Betting on the banks

Welcome back Nicholas, long time no see.

"This morning Ed Miliband called on the chancellor to repeat Alistair Darling's bankers' bonus tax, despite the fact that the former chancellor recently told a financial services conference that his tax was a "one-off", as intended, and did not work: "I think it will be a one-off thing because, frankly, the very people you are after here are very good at getting out of these things and... will find all sorts of imaginative ways of avoiding it in the future."

Interesting point and probably right as well.

"Yesterday the prime minister was very very careful to downplay what government could and should do about bankers - warning of scapegoating one industry, stressing that it wasn't right to micro-manage the banks and the importance of a successful banking sector - while still insisting, "I want to see socially responsible banks behaving responsibly, lower bonus pools than last year's, responsible levels of remuneration, proper agreements on lending to businesses large and small and being good citizens in the community.""

sounds eminently sensible, but I have my doubts he'll deliver on it. Will be interesting to see what the EU's directive on the matter is. One of your fellow bloggers last week indicated that had the projected EU measures been in place seven years ago, maybe things would have turned out a bit differently. Nothing like waving goodbye to a ship thats already sailed though, eh?

"Both Cameron and Miliband agree that the government should use its stake in RBS to keep bonuses in that bank down but both were utterly vague about what that means."

Quite simple, isnt it? Using their stake to influence and if necessary, control the remuneration boards & committees, I would have thought. And, if the banks concerned dont like it, tough... fend for themselves instead.

"Ministers don't expect RBS to announce their bonuses until late February - after other banks do. If other banks hold back so will RBS. If they don't, the board - including the taxpayers' representatives on it - will be told that RBS bankers will be poached by other banks if they are paid too little. Ministers will be told, in other words, that they can choose between assuaging the public's anger and crippling RBS, or ensuring RBS can one day be sold back into the private sector at a profit but disappointing voters who want to see bonuses slashed."

And maybe the voters, with aunties help need a little education on this matter, instead of the fourth estate continually stirring it for benefit of their own circulation.

Whilst bonuses and addressing the structure of them, indeed whether they should be paid at all, is one thing, there is much more to bank reform than simply playing the dog whistle politics around bonuses. Some of the more simple, chip on shoulder voters may think that if you get rid of bonuses, you get rid of the inherent structural problems. Well, if those kinds of minds prevail, then the voters deserve everything they get. Hence, as you say, its Buzz Lightweight's turn to prove he can formulate something more visionary and workable. Given though that he has stood four-square behind a shadow chancellor who doesnt even know what the current NI rates are, I dont think it'll do any of us much good holding our breath on that score.

NR: 'Ministers don't expect RBS to announce their bonuses until late February - after other banks do. If other banks hold back so will RBS. If they don't, the board - including the taxpayers' representatives on it - will be told that RBS bankers will be poached by other banks if they are paid too little. Ministers will be told, in other words, that they can choose between assuaging the public's anger and crippling RBS, or ensuring RBS can one day be sold back into the private sector at a profit but disappointing voters who want to see bonuses slashed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome back, Nick. Hope you enjoyed your break. Happy New Year to you and the posters.

Do not the super-league individual bonuses go to a relatively small group: Directors, some in Senior Management and some traders and other 'enablers'? These people already enjoy higher salaries. How will restricting or massively taxing their bonuses, not their salaries, "cripple" RBS?

If they leave, will they not be easily replaced? Any sizeable business worth the name should have two or three (or more) in-house candidates angling for every job further up the ladder. {If not, is RBS being properly run?} If they work a little less hard, will RBS's profits disappear completely? Bearing in mind that the bulk of the profit comes from a multitude of sources, especially from the retail side, it is hardly likely.

I would be interested to read your thoughts on this.

Its clear how cosy Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are towards the banks.
Its clear that Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne and the entire Conservative led coalition are happy to make decisions that affect the poorest in society worst. Happy to create policy and push through a devastating austerity drive which will affect hundreds and thousands of those most in need. Happy to make billions of pounds worth of cuts to essential public services.
And all the while allowing........
1.At least 7 billion pounds worth of bonuses being paid to bankers this year alone.
2.Tax payer owned banks paying millions in remuneration packages which was promised would happen. (dont worry about your bonus,we will just up your salary.
3.Taxpayer owned banks increasing penalty charges to balance their books, which were disproportionate and affected the poorest much worse.
4. Taxpayer owned banks making thousands of their lower paid front-line staff redundant.
5. Guidance and instruction to HMRC to quickly clear up the case against Vodafone resulting in a loss of tax paid of up to 6 BILLION POUNDS.
6. And HSBC. (as well as many others) costing billions to the tax payer.
7.HMRC tax avoidance and tax evasion investigation funding and staff to be cut.
Once again the poor and those who can least afford it are paying/funding the luxury lifestyles of a few and forced to facilitate the system that allows it to continue.
Same old Tories.
Appalling.

The hypocracy of Milliband and postman Pat is astounding, both were part of what passed for a government under the Labour flag, both were part of the disastrous monetary policies that saw this country dragged to the brink of insolvency, and both now voice lyrical in their claims of " it wasn't us, it was the bankers ". Truly the banks got themselves into a hole from which the government had to find billions of pounds to dig them out and recapitalise them, but the banks are in no way culpable for the fact that the Labour government was borrowing to support it's idiotic policies to the tune of about £150 billion per year while busily proclaiming the financial expertise of it's Prime minister, chancellor and treasury team. Now we have these same failed "financial wizards ' still claiming to have all the answers and still as incompetent as every other example of Labour government since the second world war. Now it appears that Brown himself intends to lecture on economics, this most certainly does not auger well for the competence of our future economic advisers.

This notion that there is a shortage of capable individuals whose expertise can only be retained by ludicrous bonuses is a nonsense.

What would any organisation do if required to sack these people for any reason?

They'd replace them with someone from within their organisation, no doubt hungrier for success and used to a lower wage.

I hope that Eds policies will be formulated quickly. I know much is being done in this regard behind closed doors at the moment. In the meantime we can see the public are thinking for themselves and acting. Forgetting the large rise in militancy for a moment, we see more subtle changes but with huge consequences. The rise in people looking to credit unions for example and ethically driven specialist banking.
My areas credit union is inundated with customers and has never been busier. In fact some have introduced current accounts with all the standard facilities (ATM card etc.).More credit unions will be rolling out current accounts and more and more people will bank with them. And the effects of this will be a correction in immoral banking practises and bailouts.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/credit-unions
https://www.findyourcreditunion.co.uk/home
https://www.unity.co.uk/about-us/

I do not agree with you Nick but nonetheless a brave. Will people play politics with the Bankers bonuses - YES OF COURSE THEY WILL.

Lets think of the reasons: the public hate bankers, the poor and the squeezed middle are hurting but not the bankers; all of the UK Banks in one way or another have only survived (or at least been in a position to pay bonuses) because of taxpayer support; Cable and Clegg have made all sorts of promises to reign in the "Spivs in the City" but not delivered; bankers pay was expressly included in the Coalition Agreement.

BOTTOM LINE: THE BANKERS ARE THE BEST RECRUITING TOOL FOR LABOUR, THE UNIONS AND THE ENITRE ANTI-CUTS MOVEMENT. THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DESTROY ANY NOTION THAT 'WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER' OR THAT THIS GOVERNMENT IS PROGRESSIVE.

Is it dog whistle politics? - perhaps but no more than Cameron's ludicrous, contradictory and ultimately meaningless policies on Europe, immigration etc. This government and the Murdoch and Tory press have bashed the 'benefit scroungers' so little wonder the bankers and the 'tax dodgers' get it in return.

