increase in foreign workers in Britain.
Yesterday the ONS revealed that the number of non-UK nationals in work rose by 214,000 to 3.8million and a record 151,000 work permits were handed out to foreigners.
The figures came as official statistics showed that the number of people out of work had risen to a 12-year high.
But this is the first time that the ONS has highlighted the employment of foreigners in a separate press release.
It comes just days after illegal wildcat strikes spread across Britain in protest at the use of cheap foreign labour and the failure of Prime Minister Gordon Brown to keep his pledge of 'British jobs for British workers'.
Home Office sources said the 'bar could be raised' on the new points based migration system to make it harder for foreign workers to enter the country.
It would reduce the all-time record 151,000 work permits handed out last year as the country slid into recession.
===
So much for "British Jobs for British Workers"!
Complain about this comment
Has anyone noticed RBS has added £34 Billions to reserves , is worth £10B now, was worth £60B last year and will be worth £60B when the government makes £20 Profit on sale. I suspect it will make again £10B PAT in a year or so.
The so called bail out is also an investment. Just as HM Treasury is now profiting from "saving" British Energy PLC, so it will from RBS HBOS etc.
Please let us spin this into A PROFITABLE HMT INVESTMENT rather than a loss of taxpaters money. Anything else is to add fuel to the fire of mass hysteria.
Complain about this comment
# 324:
My results are as follows:
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59
These are my results. Not absolutely certain what they mean but they appear to be somewhat similar to yours.
I surmise that I am well to the left on the economic spectrum and reasonably libertarian. I am anti NU Labour and Gordon Brown in particular but was not averse to Tony Blair in his early years. DC may well make a good fist of his tenureship and I am willing to give him the chance but the jury is out until that happens because my experience as a public servant during The Thatcher years was not a good one although I acknowledge that she earned us respect in the wider world.
Complain about this comment
Sicilian
On Mrs. T., not in Argentina [no bad thing, they cheat at football]...plus 'the rest of the world' weren't the ones living under her rule.
If you are 'well to the left' on economics, I guess that makes me slightly to the left of Karl Marx's more militant little brother- judging by our posts on such matters on this forum!
Funny how we all believe that we are on the middle ground. I imagine even Nick Griffin and some on this forum think that they're fairly liberal on social issues.
If people with your relatively liberal economic views are prepared to give Cameron a chance, good luck to you, but don't say you weren't warned when he shows his true blue colour.
Cameron's two avowed policies to date:
Inheritance tax not to be paid on estates up to 2 million per couple. Great for keeping the social status quo in tact for future generations.
The ending of income tax on savings interest for basic rate tax payers. Great for Sirs Fred and Tom, for example. A Couple of million in the bank [you can still get 4% for that kind of sum] = 80 grand a year [tax free if you invest with your spouse], just the ticket for those with a pile of cash. Not so good for the other 99%.
It has to be suspected from the two above policies that if / when DC gets in, economic moderates like Clarke will be shown the door [not needed any more] and he and Osborne will get on with the job of undoing the redistrubitive work done by Blair / Brown- not that they've done that much.
You're an ex-teacher, many of my family are teachers in the state sector. I make a point of ribbing them about their long holidays, part-time working, pension and unsackability. They have seen their incomes rise far above the rate of inflation over the past 11 years. That is a source of great chagrin for all those on this forum who describe Public Sector work as 'non-jobs' etc. Perhaps teachers, the police, nurses, and especially doctors and dentists now receive too much from us for too little in return. I think there is a case for cutting some of the Public Sector remuneration packages- at the top levels, I'm not talking about nurses and PCs, or teachers, btw.
You have to suspect, however, that any Cameron government would look for big public sector savings, and that the most obvious places to find them are in health and education. Inevitably, they will not be found by paying doctors, dentists and the top headteachers / administrators less, but by employing far fewer 'footsoldiers' in both areas. That's the only way to save the amounts of money Cameron will require to pay for tax benefits such as his two policies above.
We'd soon be back to three-year waits for routine operations [my wife was on one such waiting list, in agony, and it's not pleasant to watch] and demoralised overstretched teachers faced with ever larger class sizes, fewer teaching assistants, no money for equipment etc.
Naturally, the return to third-rate public services will not affect the Surrey 4x4 crew, few of whom send their kids to state schools, and few of whom would be seen dead in NHS hospitals- even though they are 200% better now than in 1997, whatever you may read in the Mail, Express and Telegraph.
If Cameron thinks Britain is 'broken' now, the kind of policies he's announced to date will ensure that it's completely split apart, with a tiny elite able to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle [though probably behind security gates] on low taxes while the rest are priced out of many of the basic services taken for granted in the rest of the developed world.
If the Tories were led by a centrist such as Clarke I too would be likely to 'give them a chance', but at the moment it's my honest opinion that to entrust Britain's next five years to Cameron would be to hand over the country to the interests of people like him, the tiny elite with millions in the bank, who pay for their own services like healthcare and education anyway.
I work in an investment bank, I've got some savings, a Cameron government would no doubt mean a lower tax bill for me. How much would I lose, though, if I felt that I had to send my three kids to private schools because the good local schools which they now attend had deteriorated due to Cameron 'cutbacks'? How much worse would it be for my spirit if I caught the train to my secure job every morning, all the while knowing that 3-4 million others were on the dole, with houses repossessed, etc?
The lessons of the eighties and early nineties must be learned. We are in this together, there is such a thing as society, and if it does really become 'broken' we are all to blame, to a degree.
Complain about this comment
#324 & #327
Mine are
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51
Pretty similarly, I'm not wedded to any political party, though I'm likely to vote Conservative on an "anti-Labour" agenda. I'll make a judgement on their first term.
I was also surprised to see myself on the left. Especially when I saw their assessment of Gordon Brown on the right.
Funny how most of the current political leaders are, apparently, authoritarian in nature....