Now if we wnat to talk about what is good banking policy that is a different matter. But neither the Government nor Labour/Uniouns nor the Banks are actually talking sensibly about what is good future policy.

If you want good banking policy:

1. Establish a Public Commisssion of Inquiry into what caused the Bust and the Bailout. The Inquiry should have the right to compel the production of documents, take evidence on oath and grant amnesty to whistleblowers. We can then once and for all get to the bottom of what caused the bust and bailout. Until we do that any future policy is simply guess work. And until these issues are aired in public you will not assuage public anger.

2. Start taking steps at boith a G20 and EU level. The big banks are international and can most efficiently be tackled at an international level.

London is one of the financial capitals of the world. It could lead the world in developing the next generation of financial regulation and shaping the banking sector in the 21st Century.

Instead Cameron and Clegg (like Blair and Brown before them) will simply do what the banks tell them - which will be in the banks best short term interests. Wouldn't you do the same if you could dictate government policy?

kaybraes

"both were part of the disastrous monetary policies that saw this country dragged to the brink of insolvency"
......................

I keep hearing this mantra that the country was bankrupt, or nearly. Could you give the evidence that this was indeed the case ?

Should the BBC really be quoting the leader of her majesty's loyal opposition and his shadow cahncellor on anything these days? Most fo the time they do not appear to understand either what they or saying, or each other.

Tuition fees and top rate tax they differ on and the labour party has a 'blank sheet fo paper' for its economic policy.

Hence no wonder the shadow chancellor had no idea of when the deficit would come down, when asked; similarly he had no idea what national insurance was and guessed, incorrectly '20% rising to 21%'.

Ed Miliband meanwhile finds any definition of the 'squeezed middle' hard to describe except to say that barring the exception of a few nasty bankers he appears to mean everyone. Is this a real opposition in operation or a joke party?

So we are invited to comment on these posts about the policies of a party that is completely at sea economically, yet there is not the slightest mention of Ed Miliband's disasterous performance on the Jeremy Vine show when he revealed his true colours. This is an opposition leader who hasn't the faintest regard for others' opinions or arguments and managed to show this very clearly indeed at a time that should have been a perfect opportunity to listen to the concerns of the public.

Oh well. One day the laboutr party will wake up and recognise that a son of Brown and Kinnock can never win an election and put someone more centrist in charge. Alas, that may be a decade away. A decade in opposition.

It's a great time to be a tory...

We keep being told that in certain areas, notably investment banking, there are "superstars" who will move to work in overseas banks if they don't get their obscenely large bonuses/massive salary increases. In view of the propensity of banks to deceive and propagandise, it would be worth getting someone from the City, like some of the ex-City men used in Government by both previous & current Governments to test the validity of this argument. Presumably these "superstars" do move from time to time. What happens? Does the bank go out & recruit another "superstar" from another banks & so a merrygoround of pay inflation continues? Or - e.g. when a "superstar" retires or goes to the great tax haven in the sky - do they have to recruit a non-Superstar? Presumably at some stage these people have to be replaced, as they aren't indestructible or ageless? So if that can happen anyway, why is it impossible now?

A large part of RBS's losses stem from acquisitions no longer being worth what RBS paid for them. The biggest of these was ABN Amro which resulted in a write down of more than £16bn. This decision was taken by the then board of directors. Many of those directors have lost their job now, including both the Chairman and CEO at the time. Replacements have been recruited from outside of the banking industry and cannot be considered culpable for the problems from 2007/8.
Holding more than 80% of the shares in RBS we have to decide what sort of bank we want and how do we get our money back. Few people would have the experience and track record to run a global company such as RBS. Remuneration needs to be set at a level commensurate with the task, a huge one to turn RBS around. This is being made even more difficult with new regulations forcing banks to be more strongly capitalised in future.
If we want our money back in any reasonable timeframe we have to have the company run by the best person available, notwithstanding the cost of his remuneration.

Can we all at least agree on the following:

1. Did the Labour Goverment make a mistake in the way they chose to regulate the banks? - Yes.

2. Was their regulatory policy largely in accordance with what the Banks were requesting? - Yes.

3. Did the Conservatives support the general idea of "light touch" regulation of the banks? - Yes

4. Did Brown and Blair become addicted to the massive tax revenues generated by the City during the boom years? - Yes.

5. As a result of the financial crisis are other Western Governments (of all political persuasions) now forced to deal with very serious fiscal deficits? - Yes.

6. Were irresponsible practices in the banking sector a very significant factor in causing the financial crash? - Yes.

7. Did the banks remuneration policies contribute to those irresponsible practices? Yes.

8. Do we need to understand what went wrong in the City in order to design a better future system of banking regulation? - Yes

I'm having a bit of a guess, but I suspect that a large proportion of the banks' (except Lloyds and RBS) shareholders are from overseas and couldn't really care where they are based as long as they make profits. If the bonuses are taxed or limited in some way the top talent won't just go overseas themselves they will take the bank and all its taxable profits too. Not doing anything about bonuses is just a bribe to keep the managers and directors in this country. The talk about keeping talent is just window dressing. Many may have expertise and experience but unique talent I doubt. I can't think of any other field where there are up to 5,000 people who have unique, irreplaceable talent that merit £1m bonuses.

#10 Lacplesis37
I am sure that you are right to say that bankers do move, often for more money. RBS said that they lost "thousands of good people" as a result of the bonus restrictions. Whether these were all "superstars" I do not know. There will always be people in certain markets coveted by other banks and able to command better remuneration either to stay where they are or to move. So the merry go round does keep turning.
How are we to get our money back if we are not prepared to pay the going rate for the best people? Perhaps we could say that we should stop RBS operating in global markets and that it should revert to being a simple UK high street bank. If this were to happen I doubt that it could ever generate the billions of profits required to repay (although we would probably save millions in not paying large bonuses).

Lefty:

You might have missed the last line of Nicks report, mate.....

"Now it's Ed Miliband's turn."

As you're a party member, do you have any knowledge of what he's putting on that blank piece of paper? Except for "wont raise VAT" when he twice advocated and voted for a raise in VAT when he was in Gordon's cabinet?

In my opinion the following statements are all correct. Maybe I am wrong - either way I would appreciate the views of others.

1. Did Labour make a mistke in adopting "light touch" regulation of the City? - I believe the answer is yes.

2. Was the Labour's policy largely in line with the regulatory approach advocated by the Banks? I believe the answer is yes.

3. Did the Conservatives in opposition support the notion of "light touch" financial regalation? I believe the answer is yes.

4. Did Brown and Blair become addicted to the massive tax revenues generated in the City during the boom? I believe the answer is yes.

5. Are numerous Western Governments (of all political persuasions) now being forced to deal with massive fiscal deficits following the global financial crisis? I believe the answer is yes.

6. Were there irresponsible practices in the City which contributed to the global financial crisis? I believe the answer is yes.

7. Did the remuneration policies adopted by the Banks contribute to any irresponsible practices in the City? I believe the answer is yes.

8. Have we taken sufficient action to address items 1-7? I believe the answer is no.

9. Are the politicians reluctant to antagonise the banks because of the massive economic and political power that they might be seen to hold? I believe the answer is yes

"I hope that Eds policies will be formulated quickly. I know much is being done in this regard behind closed doors at the moment."

Er, yes mate. VERY tightly closed doors! I wouldnt hold your breath...


"In the meantime we can see the public are thinking for themselves and acting..."

What you go on to say about credit unions, in all seriousness warrants further attention and should be given more publicity. For once I agree with you, the public deserve a better choice to take their business elsewhere and I hope these guys and others like them succeed.