Complain about this comment
So Brown gives the banks billions of pounds of tax payers' money, and then simply says "please don't give large bonuses to the people who created these problems that we've given you all this money for. but if you do then we won't do anything"
Pathetic.
We as tax payers own these banks, if not in voting rights then at least in collateral.
Brown (if he had any spine at all) can simply tell them he's going to withdraw the tax payers' collateral if the banks give bonuses to people who created the problem.
Brown can withdraw all that money and let the bank collapse with its lack of resources; he has absolute 100% power over them, and needs to use that power to act in the interest of the tax payer.
Giving a billion pounds of tax payers' money to people who created a financial collapse is not good value for money for the tax payer.
Brown needs to play hard-ball; it's our money, not the banks' money.
I can't work out in this instance if Brown is simply incompetent, or if he's somehow deliberately trying to destroy the financial system even more than it has been already.
Complain about this comment
#330 getridofgordonnow
Unfortunately, Gordon hasn't left himself in a position where he can call the shots to the banks.
In trying to impress on us how important and vital it is to prevent the banking system collapse, he has reminded bankers of how vital and important they are to ... well, Gordon Brown, at least.
The world would survive if several banks went to the wall. Gordon Brown would not.
Complain about this comment
327 sicilian
I don't know why my reply to you was taken away [328]. It was rather conciliatory in tone, and very unoffensive.
I can only think that someone must have objected to my mentioning that I don't think Argentina respected Mrs T too much, or it might have been a reference to their antics on the football pitch. You can't even offend the Argentinians these days.
Are the moderators Argentinian? I think we ought to know?
Complain about this comment
327
It was all very well Mrs T. earning the UK respect in the wider world, it wasn't them living under her rule.
Anyway, we should leave that one, those political orienting surveys sound interesting. I can't imagine what score I'd get, if you are a lefty on economics! I probably should be living in a teepee with a fellow citizen called 'tree'.
Funny how we all think we're on the middle ground. I expect even the leaders of the SWP and BNP think that they're centrist...
I think it's strange that you as an ex-teacher are prepared to give DC a chance.
His two policies to date, on Inheritance Tax and on Income Tax on savings income, are designed to keep the country's wealth among the wealthy. They couldn't be less 'moderate Tory', and would never have been countenanced by a guy like Kenneth Clarke, but then his family and friends aren't in the inherited wealth set.
If KC or another moderate with some credibility were to become the Tory leader then I too would be prepared to give them a chance. Problem seems to be that so many of the Tory grassroots, the committed membership, are actually to the right of Thatcher, let alone Clarke...
The most likely scenario, imo, is that DC, needing to save large amounts of cash, but wanting to pursue the above policies on tax cuts for those with large family fortunes, will do what every other 'cutter' has done, and instead of pruning the Public Sector from the top down, he will simply axe large numbers of its 'footsoldiers' - nurses / ancillary staff, teaching assistants etc. This is really the only way to save the kind of money he will need from the Public Sector, and it is difficult to imagine that he will target his own natural supporters [GPs, consultants, Headteachers, senior administrators]- governments always seem to want to cull the little people's jobs first.
Britain isn't quite broken yet, but in a couple of years...
Complain about this comment
Fairness should transcend the economic cycle and should never be smothered by shouts of envy and jealousy. Just as those who believe in Marx’s critique of Capitalism whilst simultaneously believing that the Commune is not the solution, should not be prevented from developing a new bifurcatory system to the post avarice society centred on fairness.
This can be achieved by the following redistribution. In the past the image of the establishment being dragged by their feet across gravel drives has meant an understandable lack of popular support. The consensus against basic changes to the distribution of tax income has therefore remained unchallenged
.
The resultant surge in increased non-discretionary spending added to a targeted not random financial stimulus is the only answer to our predicament.
Minimum wage- £6
VAT- 20%
National Insurance £6000- infinity
Capital Gains Tax equalised to match Income Tax rates
Tax Threshold to £10,000- 0%
£30,000- 20%
£50,000- 30%
£80,000- 40%
£100, 000- 45%
£150,000-50%
No cuts to Schools, Hospitals and Transport investment budgets, bringing forward spending from future years, employing minimum numbers of day release local apprentices on every public sector project and acceptance that Social Security and Justice cost whatever they cost. A 10% general cut in all other budgets plus.
Cuts to public sector pay- to £25,000 – 0%
-to £50,000- 5%
-over £50,000- 10%
Reduce MPS to 301 from 2014
Pay MPS a fully inclusive geographical allowance on top of their salary
End all final salary pension schemes for the public sector for workers over £25k
Cut the Civil Service (Whitehall Branch) by 30% by 2014
Tax 100% on all bonuses awarded over £30,000 by all non- Government owned organisations.
Ban short –selling on all Government interests.
Introduce Price Controls on Energy Suppliers, domestic only
Cancel Public Enquiry on Heathrow on national interest grounds.
Gordon Brown holds all the cards, if, he returns to the values of the Labour party and seeks assistance from the Liberals to strengthen his timid approach to liberties and freedom. I thought he stated “bold when we’re Labour” not bold if the focus group says so. The Conservatives are funded by the very people they say they will get to grips with!
Bankers wintering themselves in the Caribbean sun, believing that once the storm blows over they will restore their position, are as out of touch as a Prime Minister who needs a year to review the remuneration and practices of the Financial sector, before believing bonuses even those for well managed banks such as Nationwide and Lloyds are inappropriate in the medium term. As an aside if your Hedge Fund Manager seems to be wintering longer than usual and when you finally track him down, states this is because he wants to stay on and see England win the Test Series, then he is not coming back.
Trickle down economics is dead. Tax Havens are being targeted by the new President and are history too. Whilst the worst is not over, it will be, as soon as the uncertainty is replaced by the truth in relation to known banking losses, however bleak this may be and damaging in the short-term.