The militancy is just window dressing and w*lly-waving by certain union leaders. Nothing more, nothing less, getting their plebs to do their dirty work for them, satisfying their own personal political ambitions and has nothing to do with any benefits to their memberships. It didnt work before and it wont work again in the future. All it does is hack the public off.

Mods - you can scrap my post @ 16 now you have agreed to clear my post @12.

3. At 1:42pm on 10 Jan 2011, lefty11 wrote:

"6. And HSBC. (as well as many others) costing billions to the tax payer."

Please explain at what point HSBC has 'cost billions to the tax payer'. Thank you.

Oh and incidentally, lefty....

"1.At least 7 billion pounds worth of bonuses being paid to bankers this year alone."

An exception to the rule here... I agree with you, its wrong. I dont believe in bonuses, full stop, no matter what you do, banker, footballer, baker, bin-man, tube driver, whatever. Dont get too excited though, because...

"2.Tax payer owned banks paying millions in remuneration packages which was promised would happen. (dont worry about your bonus,we will just up your salary.)"

So, is your problem salary level or bonuses? Or both? (I think I know your answer to that, in all seriousness....)

"3.Taxpayer owned banks increasing penalty charges to balance their books, which were disproportionate and affected the poorest much worse."

Simple answer to that is exactly the same for someone who incurs speeding tickets. Dont do anything that will incur you a penalty. Dont have an unarranged overdraft, for instance. Saying the poorest get stiffed worst proportionally by everything is ringing a bit hollow these days. Crying wolf isnt going to change it.

"4. Taxpayer owned banks making thousands of their lower paid front-line staff redundant."

Well, your lot set up UKFI who run the show at the taxpayer owned banks and happily embraced globalisation, which further encourages these actions, not to mention they didnt exactly use their influence over the taxpayer owned banks to do what is right for British businesses, did they? (ie, allowing RBS to provide the leverage to Kraft to allow them to complete the hostile takeover of Cadbury, chucking thousands on the dole - and Labour stood back and did NOTHING)... This has been happening for years. Hardly the sole fault of the tories.

"5. Guidance and instruction to HMRC to quickly clear up the case against Vodafone resulting in a loss of tax paid of up to 6 BILLION POUNDS."

Which happened under a LABOUR chancellor. Dont you dare try and blame that on anyone else. You look into what really happened there instead of pushing this revisionist fluff. That happened on Darlings watch.

"6. And HSBC. (as well as many others) costing billions to the tax payer."

HSBC arent British, unless that escaped you. They're mainly based out of Hong Kong. YOUR chancellor left open the loopholes that allow the likes of HSBC, SmithKlineBeecham, NewsInternational and others to avoid paying UK corporation tax. YOUR party did nothing about it. The tories are wrong not to close the loophole, but you cant criticise them for not doing it when you had thirteen years in which you could have done it and FAILED.

"7.HMRC tax avoidance and tax evasion investigation funding and staff to be cut."

The department, like many of the others, Home Office, DoJ, MOD, after the Brown era, is not fit for purpose. They cant even run PAYE successfully. It should be bulldozed and started again.

"Once again the poor and those who can least afford it are paying/funding the luxury lifestyles of a few and forced to facilitate the system that allows it to continue."

yeah, yeah, yadda yadda yadda, Comrades, lend me your ears, yawn, yawn. Havent you got anything else in your armoury?

7/11/12#

Good posts, agree with you.

Entreri 100404 @ 19.

The current public support being provided to UK banks is £512 BILLION. That is according to the National Audit Office - please see
https://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/support_for_banks.aspx

HSBC currently gets the benfit of the Government's Deposits Guarantee and is also able to write off its losses during the financial crisis against its tax liability in subsequent years.

Finally HSBC had huge amounts owing from both LLoyds and RBS when the government bailed those institutions out. Without the support of taxpayers LLoyds and RBS would not have been able to pay HSBC back the amounts that were owed.

re # 20
Fubar, what about a bonus pot that is shared equally, after year end results, between all employees equally?

If salaries differentiate between ability, education, hours, responsibility, workload, importance, pressure, etc, then an equally shared bonus is to be welcomed, enouraged even. Is it not?

What I object to are the distortions individual bonuses (all bonuses, not just those for bankers) bring to the markets and the tax situations that currently arise plus the possibility of evasion. Also, for a public or semi-public body, where taxpayers are forced by law to contribute to individual bonuses, that must be wrong?

Another year and we're still utterly dependent and pathetically held hostage by the financial industry. Let's move away from this sector,: more manufacturing, focus on green technology, Cameron's East London silicon valley is a good start. Then we can go and tell the banks to disappear to Switzerland if they want to

Betting on the banks: I wouldn't do that if I were you!
All politicians should love to "bash the banks" for what they have done to sovereign debt and the bringing in of austerity.
Can you make them behave without adequate legislation - not by the hair on your chiny-chin chin!
Alistair Darling's bankers' bonus tax would not work. When is a bonus not a bonus? When the intelligent legal beagles that work for the investment banks too big to fail make it into something that you can no longer call a "bonus".
The shadow chancellor Alan Johnson's reply even if a bonus tax doesn't stop banks paying big bonuses - which it didn't last year - it will, at least, raise some much-needed cash is a lily-livered sidestep away from the real issue.
Last but not least we have the PM being "very very careful to downplay what government could and should do about bankers...". Excuse me, but were the investment banks too big to fail that thoughtful, that caring, that protective of the common folk? Mr. PM, we should be very, very careful about what we are doing to the taxpayers who are struggling to bear the load of what the banking industry did to them!
Cameron: "I want to see socially responsible banks behaving responsibly, lower bonus pools than last year's, responsible levels of remuneration, proper agreements on lending to businesses large and small and being good citizens in the community."
I'd like to see that too; so how's it going to happen?
There is only one way to make it happen. The way is fair and certainly not seriously detrimental to the investment banks too big to fail: You impose NOT a bank levy (which the banks will step around by juggling balance sheets and making them smaller), but a tax on all foreign financial transactions. Even a small tax on all foreign transactions, say 0.05%, would raise billions that can then be spent to create jobs, reduce austerity, and help the banks become good, responsible, caring citizens.
It will also reduce the amount of money that is available in the bonus pool.

3 lefty11

HMRC tax avoidance and tax evasion investigation funding and staff to be cut.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

What numbers are you looking at?

HMRC are going to receive an additional £900m over the next 4 years to tackle tax avoidance and evasion.

https://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/news/3272.asp

Inadvertently, our Nick assist the politicians in their ongoing attempts to shift the blame for a National Debt, which is fast approaching one trillion pounds, onto 'the banksters'.

Yes, according to the politicians, all of our financial troubles are due to those greedy banks/banksters.

Factually, the vast majority of the current National Debt is down to the former Tory Government (£300Bn) and latterly Labour (£400Bn).

Somebody once said that if you repeat a lie enough times then it becomes 'the truth'.

That is not exactly the case here, but the 'British' politicians are certainly doing all they can to shift the blame for our financial predicament squarely onto the banks thus bamboozling the people yet again.

Politicians are the cohort largely responsible for this but they will worm their way out of it as usual.

19. At 2:41pm on 10 Jan 2011, entreri100404 wrote:
3. At 1:42pm on 10 Jan 2011, lefty11 wrote:

"6. And HSBC. (as well as many others) costing billions to the tax payer."

Please explain at what point HSBC has 'cost billions to the tax payer'. Thank you.