Andrew Neil, on his programme This Week stated that a truth drug could establish whether the apologies given this week were genuine, I fear that serums can always be circumvented by previously implanted subliminal thoughts. These Bankers have been indoctrinated since their school days to believe they are the crème de la crème of our society. The sooner this collection of individuals is replaced by women and under represented groups at the top of banking, the judiciary, law, the police et al the better.
We know now that many myths are simply untrue and all should now be examined. Obviously, there are always going to be those who will continue to look in the direction of these characters for guidance and security. Politicians must reassure them it is not in their interest. The extreme views of the mob sound the same at first whether they come from the left or the right, as the mob doesn’t usually issue a manifesto. This is the time for mainstream leadership!
If the FSA really gives bonuses the less mellow in society could see this as the final straw. Our excellent campaigning press can insure any one who wants to seek enforcement of their contract is examined and exposed. It would be on a par with the Merrill Lynch character who got a multi million pound bonus having worked for 3 months with them before the Bank of America took them over.
The nettle has to be grasped and a debate as to the merits of joining the euro started. Many people are against it but it’s surely far better than quantative easing, that is the road out of the G7 and into Banana Republic division north. It may be political suicide but the Country must come first.
The people in the former mining and industrial areas haven’t noticed the recession but neither did they notice the recent boom. Coal is our best natural resource and every mining job creates 5 or more ancillary positions. Even if we have to store the coal in the set aside fields around Norwich, Colchester and Chelmsford whilst we develop and build new carbon capture power stations to add to our diverse energy mix then we should do so.
As for Alistair Darling, I think in 10 years time his shrewd deal with the banks will look very good for the public purse
Complain about this comment
Wow just a word!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/feb/10/banking
Complain about this comment
#335:
Now it's Gordon Brown's turn. Not holding out much hope of that.
Complain about this comment
334 admiral
wow, 99% of that was fantastic!
Will get back to you on the 1%.
Complain about this comment
Hello,
well I'm new to blogging so please bear with me.
At first I thought it was a new game show on television asking for contestants. Personally I think that Graeme Norton would be a better host than the bunch of syncophants who"grilled" the naughty bankers, but no this is a much better site.
I do hope that not only the angry, disgruntled and abused by the banks read this. I hope that someone from the banks does, obviously not someone too high up perish the thought that they have contact with the great unwashed. Possibly some poor person from the "Teller face", who is not "not taking a large bonus" because they don't have one to take, but who is in the direct firing line of disatisfied people like me. I would also hope that someone from slightly higher up reads these postings because this is where some of the truth is told.
I am no great economist, my ex accountant will be only to eager to agree to this, but i feel that there are a great many people out there who could do a much better job than is being done at the moment, a great many of you who take time to subscribe to these blogs. Even though this is a blog about banking & economics, there should be some room in this blog for a good old gripe about how it was in my day.
what I am is a retired ( early thank god) ex business man, I started in the early 80's working sub contracted to the National Health service, at the work face, literally the face. I left the profession after 20 years, after 3 of my contemporaries commited suicide due not just to the clinical stress, but also the economic stress. We knew we had the third highest rate of suicide in the country when we entered the profession, but over a 20 year period we were treated the economics of our situation was made unrennable by a variety of Tory governments, including the current so called Labour government.
sorry back to my discourse.
Who do we blame???
We are partly responsible for the problems we are in.
We voted them in
we gave them our money
We took their credit
We bought our own houses
we try to pay our bills.
But really who is responsible????
This might be an old chestnut, but personally I feel that the blame lies at the feet of our first female ( I won't use the word lady) prime minister, small case indicated.
My friends must be sick and tired of hearing me ..." of course I blame Mrs ........ for all of our problems"
You readers have not, well not yet.
I am of the grand old age of 51, so I am not talking victorian values here.
What I am talking about applies to every person from the top of the tree downwards.
Courtesy, prudence, respect.
My job involved dealing with the frightened general public every working day. Each of then was treated with courtesy and respect. They paid my wages after all.
When I went to see my bank manager, he was a greying gentleman who had been a loyal worker for the bank and had naturally risen to his place. It was almost like asking your father for extra pocket money and justifying what it was for. My recent experience has been a lot different, I am sure that it has been for a lot of us.
Over the course of my career, tens of millions of pounds has passed over the counter of this bank and has helped put them where they are today, well not today but a year or so ago.
Yet we all know how easy it is to pay in, to telephone bank to internet bank to get money out of the hole in the wall.
You try and get your money out.
I live in the Canary Islands, I was prudent with my monies and was living quite happily out here, untill it seemed that the black horse might be running out of steam.
I started on 10th October 2008 to try and move my small nest egg out of GB plc into a Spanish bank ( we are guaranteed 100,000
not the 50,000 in the UK).
I eventually succeeded in doing this on 24th December 2008, in person.
This was after the fiasco of my monies not being in one account that I held for 3 years, nor in another account that someone had opened for me over the phone, for 10 days I was unable to access my funds.
following this i was given wrong information and lied to by some oik called "Dave" not Mr so and so but Dave. However "Dave" was not available to answer the phone after I wanted to ask him why I had wasted 2 days of my life and numerous phone calls, e-mails etc chasing my tail after he lied to me.
The oik did not even have the courage or courtesy to ring me back before close of business on that day.
So eventually I got through to someone who told the truth, poured some oil on troubled waters and offered me some compensation amounting to 300 pounds, about 0.5% of the money I lost due to poor advice and lies.
If I had been told the truth in the first place then I would have flown back to the UK, done the deed and flown back and be a lot happier.
So no more phone banking, no more internet banking, no more UK banking, my money is all with the Spanish bank who practically owns most of the UK financial institutions. Here they still treat people with courtesy and respect.
I feel saddened by the greed that has been generated, by the potential hardship that it is going to cause those at the Tellerface, it will not affect the very rich. I feel an equal amount of sympathy for the reported loss of 7 million dollars by the "American actress famous for the number of husbands", as I would feel the excitement of knowing she hadn't lost anything, that is nothing.
If i couldn't afford it I didn't have it, I didn't follow the rest of the lemings into debt, yet I am affected by it.
I am seriously thinking of setting up an action group under the acronym of
MOON BLYGHT
Move
Out
O
Now
Before
Lying
Yuppie
Gits
Hijack
Totally
Need some help with the O in moon, but basically let the discouteous, imprudent, disrespectful institutions collapse.
Take your money out now, and put it somewhere better if you can find it.
Sorry to go on a bit, but venting ones spleen if very cathartic.
Hasta Luego Mis amigos
Senorlloyds
Complain about this comment
This govt is in a mess - some of their own making, some out of their direct control - people should always remember that hindsight is a wonderful thing , its easy to be wise after the event - harder to make the decisions now.
The real scandal, and what will hit labour very hard, is the growing perception by so many "everday folk" that after everything else, they are now bailing out the financiers - a very "tory" trait, in many eyes.
I was made redundant in Jan07. The company I worked for lost its next 1/4 funding, and went into administration. It had a £400k credit line, £12m turnover and 115 staff. When it all shook down, the NIF(ie the taxpayer) paid the redundancy, at legal minimums. All suppliers were paid. The "suits" charged £650K in fees - to close and assett strip a business owing 250K !
I set up my own company in Feb 07 - we employ 7 people, and its hard work. Wages are about UK national average.
Why on earth should employees of these bankrupt, cashless, insolvent companies get bonuses funded by the rest of us ???? They are all lucky to be getting a monthly salary, never mind a bonus - look back decades, then tell the workers and families of UK miners, car makers, mill workers, steel workers, retail staff, farm workers etc etc etc why their firms were allowed to wither and die when the cash ran out, yet the bankers are bailed out time and again.
Will we now see the modern equivalant of "pit villages" ?? Whole sleeper estates of white collar workers, ncars gone, no jobs, no future, no bail outs...their industry gone, no replacement job for years?
I really do think I will be withholding my taxes next year if HBOS/Loyds/RBS/NAT WEST etc get paid bonuses......why should I fund them - they didn't fund my old company ?....I am doing 6 or more days, often for 12 or more hours to build a business for my family and staff....not to fund the gravy train for others.
Its a scandal - we are all being mugged to bail out an industry that grew fat for decades through nothing more than greed.
ALL staff ( and sorry for the "foot soldiers" ) should be on council pay scales - from the counter staff, to branch and area managers. When you have NO money , that’s what the reality is. In 2007 my redundancy "package" was a joke - because no one bailed out my employer, so I got the legal minimum, paid for by the government. Far less than I was "contractually due" - but there was no cash......why are bankers bonuses any different.
The fact a bank caused my previous employers woes - and their suited colleagues in the insolvency firm feasted on the scraps, just makes it all the worse.
Mr Brown and his colleagues run the risk on losing bitg time, on two fronts - they will confirm the doubts of their natural enemies, and yet they will also alienate their core supporters.
They are between a (northen) rock, and a hrad place.
Complain about this comment
Bash a banker long enough and they will eventually turn on The Government by fingering them in a quite embarrassing way. Mark my words!
Complain about this comment
Is there a technical or a political reason why all the newer threads than this one [now nearly two months old] have been closed to new posts? Previously, when holidays come along we just had extremely long threads. If anyone from the BBC actually reads this post, could they please suggest to the management that a little explanation would go a long way.
As it is, this thread is back to being topical again, with "London Labour" simultaneously bashing bankers in the mutual sector and the Scottish government while all the other unionist parties applaud.
What's just a little odd is that all of those parties as well as the print media have forsworn a golden opportunity to criticise the veil of collective silence from NuLab, HM Treasury and the FSA over the KPMG report which is claimed to have very different figures on DBS needs to those stated on the BBC by the hapless Capn. Darling.
On any other issue, the chances of his word being accepted by any of "the usual suspects" would be no better than those of a snowflake in close proximity to the infernal regions.
Complain about this comment
307 flame patricia
#He is a dangerous, secretive and unsafe Prime Minister to have - and he was not elected by the people no matter which way you look at it so neither was this government because he appointed his ministers.
Another great observation from one of the foremost Tories on these blogs.
Of course you haven't mentioned your theory on global warming, on how its a ploy to control underhanded goings on against the people, for a week or two.
Someone told me that your the person to contact to get the up to date thoughts on The Flat Earth Society, is that correct?
Complain about this comment
#342 grandantidote
"Another great observation from one of the foremost Tories on these blogs."
Quite true regarding the piece that you quote.
Few would accuse me of being a Tory of either the NuLab or the "official" wing, but the last para of flamepatricia's #307 that you quote does contain some good stuff. Her analysis of it and mine would probably differ, but here goes anyway.
"He is a dangerous, secretive and unsafe Prime Minister to have"
What on earth is wrong with that statement? He either supported the "regime change" war with Iraq because he believed in it or he was too stupid to see through the dodgy dossiers. Either sounds pretty dangerous to me. He has rejected an early public enquiry into the war, absented himself from votes on making MPs' expense claims more open, pushed the Damian Green and other enquiries into the long grass and most recently not published the KPMG report for the FSA which would confirm or condemn his government's action over DBS. Sounds pretty secretive to me. Granted that all of the UK's current economic woes cannot be laid at his feet, he was still responsible for some of them and crucially has not taken us into this slump with a surplus following well over a decade of growth and was responsible for dismantling the previous regulatory set-up which allowed the problem to build up without us realising how bad the problem was becoming. Coupled with his total lack of numeracy and his newly stated desire to switch from being a failed poacher to becoming a gamekeeper, I'd say that calling him unsafe was pretty mild.