------------------------------------






https://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1278

Banker bashing is still a good sport for the public and opposition politicians . However I think that it has ran its course now we need the banks to prosper so we can get our money back and if the norm is to have this bonus system so be it . I agree with the line that Tax payer owned or part owned Banks should should show restraint, it would be madness to put them in a possition where they loose people who can build them back up. There are also a lot of people who used the banking system as recklessly as some bankers by borrowing money after lying on mortgage applications,but people see them as victims.

#16 Cassandra

Good post, and (belated) Happy New Year.

I'm content to agree with your first seven points.

You wrote: "8. Have we taken sufficient action to address items 1-7? I believe the answer is no."

It is in our national interest to seek multilateral solutions. So whilst I also agree with the tone of your question I don't agree that Darling/Osborne are particularly culpable.

And "9. Are the politicians reluctant to antagonise the banks because of the massive economic and political power that they might be seen to hold? I believe the answer is yes"

UK politicians are reluctant to 'antagonise the banks' (whatever that means) because the UK economy is heavily dependent on the financial sector (hence the collapse in tax revenues during the banking crisis). I sense (correct?) that you want UK politicians to antagonise the banks either because a) you don't mind losing 60 billion pounds of tax revenues per annum to score a political point; b) you don't think that 'antagonising the banks' will lead to a relocation to Hong Kong and Singapore. I think it will, and in the interests of their shareholders they should (see the debate within HSBC).

You are correctly identified one component of the financial crisis. You say nothing of loose fiscal and monetary policy that encouraged an asset bubble by Western governments and central banks (particularly the US and UK) after 2000.

The resulting systemic failure is a failure of Western economic policy, not specifically a failure of the banking system.

The solution (fiscal conservatism, deep spending and tax cuts) is a subject for another day.

On the Daily Politics today there were three representatives from Labour, Conservatives and LibDems.

When asked by Andrew Neil on their opinions on bank bonuses - they all squirmed and wriggled - it was embarrassing and shameful.

However, although bank bonuses are 'lower'(?!) this quarter; their basic salaries have risen since the last quarter. Share options too have been a tax-effective option?

Fubar

So given it looks like the coalition are not going to do much about bonuses except talk...do you think going for the bonus tax again(for just this year) is a good idea ?

12. cassandra wrote

3. Did the Conservatives in opposition support the notion of "light touch" financial regalation? I believe the answer is yes.

----------------------------
just need to correct you slightly regarding point 3.
the conservatives actually promoted and endorsed some of the worst activities (credit default swaps for example) in an economic policy paper prior to the bust, which was greatly endorsed and acclaimed by Mr Osborne & co..

Dear oh dear, what hypocrisy from Red Ed and Postman Alan. Just how useless as the labour party become.
Maybe Postman Alan, when calling the bankers, should tell us why he claimed expenses of £400 a month for food. Was that not robbing the taxpayer.
Red Ed and Postman Alan are just out of their depth.

23#

Well, if you condone it for one, you condone it for all. Its kind of difficult to tell the banks they cant have it and then say to everyone else, yeah thats fine, pay everyone what you want.

The only exception I could figure could possibly be a co-operative/JLP type model. Anything else could/would lead to distortions and manipulations.

Public sector employees, no, absolutely not. no bonuses whatsoever. Just give 'em the proper rate for the task. Not politically inflated, not deliberately low pay-peanuts-hire-monkeys, just the right salary. And so far as UKFI is concerned, jesus, if you own the shares in the banks, you should vote down any bonuses to anyone. If they dont like it, they can walk to Switzerland as far as I care.

If it implodes RBS, tough. Its precisely by over-leveraging and batting way way way above its league that it got into the trouble it did. Spin out Natwest and Coutts, and leave the rump to be the provincial bit part player that it was thirty years ago. Fred should have been dragged into court for what he did, not paid off, not knighted. He should have been hounded from one end of the earth to the other. Same with Peter Cummings and Andy Hornby at HBOS and those idiots Applegarth & Ridley at Northern Crock. They should be struck off from ever directing anything apart from traffic at an abandoned Siberian salt mine.

But its not about that though, is it? If you do that, big loss of tax revenue, what the idea that Gordon and the others had was to bale them out, restore them to their previous "fitness", warts and inherent structural problems and all, and then sell them back to the private sector and hopefully score a profit, especially after you've been voted out. Thats not reform, thats just chucking money at it.

25#

Ah, the Tobin Tax... would only work if applied globally. Not the kind of thing you can get away with unilaterally.

28#

Precisely. I dont doubt the information in the article is factually correct.

But what did Gordon do about it, for thirteen long years?

Zip,
Zilch,
Nowt,
Nada,
Nothing.

You cant really complain when your own party, of which you are a paid up member, stood back and did nothing. You must therefore approve of their actions in doing nothing about it.

After all, that would sit comfortably with the blank piece of paper, wouldnt it, mate?

The rest of us can quite rightly admonish the coalition for not doing anything about it, and hopefully, punish them at the ballot box for it. But any noise from the left smacks (for a change) of gross, revisionist hypocrisy. But then again, most such noises do.

#22 Cassandra

Much of the state support (512 billion) that you quote is insurance arising from the Bank of England's long-established role as lender of last resort. Including guarantees (and in another context derivative contracts) always results in a large number, much beloved of the media, but not particularly informative. If you really want to shock everyone you could say that the implicit (rather than explicit) guarantee is much larger than this, i.e. the entire western economic, social, and political system.

The Audit Office from which you quote said: "we now believe the most likely scenario is that the taxpayer will not have to pay out significantly on its guarantees". The direct funding cost seems to be 5 billion a year, not at all welcome, but a small fraction of what the banks pay in taxation to the UK exchequer, and an even smaller fraction of total managed expenditure.

32#

In the absence of any better idea and until any EU led policy starts to bite, yes, yes, I do.

33#

Weak.

#25 bluesberry wrote:
"All politicians should love to "bash the banks" for what they have done to sovereign debt"

You could well say that politicians (and ignorant voters who elect them) are primarily responsible for soverign debt.

Many Western electors (not in Germany) voted for a sovereign debt crisis and that is what they are going to get.

John @ 30. HNY to you too.

You are right about loose monetary policy - it should be added to my list.

On your "antagonism" point I 100% agree we need to protect our position as a leader in financial services. To do that

- we need to understand what went wrong; and

- we must do someething to assuage public anger.

My suggestions were a public inquiry and much more work at an international level.

My point about politicians is that they are far too inclined to accept what bankers say about what is the best form of regulation. After all it was the bankers who told us all that light touch regulation was the best way to go.

Cameron and Osborne have been on the telly telling us that measures such as VAT rise, tuition fees etc are here to stay, not just for one year. This is because of the structural deficit, they claim, which isn't going to go away.

So why doesn't this apply to the banks?

Sorry, I was forgetting .... Tories...

The ridiculously high levels of remuneration paid to senior executives by several large corporations as well as banks suggests that competition for these jobs cannot be working. There must be thousands of people, at least as able as those in these jobs, who would be delighted to take over for less money.

The problem is:-
Who should decide the appointment and remuneration of those who decide, directly or indirectly, the appointment and remuneration of everyone else.

Perhaps democracy might work. Let all of the workers in large corporations vote on these matters. After all they are probably in the best position to judge and they have a stake in the success of the company, which is very important to them.

26 AS71
Lol. The liberal democrat Mr Alexander has promised more funding in this particular area. But overall cuts have been made to staff and funding at HMRC resulting (from the unions mouth) in a reduction and difficulty in chasing high profile cases.
But if this money does appear and tries to redress the underfunding of HMRC, do you think they are going after the big boys?
Osborne recent history suggests where the priorities aren’t and what direction he has given to HMRC
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/11/16/vodafone-hmrc-and-regulatory-capture/



Now lets see where this money (if it comes through) might really be spent
https://www.businesszone.co.uk/topic/regulation/taxman-targets-small-firms-record-keeping-clampdown/32644

28. At 3:38pm on 10 Jan 2011, lefty11 wrote:

19. At 2:41pm on 10 Jan 2011, entreri100404 wrote:
3. At 1:42pm on 10 Jan 2011, lefty11 wrote:

"6. And HSBC. (as well as many others) costing billions to the tax payer."

Please explain at what point HSBC has 'cost billions to the tax payer'. Thank you.
------------------------------------
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1278

========================================================================
Lefty meaningless soundbite, under this banner anyone who operates under the tax laws of the UK would 'cost billions to the tax payer' My granny paying into her ISA would fall foul of your reasoning.

You and I might not like what HSBC has done but it is and is still legal from when they started to do it in 2002 from changes created by the then Labour Chancellor.

Changes to tax laws need to be taken to stop it. labour had 8 yrs to change the law they created, but did not.

It might interest you to know that the UK government has only borrowed £124 bn in hard cash to assist bankers to date, estimated interest £5 - £6 bn a yr, the rest is in guarantees, luckily upto now not needed.

#33 lefty11 (presumably the blogger formerly known as lefty10)

The role of credit default swaps is controversial, and I simplify here, but in my opinion are a symptom of a crisis rather than its cause. The cause is high and ever-increasing levels of western government debt that in turn resulted in the need to insure against the risk of sovereign default. The solution? Vote for fiscally-conservative western governments (or learn German).

These politicians use phrases such as 'structural deficit' and Joe Public does not have a clue but assumes they must be on to something.

More prosaically, we could just read 'structural deficit' as politicians gross inability to restrict themselves to only spending what they raise in taxes (per year).

Politics - it is not magic, just a rather low-brow profession.

39.

I agree, it is a good idea. Dare I say a good piece of politics from Labour. Of course a lot of these folk receiving top salaries probably don't pay UK tax anyway...

Indy2010 @ 46

You say that the UK Government has only borrowed £124Bn in hard cash to assist the banks.

That tallies with my understanding of the current situation re: the National Debt i.e. Tories (£300Bn) + Labour (£400Bn) + Banks (£120Bn) + interest (£175Bn) = total £995Bn.

The National Debt will now zoom past the £1000Bn (one trillion) pound mark very shortly.

Source : https://www.debtbombshell.com/

Indy 2010 @46 it is probably legal to drive past the scene of the accident and not stop to help survivors. While it may be legal it is not moral.

This country has a great history of capitalists that measured their true worth by their contribution they made to society.

HSBC on the other hand apparently pay a gaggle of lawyers and accountants to examine the law in minute detail to work out how to reduce to the greatest possible extent the money it giives back to the people of this country through the tax system. Is it it legal - perhaps. Is it moral or to be admnired or encouraged - in my view no.

Labour used the financial sector as a scapegoat for their own ineptness in Government. The then opposition parties banker bashed as well in order to gain votes at the time of the Election. This decision by the then opposition parties was almost certain to come back to bite them. Labour should in particular be grateful for the years of easy tax money provided by the financial sector during their time in Government. Without it Britain would have gone down the tubes much sooner by the Labour Governments overspend. Labour very much encouraged easy leading by the banks, as this was the only part of the economy keeping Britain afloat. Good regulation not more regulation is what was needed during the Labour years and is all that is needed now.

I support the bank bonus payments, it is important to hire and retain the best people in a Global economy. If these people go elsewhere Britain will no longer be able to compete in this sector. If the taxpayer wants to get their money back on the banks, I would suggest they stop moaning about the only sector of the economy that Britain is any good at and has the potential to earn money. The lose of the financial sector in Britain would be devastating.

Cameron like Clegg is learning the harsh lesson that merely saying something to gain public support can be a very dangerous thing. Banker bashing was a foolish mistake by all the political parties. The public too enjoyed the use of easy credit, knowing full well in many instances that it was unaffordable and they would not repay. Maybe, therefore, all those people who worked hard and saved and did not join in the frenzy of the spend culture should start bashing the members of the public who did. It amounts to the same as banker bashing.

As to Ed Miliband no one could possibly take him seriously as a leader after seeing him interviewed a couple of times. Alan Johnsons lack of understanding of not only the tax system and the deficit proves he is unfit for any position which involves the economy. Therefore anything they have to say on the banks should be dismissed as mere opportunisum.

The government should not single out the banks for a special tax. Taxes should be applied equally to everyone. In the present circumstances very high salaries of more than 20 x average salaries are unnecessary and undesirable. Salary packages inc bonus etc of more than say £500,000 are socially destabilising and the government needs to act.
Last year's bankers tax should be applied to all very high earners, not just bankers. The tax should be paid by the company/organisation, not the individual. This should be a permanent feature of the tax system, not a 'one off'.

Come on, Nick. Be fair. "Banker-basher" Cable and "Pinnochio" Clegg as well as trade unions, commentators, TV pundits, including you, (the Intelligentsia) have all had a go about bank bonuses and bored us to death with the subject. Why should Ed Milliband not do so as he appears to be advocating what most people, but, not me, would like to see?

If "bashing" is in fashion let's include oil companies, supermarkets and anyone else paying out bonuses which the Intelligentsia deem to be unacceptable? Let's be "fair" which seems to be the watchword.

The banks got it wrong and should pay but they already do so under existing tax provisions and are still the biggest tax contributor as a group.

As the coalition are finding it out it is much harder in government to punish these greedy banks than it was to bash them in opposition. Do they call their bluff and tax them more anyway and hope they do not take their business abroad, those that can anyway? I have moved our savings to national savings and one of the big supermarkets and will be looking somewhere else for a current account soon. We never pay bank charges or borrow from them so will not give them a penny more than we have to. It is not only banks which avoid paying tax though. Boots have moved their HQ to avoid paying UK tax, as we know the Arcadia group and vodafone do all they can to avoid paying tax also. I have made a new year resolution I will not put any business the way of these greedy businesses and are looking for some ethical uk companies. Any ideas

55. juliet.
hi, yes, see the award winning bank, last link post 6.

Cassandra @ 51 you will see if you read my comment that I agreed with lefty by saying, I did not like it, but moral or not it is legal.

They like every other business, except not for profit, are there to deliver a service/product and make a profit, to re-invest in business or distribute to shareholder/stakeholders benefits, like it or not that is what a business is.

The thrust of my point was, there was not much shouting from the sidelines prior to May 2010, now it suits supporters of a political stance to start shouting albeit a lot late.

The other point being of £950 bn UK debt, £124 bn is from direct bank support, most of that tied up in shares etc for the failed banks. The rest of the £512 bn, £388 bn hopefully will not have to be found by the UK taxpayer because we would then truly be in the mire.

Re- your granny paying in to her isa.
An explanation of ethics and morals re-tax avoidance.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/12/17/the-ethics-of-tax-avoidance/


Of course you may be too old to be taught morals, ethics and the rights and wrongs. In which case if thats true, you join a sad little band of people (52) and (20). Hope its not too late for you.

I do wish Lefty11 (#3) and others would drop the silly idea that the Tories are in a uniquely "cosy" relationship with the banks. New Labour had been cosying up to the banks since 1996 and their famous "Prawn Cocktail Offensive" on the City. It wasn't the Tories that gave Fred Goodwin his knighthood, or indeed created the many other banking knights of the past decade. It wasn't the Tories who made former hedge fund manager Paul Myners and former bank chairman Mervyn Davies both peers and ministers.
This doesn't mean, of course, that the Tories are blameless. But look out Lefty, your socialist slip is showing!