"and he was not elected by the people no matter which way you look at it so neither was this government because he appointed his ministers"
The second part of flamepatricia's para I agree with, but probably for totally different reasons. Under our peculiar institution of the elective dictatorship of the Prime Minister, no PM has ever been elected by the people, however you look at it, so her statement is prima facie true. This one is the first not to be elected by his own party since the 14th Earl of Home in 1963, and he and his chum Bliar were the ones who changed the Labour Party's rules on leadership elections to allow that to happen.
Fortunately, even the normally placid UK electorate are at last waking up to the demerits of the sovereignty of parliament over the current snouts in the trough issue over MP's expense claims in general and Duff Gordon and his cabinet in particular. If our anti-democratic government allow a general election to be held as scheduled by 2010, it is just conceivable that the electorate will vote for neither the "official" nor the NuLab wings of the unionist party to retain the whip hand over whose snouts remain in the trough.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#343 Brownedov
As ever, another fine riposte Brownedov. I agree with it entirely.
Complain about this comment
#342 grandantidote
GA you are replying to a comment that is almost 2 months old with a very high probability that commenter does not even know this thread is still open, and you’re calling them a Flat Earth Society expert.
How novel.
Complain about this comment
#344 grandantidote
I've been out all afternoon and if your removed post was in response to my #343 then I'm truly sorry because I didn't get the chance to read it. I never refer posts critical of me or my views under any circumstances. Please have another go as I would be happy to debate the issue.
#345 Roll_On_2010
Thanks
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
What is your take on the following poll from PoliticsHome:
The poll is in pdf format but the following link takes you where you need to go!
Are spending cuts back[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
347 brownedov
No your alright chum, your response to my post is typicaly Tory although you haven't the courage to admit that you are a Tory, which you obviously are, I have little respect for Tories on these blogs but even less for the "I'm not a Tory brigade" but there you are it takes all sorts to make a world I guess.
#"He is a dangerous, secretive and unsafe Prime Minister to have"
What on earth is wrong with that statement? He either supported the "regime change" war with Iraq because he believed in it or he was too stupid to see through the dodgy dossiers. Either sounds pretty dangerous to me. He has rejected an early public enquiry into the war,
Well I think first you have to make up your mind whether he is the Prime Minister or not, you can't have it both ways.
He supported the war in Iraq as has been well documented but was supported in the action taken there by a vast number of MPs from all sides of the house the Tories being the most Gung Ho! about the situation so if that makes him secretive and unsafe then he has a hell of a lot of company in the house,and if it means that he was to stupid to see through the dodgy documents he was in a great deal of company including the front bench of the Tory party. as for him rejecting a enquiry into the war in Iraq how many inquiries has there been already, and he has advised that there will be yet another after the hostilities have ended in Iraq, he obviously has more respect for the men still in armed combat out there than you have hence the inquiry at a later date, I had thought that perhaps you had more sense than that. far from sounding dangerous it sounds pretty sensible to me.
#This one is the first not to be elected by his own party since the 14th Earl of Home in 1963, and he and his chum Bliar were the ones who changed the Labour Party's rules on leadership elections to allow that to happen.
The whole story of voting in a prime minister has been gone through on here many times and I am not going to fall for that one ,other than to say that if a position becomes vacant and only one person applies and everyone is happy about that then the one takes the position its not rocket science its just common sense, the lady you defend has made this same accusation many times to the point when it has become extremely boring, and she has had it explainded to her by many people from a number of different political persuasions that she is totally wrong in her assumtions.
I see that gordon has now become the chum of Tony Blair according to you most of you antilabour guys are usually telling us how they were deadly enemies, once again make up you mind.
#Fortunately, even the normally placid UK electorate are at last waking up to the demerits of the sovereignty of parliament over the current snouts in the trough issue over MP's expense claims in general and Duff Gordon and his cabinet in particular.
The post that the moderators removed dealt specificaly with the snouts in the trough situation although it had nothing to do with your post as my post had been completed and posted long before yours appeared. I dont feel obliged to go through what was a rather long post again only for my efforts to be wiped out on a whim but before throwing accusations about snouts in troughs take a close look at perhaps people you know and countless thousands of business men with their noses in the trough with phony tax returns, and all the rich that are claiming government handouts ie; family allowance winter fuel allowance etc, you might say well their entitled to it, then ask yourself where have I heard that before.
Finally if you feel you want to adress me and thats you prerogative do try to cut out the childish name calling it only demeans your argument and mine for bothering to reply to you.
Complain about this comment
346 rollon
#GA you are replying to a comment that is almost 2 months old with a very high probability that commenter does not even know this thread is still open, and you?re calling them a Flat Earth Society expert.
Well old friend you read it didn't you, it's the only blogg that still alive, so I thouth I would rattle a few cages unfortunately I also disturbed the moderators from their slumber and they moderated my most provocative post, I don't think that a post that is two months old can be ignored I have had some Tories on here clutching at straws drag up some of mine six months old.
I think when someone declares to the world that all the talk of global warming is a ploy to control the people thenI think that I am quite entitled to ask if I was right that I was told thatthey were the person to get information on the flat earth society, I at no time suggested that she was a expert on the subject, in fact I have grave doubts whether this blogger is a expert on any subject, a little like your self.
Complain about this comment
345 roll on 2010
#As ever, another fine riposte Brownedov. I agree with it entirely.
OOOh! your such a lovely boy, a fine member of the mutual admiration society.
Complain about this comment
#349 grandantidote
Thanks for your response. I think that I am at last beginning to understand why you insist on calling everyone who disagrees with you a Tory. Given that your own favoured faction of the unionist party is now so right wing and authoritarian that it is somewhere between the BNP and the "official" unionists, I suppose that you must see anybody to the left of you as Tory, whereas as an old lefty Liberal I find it rather hard to distinguish between the various factions of the unionist right wing, merely suspecting that the "official" unionists led by Cameron are marginally less obnoxious than your ersatz NuLab lot led by Lord Mandy. You're most welcome to call me a Tory if it helps, but if you see democrats as Tories, then you're sadly mistaken about both.