P.S. Since 50% of bankers' bonuses goes straight to the Treasury in income tax, why exactly are large bonuses bad for the UK?

The problem runs much deeper than opposition politicians of all flavours leaping on bandwagons. That is, after all, just about all they can do.

Bankers, Boards of Directors, leaders of Councils, media chiefs, footballers and celebrities; almost without exception lack a moral compass.

Their pay demands are not driven by normal measures but by "how much is Jimmy earning to do a similar job 'cos I deserve more?". This leapfrogging has created a society where the pay and rations of the top decile are several multiples too large of those at the bottom of the pay scale.

If there had been stronger moral leadership at banks, football clubs, the Beeb etc, then (just maybe) we wouldn't be in this mess and bankers pay wouldn't be the subject of a political blog.

47. Johnharris66
48. hi John, happy new year.
Yes been lefty11 for a while now ( A polite super subtle retort to some MU tattle elsewhere a while back).
Anyway, have to disagree and rather than go for a long winded heavy explanation, I will borrow sagas "agree to disagree tango" line.
The point was though, that to simplify or underestimate the conservatives position on some of the rotten banking practises is wrong. They were factually completely complicit and championed it.
Although I completely understand, I see cassandra only replies to the milder posters and avoids any strong opinions or rows. (I think she said to rockrobin once that she didn’t speak to posters who were moderated so much?). Anyway, absolutely no issues with it, its not my business, except in a way its a bit ironic considering if it wasn’t for foul mouthed and violent Suffragette action* women might still not have the right to vote, let alone post comments on the internet.
*personally i admire them for what they did.

Lefty@ 58 again like Cassandra you did read the bit about, I agree with you and do not like what HSBC has done, the point was, as posted in 57, the climate for this avoidance was created under the watch of a political organisation you support (assumed from the postings you have made) and how convenient it was to keep quiet until May 2010.

So I would trust you would be a little less myopic in your view that it was only tories who luvved up to banks as you know this was not the case.

59. vstrad
I did a post a while back which showed the connection between the banks and big business, ie. the top brass, chief execs etc and their connection, assosiation and funding of the conservative party. Would you like me to find it and re-post it? Its very enlightening.
ps. Im happy for my socialist slip to show. Might even show a bit of leg too if you ask nicely :-)

63. Indy wrote

So I would trust you would be a little less myopic in your view that it was only Tories who luvved up to banks as you know this was not the case.
-------------------------------
Not in the slightest. I Fully accept the mistakes and luvving up that new labour are responsible for. However its very odd to use the hypocrisy card as many right wingers on here do, as an explanation for the decisions and the policies the conservatives have made in THIS government.
Lets recap.
7 billion cut to public services (devastating).
And many more billions lost through tax evasion/avoidance and billions paid to bankers as bonuses.
CONSERVATIVE DECISIONS/FACILITATION.
We even have fubar saunders earlier in this blog suggesting it was Alistair darlings fault that George Osborne got HMRC to wrap up a deal with Vodafone costing the exchequer up to 7 billion pounds.
Laughable.
Except its not funny.
Its disgusting.

# 61, Fredalo

I'm not sure its as simple as a lack of moral leadership. One of the key reasons companies aren't transparent about what they pay each employee is that given the information, we would all adopt a similar negotiating strategy.

Its pretty much human nature. If John does the same job as Bill and Tom, who were being paid £5,000 more for no obvious reason, you could expect John to take issue with it fact. That'd be the case whether he earns £5,000, £50,000 or £500,000 per year.

The issue (IMO) is that balance is skewed towards the better paid. Where a small number of people with a high perceived impact on value-creation (CEOs, top investment bankers, etc.) exist, the company has a larger incentive to keep people with a good record as the impact of them leaving and being replaced by someone less good is more significant than the same situation with an employee who is perceived to generate less value, or where there is a larger pool of proven potential replacements.

On top of that, there's a greater incentive for headhunters and recruiters to focus on better paid employees as they tend to get a percentage of a person's salary as their fee. There's also the perverse situation where we openly disclose CEO remuneration whilst simultaneously seeing companies benchmarking the salaries of senior positions, giving a ready-made "Joe Bloggs is paid (x), pay me the same/better for my comparable/better results or I'll leave" argument.

As wages almost never fall, this can be quite an impressive inflationary spiral - hence why salaries at the top are accelerating far faster than those at the bottom.

Although Unions and the like in principle provide a strong bargaining argument for those further down the chain, they haven't (so far) been able to secure similar settlements - the logic running that increasing the pay of your cleaners by 50% is a dead loss that isn't going to improve your company's profitability, but increasing the pay of your most talented value-generators by 50% is acceptable if they're still net earners for the company - even if that measure is a purely defensive strategy to stop them leaving.

The only obvious ways I can think of to break this particular circle would be either;

a) Demonstrate that the value-generators aren't as valuable as they're perceived to be, and that those lower down the scale are more valuable than they're perceived to be (not an approach that would be in the interest of many senior decision-makers, so probably a non-starter)

b) Slash the remuneration of the value creators and replace those that leave with second-tier or unproven employees and hope that the lower salary offsets any drop in value creation due to them potentially not being as good (quite a big risk - why do it if no-one else is, not in the vested interest of senior decision-makers, etc.)

c) Use legislation, such as forcing all salaries to be within set multiples of the lowest-paid workers - or level the playing field and publish everyone's salary openly every year, as Norway does...if you don't mind a bit of chaos in the short-term.

In any event, if the circle isn't broken, banks and their CEOs have no personal incentive to change the status quo and unilaterally cutting remuneration for any level of staff is, in reality, a risk with unproven outcomes and high political risk.

If the coalition forced banks to slash bonuses, causing an exodus of talent which couldn't be replaced, knocked several billion off the value of state-owned banks and, as a result, we all had to pay higher taxes to make up the shortfall...I think we'd be too busy being indignant and accusing them of incompetence with the benefit of hindsight to applaud the morality of their decision.

45 lefty11

The liberal democrat Mr Alexander has promised more funding in this particular area. But overall cuts have been made to staff and funding at HMRC resulting (from the unions mouth) in a reduction and difficulty in chasing high profile cases.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So you accept that there is an increase in funding to combat tax evasion and avoidance and that your original 3 was incorrect on this matter?

Overall HMRC funding reducing by 15% or so I think. I have never heard of any unions supporting any job cuts at any time - their role is to act in the interests of their members.

I haven't missed you Nick.

60. At 6:07pm on 10 Jan 2011, vstrad wrote:
P.S. Since 50% of bankers' bonuses goes straight to the Treasury in income tax, why exactly are large bonuses bad for the UK?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Big bonuses do not necessarily get taxed straight away. They provide opportunities for avoidance or evasion.

They distort markets. Employment. Housing. Stocks.

They also would appear to encourage greed and selfishness, rather than prompting generosity and philanthropy.

It doesn't have to be that way. Some recipients readily pay the tax because they believe in the support system we have built into our society. There have been times where a young person earning big bonuses and paying all the necessary tax has at some point in their lives needed to fall back on that support.

Some people forego bonuses, or donate them to charity or share them with others. I fear they are in a shrinking minority.