"Well I think first you have to make up your mind whether he is the Prime Minister or not, you can't have it both ways."
I do not deny that Duff Gordon is the current PM but merely that he has any democratic legitimacy to be so thanks to his chum Bliar ratting on his 1997 manifesto commitment to electoral reform. That nearly a quarter of the electorate voted in 2005 for such a party is a matter of shame for them but a matter of democratic defecit for the three quarters of the electorate who were less deranged. What I do wonder is how many of those who voted NuLab in 2005 realise how much Bliar and his chum had removed democracy within the Labour Party in their rise to the top of the greasy pole.
"if it means that he was to stupid to see through the dodgy documents he was in a great deal of company including the front bench of the Tory party"
As previously stated, I hold no great regard for unionists of any label, but at least the "officials" had the excuse of not seeing all the documents. I would go along with you to the extent that they were indeed callow and stupid to believe anything told them by NuLab ministers.
"if a position becomes vacant and only one person applies and everyone is happy about that then the one takes the position"
First, Bliar and Duff Gordon changed the rules on party elections when they took over after Smith died. Second, are you suggesting that John McDonnell and Diane Abbott were lying about the activities of the NuLab whips in threatening dire consequences to anyone who signed McDonnell's nomination?
You are of course perfectly entitled to regard all MPs as honourable members tirelessly working in their constituents' interests and deserving every penny of the tax-free "expenses" they claim. That you are in a rather small minority in holding that view seems self-evident, but perhaps you believe that the opinion polls confirming that view are somehow "cooked". Time will tell, of course. My point, however, was much more concerned with a growing understanding of the demerits of the sovereignty of parliament. Cameron is at least fighting a rearguard action on this while Duff Gordon simply ignores it as long as he can. If you cannot see that they're on the same side over the issue in trying to retain the UK's non-constitution at all costs, then I'm afraid you really are blinkered.
"do try to cut out the childish name calling"
As a home ruler, I find it deeply offensive to be called a Tory, particularly by one of their fellow unionists. If you can justify why you do so rather than simply claiming that "you haven't the courage to admit that you are a Tory, which you obviously are" then I might be prepared to consider your request.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
352 browndov
Since there is no one else around to debate with, one might suppose that I would be glad to debate the points you've made but since you have denied my request to have a grown up debate, I am afraid "Duff Gordon" ended it for me.Cheerio!.
Complain about this comment
#353 grandantidote
"I am afraid "Duff Gordon" ended it for me."
Glad we agree on something! I did think that there was just a glimmer of a chance that the departure of Teflon Tone would lead the Labour Party to find it's soul and ease off a little on its extreme-right authoritarian unionism. But, I am afraid "Duff Gordon" ended it for me too.
Do you regard Plaid Cymru as a Tory organisation, I wonder? You seem to be ready enough to bandy about terms such as traitor but I suspect your feelings regarding them in relation to your beloved UK union would be reciprocated by them in relation to your unconcern at the right to self-determination of the Welsh people. Real Tories are right in the same boat with you attempting to row against the tide.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
354 browndov
I am afraid that your comments regarding me and my politics are
balderdash, as is your opinion of Gordon Brown and the labour party.
I have no recollection of calling anyone a traitor.
Complain about this comment
#355 grandantidote
"I am afraid that your comments regarding me and my politics are balderdash"
I'm sorry to hear that, but when you dismiss anyone who criticises the polity of the UK as a Tory, while you share the goal of not changing it with the official Conservative & Unionist Party it can be pretty hard to know what you do believe in that's very different from them. ID Cards and 42-day detention, I suppose, but do you actually have any core values which lead to you to supporting NuLab?
"as is your opinion of Gordon Brown and the labour party."
I had serious disagreements on centralisation and other issues with the old Labour Party, but I have no doubt that Michael Foot, Tony Benn and a few others were honourable people arguing for something they believed in. Since Bliar and Duff Gordon added the "New", there has been little or no evidence that they believe in anything at all other than remaining in power and gaining the most personal benefit from it, as evidenced by their string of broken manifesto commitments since 1997. Were I to express my view of them in appropriate terms, all of my posts would be removed for breaking the House Rules.
You may well disagree with that view, but to describe it as balderdash is to ignore the increasing slump of their vote in actual elections. Sadly, most of the gain in England come the general election will likely be in favour of the "official" unionists who share their constitutional policies.
"I have no recollection of calling anyone a traitor."
And nor did I say you had. You have, hovever, made a number of accusations at others suggesting they were calling people traitors in the past month or so which amply justifies my #354's "seem to be ready enough to bandy about terms such as traitor". The problem of living in a unitary state with the least democratic system in the EU is that it comprises four "home" nations, thus making it difficult to be loyal to the state without being disloyal to the nation, and vice versa of course.
I seem to recall your stating that you lived in Wales and specifically wonder how you view Plaid Cymru. As your over-riding loyalty seems to be to the unitary state - something you share with the "official" unionists - I merely wondered whether you also refer to PC supporters as Tories.
If not, perhaps you would be so kind as to use the same term for other home rules rather than the offensive and untrue Tory which is your standard term of abuse for those who disagree with you.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
356 browndov
Once again my friend more balderdash and suposition your itching for someone to have a fight with over the attempt by the SNP to take Scotland out out of the union well my friend you have obviously read my posts so you will know that I have said all that I am going to say on the matter if wanting the UK to remain as one nation is unionist then I am indeed a unionist I was not aware that there were official unionists or is that somthing else you have dreamt up for your self,
If I were to give you my oppinion on PC then I would definately have my post removed I am a socialist and happy to be living within the EU, I love Britain and that includes all between the Scilly isles and the outer Hebrides.