I am a CEO of 4 start companies in the renewable energy sector. I work with leading multinationals but have struggled to get any funding in the UK for industries likely to me a major revenue contributor to the UK Government in future. The UK has generated over 25% of the world leading technologies over the last 40 years and made money on less than 2% mainly in the bio and pharma sector. In the past I have worked on multi billion project in the Semiconductor field worth 1billion plus. I have worked with major Japanese CEOs and others who manage organisation worth over 80 billion US dollars and have yet to see any one in the real world take home bonus 2x or 3s their salaries. So we need to tell the banks they are no longer a special case.The profit in the past has proven to e not real and worthless.So we most question their real worth now. The UK Government would not have bailed out any other industry (including oil). With out the bailout the sector would have no profit for next ten years, So why are they getting bonus. The argument that they will loose staff to other banks is a non starter. The sector shed 30,000 jobs recently and is still contracting. So where will the head of RBS get another job like paying his £1.2m wage. Only in investment banking a industry which could have brought down the whole global economey. If he went so what. If the banks want to go abroad then let them. It would be far better we put together a 50 billion VC fund to fund new industries. This way the UK could start to punch above its weight in the real world. Look at the way the Germany Economy is moving and the way the UK economy is moving. The financial sector could be the final nail in the UK economic coffin.

58/65#

Weak. I say again. You are in no position to criticise. The party of which you are a paid up member had the opportunity to act, the mandate to act (until Gordon usurped the Prime Minister's job anyway) and did nothing. You cant criticise anyone else for something YOUR party did not do when it had the chance and have a single limb to be able to stand on.

Weak, weak, weak, weak.

Oh and that article used about 3000 words to say pretty much nothing apart from spouting some hippy-drippy-holding-hands-whilst-sitting-in-a-circle-smoking-dope-flannel. Whilst it might seem "ethical" to the ginger beard sandals and tank top brigade, its about as workable in this day and age as trying to knit fog.

Incidentally, I'm presuming then, that if your position is such on tax avoidance and evasion that you never buy any two for one offers or BOGOF's from your local supermarket on a matter of principle?

fubar 71.
Your Paragraph 1.
I didn’t vote labour at the last election so your comment is nonsense.

Your paragraph 2.
Nothing serious to dissect the article I quoted except for hot air.

Your paragraph 3.
Just stupid.


Back on inane form eh fubar.
Rolls eyes.

72#

1) I didnt say you did vote Labour at the last election. I reminded you that following the election, according to your words, you are a paid up member of the Labour party. Therefore, you approve of the stance the party IS taking and the direction in which it is going and supportive of the leadership. The charge stands. You are accusing your opponents of dereliction, of failure to act. YOUR party had the opportunity AND the mandate to act and did NOTHING. If you think that charge is nonsense, your political choice makes absolute sense and I hope you and Buzz Lightweight will be very happy together.

2) You would say that, wouldnt you? The article you quoted takes about a thousand words to say everyone should pay what they owe, tax-wise, in the country where the money/profit is made, nothing more, nothing less. And, my response was, and remains that it is fanciful, it is airy, it is idealistic, it is naive to think that this is workable in the day and age of globalisation. Never mind whether it is "ethical" or not. Given that your party's foreign policy was meant to be "ethical", I hardly think the left are in any position to lecture anyone on the ethics of anything. Even if it is so ethical, why arent the left espousing it? Why didnt your hallowed chancellor and PM pursue such a line, why did he not close off these loopholes that prevented this wanton evasion? He had thirteen years to do something about it and did nothing.

Only hot air is coming from you, bro, not me.

And the question about BOGOF's is perfectly legit. If you go into your local supermarket and buy your usual two packs of industrial strength lager but get one free, do you volunteer to pay the additional VAT, the additional duty on these "free" products that you have otherwise avoided paying? Well, do you?

Tokyo Joe 70

Interesting though your post was, I find it very strange that a person in your position should come to such conclusions. For instance you do not mention China and India as competitors in this field. Furthermore you do not take note of the lack of a skilled work force in Britain due to the poor level of students turned out by our Universities. Which in turn holds back our ability to compete. Also it is well known that one of the criticisms of new technology firms is that they are very poor at marketing due to poor management. It is therefore perhaps your approach to gaining investment that is not right.

The financial sector in Britain is something that Britain does extremely well. The loss of this to the UK would be the final nail in its coffin with regard to the economy. Therefore bonus payments need to be paid to retain the right people and ensure they do not go elsewhere in a Global economy.

As to VC it is essential that any money used in this direction is used wisely. All the pieces need to be in place for it to be a useful tool such as I have mentioned a skilled work force etc. The oil industry for instance works with partners to procure its own VC for projects. There are also many private industries which pay bonus payments by way of shares and cash payments to ensure they keep the best people for the job. The Global economy means that people of skill can go anywhere to work and Britain lacks a good skill base, which ensures more and more needs to be done to retain these people. Also bonus payments are made to Executives of Councils for no reason at all, therefore the banking sector is not a special case.

It is to be remembered that no Country can be successful without a strong banking sector, otherwise the investment you speak of would not be possible anyway.

73 fubar

No I think that the current labour party under Ed Miliband is still evolving and their will be many more strong policies to come. Although they will never be as socialist as I would like them to be, the main and overriding reason for my association is to remove the conservative led coalition. Of course also I am free to criticise my own party whenever I feel like it too. Some parties I wouldn’tt criticise that much, like the bnp or ukip because they are a joke and not worth the effort.

Again by using the argument of hypocrisy (however weak or strong) it just smokes screens and clouds the issues of morals and ethics and is a sideshow against the wrongs and disastrous policies of the conservative led coalition. So to make it perfectly clear. The tories are in charge. They are responsible for policy, they have choices, and by harping back to new labour hypocrisy is a clear sign that your arguments are weak at best and reality just dog-whistling lame chestbeating rightwingism.
Your comment on this blog for example on December 20, 2010 at 9:57 am
https://order-order.com/2010/12/20/monday-morning-cartoon-8/

The intelligencee to compare a bogof deal for larger against the damage of billions being lost in tax avoidance at a time of devastating cuts to public servicesmerelyy highlights your scrambled and inane views rather than make any serious orintelligentt point.

75 lefty

Your problem is that you continually miss the point being made. Tax avoidance is not illegal, unless Britain has anti avoidance tax legislation. Therefore anyone with commonsense uses any means possible to use tax planning to avoid paying more tax than necessary. This includes companies and individuals. Therefore, it is pointed out to you that almost everyday you avoid tax as well, as in Fubars example, therefore you have no more ethics than the company that does so.

Furthermore it seems that more tax avoidance happens in the lower earners, apparently by way of cash in hand etc. Unreported tax costs Britain a great deal of money and is technically tax evasion. As most high rate tax earners come under extreme scutiny from HMRC they are doing very little wrong. It is perhaps time that people of the level you claim to represent come under some scutiny as well. Furthermore there is much to be looked at in the benefit system for lost income through incorrect claims.

BTW Almost every Country in the World is moving away from your socialist model, it is indeed your political views which have been condemned to the dustbin of history. If Britain chooses not to catch up with the rest of the World, by a belief in old Labour ideas, it will be very much to their cost.

"75. At 09:53am on 11 Jan 2011, lefty11 wrote:

73 fubar

No I think that the current labour party under Ed Miliband is still evolving and their will be many more strong policies to come."

I should sincerely hope they do evolve lefty, because at the moment, there arent any strong policies and they're starting from a pretty low base (that blank sheet of paper). And, we do need an effective opposition with direction, which we havent got at the moment.

"Although they will never be as socialist as I would like them to be, the main and overriding reason for my association is to remove the conservative led coalition."

So, you base your politics and your direction around what you hate, rather than what you believe in, what you think needs to be done for the country? You're a member purely because you figure that they're the best chance of keeping out the hated tories rather than because they represent what you truly believe in? What if the BNP was the biggest threat to the tories? (I know thats hardly likely, but, for arguments sake, what if it were? Would you still feel the same? Anything but blue, regardless of what it is?)