Regarding
#other than remaining in power and gaining the most personal benefit from it,
The fact that Tony Blair left prematurely hardy supports your remark or I suppose in your mind it probably does.
Calling people Tories as a sign of disrespect ,Hardly I have mentioned a number of Tories that I hold in respect, its just their policies or lack of them that I despise, but in my book if it looks like a duck[Tory] quacks like a duck [Tory] and walks like a duck[tory] then it is a duck[Tory].
Incidently if some one says to me
#You seem to be ready enough to bandy about terms such as traitor
Then that suggests to me that I am being accused of calling someone a traitor if not how can the word traitor be offensive.Which is what you imply.
#Tory which is your standard term of abuse for those who disagree with you.
Nah! I have far better terms of abuse than that, Tory doesn't even begin to become my standard term, I can do a lot better than that when the mood takes me.
Now Browndov be a good chap and go and have a chat with oldnat or Aye Write, they will appreciate your comments far more than I, you dont seem a bad fellow a little misguided perhaps but nevertheless not a bad chap,
but do try to give up the duffGordon thing it really does diminish your arguments I can't think why anyone with a ounce of nous would resort to silly name calling it puts you in the same catogory as the othern id**ts on here that use those terms, and I think your probably better than that,its childish and does you no credit. No go and eat your easter egg and have a nice easter.
Complain about this comment
#357 grandantidote
"more balderdash and suposition your itching for someone to have a fight with over the attempt by the SNP to take Scotland out out of the union"
First, if you think something is balderdash, fine, but you have provided no substance to justify your statement.
Second, I.m not itching for a fight with anyone but merely trying to understand a mindset that demands self-determination for the Falkland Islanders but denies it to the Scottish people. In particular, your party is conspiring with the official Tories to deny them a referendum on their governance. Both parties deny it to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish people, too, which is why I regard both big unionist parties as anti-democratic, especially when coupled with their love of the 1872 plurality voting system which has given them each Buggins' turn at ruining the UK since the 1930s.
"if wanting the UK to remain as one nation is unionist then I am indeed a unionist I was not aware that there were official unionists"
Thank you for your candour. The official unionists are the Tories, who incorporate the word into their official name: The Conservative & Unionist Party. The fact that your two parties agree on so much is why I find it hard to distinguish between them, especially since "New" Labour embraced the market economy and renounced progressive taxation.
"If I were to give you my oppinion on PC then I would definately have my post removed"
As I thought, but at least you do them the honour of not calling them Tories. Please treat other home rulers and republicans with the same respect. You can always use asterisks!
"I am a socialist"
I've always thought you probably were, which is why I find your support for the current shower and hatred for old socialists like Tony Benn so inexplicable.
"in my book if it looks like a duck[Tory] quacks like a duck [Tory] and walks like a duck[tory] then it is a duck[Tory]"
Couldn't have put it better myself, which is precisely why I see very few differences between NuLab and the official Tories, except perhaps over EU integration.
"Then that suggests to me that I am being accused of calling someone a traitor if not how can the word traitor be offensive.Which is what you imply."
Not at all. It was you who accused others of calling people traitors.
"I have far better terms of abuse than that, Tory doesn't even begin to become my standard term, I can do a lot better than that when the mood takes me."
Please try. Nothing is more offensive than being called a Tory, unless perhaps it is being accused of supporting the current UK government.
"No go and eat your easter egg and have a nice easter."
If you are a Christian, enjoy Easter Day, but note that I am not resident in England and therefore free from the state religion on which, again, your lot and the official Tories agree.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
358 browndov
#First, if you think something is balderdash, fine, but you have provided no substance to justify your statement.
The substance is contained within your post.
#Second, I.m not itching for a fight with anyone but merely trying to understand a mindset that demands self-determination for the Falkland Islanders but denies it to the Scottish people.
Whose mindset is that then? at no time have I demanded self- determination for the Falkland islanders, and have certainly never denied the Scottish people of anything, if the Scotish people wish to break away from the rest of the UK then thats their choice. What I do object to is being told by you nationalists that thats what the people of Scotland want, you have no more idea of what they want than the next man. Nationalists of any kind are always convinced as you and some others on here are that they know exactly what everyone wants and woebetide any that disagree with them as with Deanthetory, perhaps just out of curiosity what happens if the Shetland and Hebrideon islanders decide they dont want independence and the rest of Scotland does, will they be forced to comply and if so how will that force manifest itself.
#As I thought, but at least you do them the honour of not calling them Tories. Please treat other home rulers and republicans with the same respect.
Can't very well call them Tories can I, their a bit thin on the ground on these bloggs, as actually you Scotts nats are,I do not do them any honour and I am afraid that I do not consider them particularly honourable and I am diametrically opposed to their views as I am to yours, but in your case I do not find your lot dishonourable just misguided..
#I've always thought you probably were, which is why I find your support for the current shower and hatred for old socialists like Tony Benn so inexplicable.
Another example of balderdash, but your reference to Tony Benn does indicate that you have read my posts carefully, which is very flattering, but probably not meant to be, Tony Benn has never had my support, and he only represents the dinasaur element on the outskirts of the party, his ideas and what would be his future for the labour party would make you curl up your toes if they were implemented, the only reason you and others particularly Tories have this sudden apreciation of him and people like Diane Abbot is not for what they stand for but because they disagree with most of the Labour party, if by some strange twist of fate they were to lead the labour party you would hate them with the same vehemence as you do Gordon Brown.
#Couldn't have put it better myself, which is precisely why I see very few differences between NuLab and the official Tories, except perhaps over EU integration.
If you see very few differences between Labour and the Tories then I think you are destroying your credibility as someone who can rationally voice an opinion on what may be a referendum on Scottish independence.
#Not at all. It was you who accused others of calling people traitors.
And I was right, try Deanthetory.