"Of course also I am free to criticise my own party whenever I feel like it too."

Rightly so, you're a paid up member, you're entitled to.

"Some parties I wouldn’tt criticise that much, like the bnp or ukip because they are a joke and not worth the effort."

A bit lame, although you're entitled to your opinion. I wouldnt call polling the best part of a million votes between them a joke though. Sooner or later, one or both is going to take some parliamentary seats, either under AV or FPTP. Same as the greens did. Do you see them as a joke too? Or is it their political colour that decides the shade of jokey-ness for you? Hardly deep political analysis, is it? Its the knee-jerk politics of hate.

"Again by using the argument of hypocrisy (however weak or strong) it just smokes screens and clouds the issues of morals and ethics and is a sideshow against the wrongs and disastrous policies of the conservative led coalition. So to make it perfectly clear. The tories are in charge. They are responsible for policy, they have choices, and by harping back to new labour hypocrisy is a clear sign that your arguments are weak at best and reality just dog-whistling lame chestbeating rightwingism."

You could argue that. I dont claim to have all, if any of the answers. Its not my place to decide what is best for the country as a whole and neither is it yours. Maybe my visions and arguments are weak. I dont claim them to be the font of all wisdom, do I? Show me one time when I ever have done, if you can. I tell you what though, when I'm put on the spot and someone says "what would you do then?" I tell them what I think. I dont just dismiss them as right wing mouth-breathers. If I know its unworkable, regardless of how much I would like to see it happen then I usually say so. You're just in blustering retreat, trying to fan the flames of hypocrisy away from the door.

But, I stand firm mate, I know the tories are in charge and they will pay at the ballot box if they screw it up. And, that is right and proper. I have never said that Cameron's conservatives were the answer and I've never believed they are. I want him out as much as you do, but for different reasons. You want him out because of hatred for what he stands for and where he came from. I want him out because I think he is an ineffective leader and I dont agree with the direction he is taking. But, like it or not and dismiss them all as right wing loons if it helps your conscience, the voters decided otherwise in May. They'd had enough of your lot. And despite not getting an overall majority, they still got more seats than you did. You cannot escape that. You lost.

What I'm still saying is that you're not going to get the voters that matter under the current system, the swing voters, your own core voters as well, to believe you that you've learned from your mistakes and you're serious and that you havent abandoned them, if you dont show, if you dont admit that there were things you got badly wrong. And criticising your opponents for not doing what you yourself had the opportunity to do, but chose not to do is not a good way of getting them onside. They will rightly say "well, OK, if this is what you truly believe, then why didnt you do it when you had the chance to? Why only talk about it now?"

Dont you see?

I might tweak your tail a bit by putting it in terms that look to wind you up a bit, but the substance remains the same.

"Your comment on this blog for example on December 20, 2010 at 9:57 am
https://order-order.com/2010/12/20/monday-morning-cartoon-8/"

The language may be politely described as industrial, but I dont regret a single word of it. If the cap fits, wear it and lets face it a lot of them do. We dont have to keep going down that road, you know.

"The intelligencee to compare a bogof deal for larger against the damage of billions being lost in tax avoidance at a time of devastating cuts to public servicesmerelyy highlights your scrambled and inane views rather than make any serious orintelligentt point."

Why? Evasion is evasion and avoidance is avoidance isnt it? By not paying tax on either goods or services on which that tax is properly due, regardless of how you do it, its still the same, is it not? You're just peeved that a department that your previous leader made unfit for purpose by politicising it dropped the ball and lost the country a minimum of about 30bn in corporation tax revenue because he was utterly fixated on getting the top job that the country would never have wanted him to do. If you believe that all tax avoidance and evasion is wrong, I presume you never use an accountant for your small business that you run, that you never use an ISA, that you never use BOGOF offers - all of these things are depriving the exchequer of revenue that is legally and legitimately due.

Or is it just WHO does it, rather than how? Or, does it vary by degree? Its bad for Philip Green to take advantage of offshore wealth, but not as bad, if at all bad, for the Guardian Media Group, or a former Labour Prime Minister to do it?

You have to be consistent mate, you have to apply these things equally across the board, lest you be accused of favouritism - otherwise you're not saying look, here is a realistic political alternative - all you're giving people is the choice of the tribal politics of hate or nothing.

Given your very hardline stance on these issues and your alleged support for the poor and the downtrodden, I think I'm entitled to ask these questions of you. Just as you are of me.

77. fubar
So, you base your politics and your direction around what you hate, rather than what you believe in, what you think needs to be done for the country? You're a member purely because you figure that they're the best chance of keeping out the hated tories rather than because they represent what you truly believe in? What if the BNP was the biggest threat to the tories? (I know thats hardly likely, but, for arguments sake, what if it were? Would you still feel the same? Anything but blue, regardless of what it is?)
-------------------------------------
More hypothetical distracting nonsense. Its a perfectly reasonable position to support a loosely socialist party because they are the only current viable and realistic alternative to prevent the type of damage the conservatives caused in the 80s, early 90s and now in 2010.



A bit lame, although you're entitled to your opinion. I wouldnt call polling the best part of a million votes between them a joke though. Sooner or later, one or both is going to take some parliamentary seats, either under AV or FPTP. Same as the greens did. Do you see them as a joke too? Or is it their political colour that decides the shade of jokey-ness for you? Hardly deep political analysis, is it? Its the knee-jerk politics of hate.
-----------------------------
You know as well as I do that UKIP if an offshoot of the conservative party. Only more right wing. And as I have said to you before it shows a huge degree of hypocrisy and shallowness to vote for a party that wants at its core independence from europe, yet you live in belgium and have worked on european contracts. To anyone’s mind, hardly the thought process of integrity.


You could argue that. I dont claim to have all, if any of the answers. Its not my place to decide what is best for the country as a whole and neither is it yours. Maybe my visions and arguments are weak. I dont claim them to be the font of all wisdom, do I? Show me one time when I ever have done, if you can. I tell you what though, when I'm put on the spot and someone says "what would you do then?" I tell them what I think. I dont just dismiss them as right wing mouth-breathers. If I know its unworkable, regardless of how much I would like to see it happen then I usually say so. You're just in blustering retreat, trying to fan the flames of hypocrisy away from the door.
--------------------
No im pointing out quite clearly how absolutely disgusting it is to enact policies of cuts and austerity which affect the poorest in society worst and at the same time allowing billions to be paid to bankers and allow billions to be avoided by millionaire individuals and businesses in tax avoidance. I have never heard you up in arms about this, infact all your posts on here and all over the internet on the other blogs are about bashing anything left wing. So please don’t pretend you are some kind of reasoned debater of middle ground because that’s laughable and the facts show this couldn’t be further from the truth.


But, I stand firm mate, I know the tories are in charge and they will pay at the ballot box if they screw it up. And, that is right and proper. I have never said that Cameron's conservatives were the answer and I've never believed they are. I want him out as much as you do, but for different reasons. You want him out because of hatred for what he stands for and where he came from. I want him out because I think he is an ineffective leader and I dont agree with the direction he is taking. But, like it or not and dismiss them all as right wing loons if it helps your conscience, the voters decided otherwise in May. They'd had enough of your lot. And despite not getting an overall majority, they still got more seats than you did. You cannot escape that. You lost.
--------------------------
Ok so show me five posts over the last year where you have critisised cameron or the conservatives.



What I'm still saying is that you're not going to get the voters that matter under the current system, the swing voters, your own core voters as well, to believe you that you've learned from your mistakes and you're serious and that you havent abandoned them, if you dont show, if you dont admit that there were things you got badly wrong. And