#Please try. Nothing is more offensive than being called a Tory, unless perhaps it is being accused of supporting the current UK government.
You see this is where you and I are poles apart I do not think that being called a Tory whether inadvertantly or not is a insult and is certainly not meant to be by me, I may use the word with some disdain as there policies atleast those I am aware of dont agree with my ideas of life but considering that millions of people support them they obviously disagree with me, thats democracy, but it doesn't make me hold them in contempt, I can think of many more offensive things than that to call people should it be necessary and sometimes do, I find nothing offensive in calling you SNP supporter and it isn't meant to be offensive, its purely the way you now come accross to me, previously you appeared to be a Tory but that was not in itself meant to be offensive,I shan't go into silly name calling again as you appear to be determined to carry on with this childlike pursuit.
#If you are a Christian, enjoy Easter Day, but note that I am not resident in England and therefore free from the state religion on which, again, your lot and the official Tories agree.
Had you have read my posts as closely has you appear to have you would have noted that I am an atheist, and I have no truck with religion in any form,I also have no desire to force my anti religious views on anyone else unless asked my opinion, that doesn't stop me in enjoying good company on what has become far from religious celebrations, probably like yourself I hold New Years Day in more esteem than any other day of the year, thats because I like the beginnings of things, I prefer dawn to dusk and spring more so than autumn and youth to old age.
I must admit to finding it a little stomach churning when I see all these politicians attending church on occasions, and I find it infuriating when any bishop or archbishop voices a opinion regarding the government of any political persuasion, they cant substantiat the own position never mind procastinating on the actions of others.
So your lot are all atheists are they I wasn't aware of that, so I suppose the flag of St Andrew will have to go then if you lot get in.
Complain about this comment
#359 grandantidote
Thanks for your response. At least we're agreed that I'm not a Tory. But I'm afraid that your post gives me no understanding of where you differ from them.
I didn't intend the Falklands issue as a trick question, but merely to demonstrate how close your Supreme Leader is to his hero Mrs T's stance on them, as reported in this website's No talks on Falklands, says Brown from his pre G20 world tour, where a British official said Mr Brown had "set out the British government's long-standing position on sovereignty in very clear terms" and "emphasised the importance of self-determination". But not for England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, it seems!
That's hardly the only issue where there is not the proverbial cigarette paper's difference between the two large unionist parties. You both wish to retain the supremacy of parliament [meaning the Westmidden one] at the expense of the sovereignty of the peoples of the UK. You both wish to retain an established church for England which makes one protestant christian sect the only corporate body to be directly represented in any EU legislature. Despite the broken 1997 NuLab manifesto promise of a referendum on constitutional and electoral reform, you both wish to retain the 1872 plurality voting system which makes the UK parliament less democratic than any other EU state.
Is it any wonder that home rulers, nationalists, democrats and republicans see your two parties as competing wings of the same Tory movement squabbling only on minor issues like who does sleaze best and who is most authoritarian?
You may be many things, but if you scorn Tony Benn as representing the "dinasaur element on the outskirts of the party" then you're certainly not a Socialist.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
PS to my #360
Re the English established church, perhaps it's instructive to look at the situation in Spain, which has asymmetric devolution for the Catalans [probably 1st to leave], Basques [probably 2nd] and others, but which has one main christian religious sect covering the entire Iberian peninsula. To the best of my knowledge and belief, nobody in Spain is asking for Catholic bishops to sit in the Cortes Generales by right.
Spanish democracy may be much younger than the experiment in quasi-democracy still evolving in the UK but they and other EU countries - even ones not two decades out of the Warsaw Pact - set a much better example than the mother of parliaments.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Looks like we're seeing the first fruits of the departure of McBride with this website's PM plan for compulsory volunteers. Eerily reminiscent of Jim Hacker's Grand Design to reintroduce conscription.
Wonder what Sir Humphrey thinks?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
360 browndov
I am completely wasting my time posting any posts to you you either disregard totally what I have written or deny me the right that you apparently crave to free speech and to self determination, once again your post is full of balderdash, and I can have no more truck with this nonsense.
Never mind #Wonder what Sir Humphrey thinks? whats more the point is what on earth Browndov thinks, you've got me completely baffled.
Did you not understand the words Athiest and I want no truck with any religion or were you to busy trying to think up another spurious argument?.
Complain about this comment
#363 grandantidote
The problem, grandantidote, is that you personally may be an atheist, support self-determination and even be a closet socialist, but you support a party, a government and a unionist establishment which believes in retaining the status quo at all costs via representative quasi-democracy and is against all of those things in the form of support for an established Church of England, a hatred for referenda and economic policies barely distinguishable from the other main lot of unionists.
Fortunately for my own sanity, I don't belong to or unconditionally support any party, and the Liberal party [which comes closest to representing my views] does not currently contest seats at Westmidden, realising that the current system makes in pointless.
I can understand someone saying that one party or another represents the leastworst option for them, but what intrigues me about your posts is the uncritical nature of your support for your own chosen party, who generally strike me as being even further from their own rhetoric than the others. As a result, I can understand people who supported them in 1997, 2001 or 2005 jumping ship for the "official" Tories or the BNP but it's the old Labour supporters who stick with them who leave me baffled.
You're probably right that there is little point in continuing this exchange, since we do not seem to be communicating our thoughts effectively.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
364 browndov
You're probably right that there is little point in continuing this exchange, since we do not seem to be communicating our thoughts effectively.
At last we see eye to eye on something, see you in the bull ring in a week or two.
Complain about this comment
#365 grandantidote
"At last we see eye to eye on something, see you in the bull ring in a week or two."
Fair enough, but I supect the ripples of the McPoison affair will be echoing around this blog for some time to come, leaving me little to contribute to the discussion. As the Thunderer's article begins, "[b]y his friends shall you know him". The conclusions drawn on the NR threads will doubtless be rather different from yours or mine.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS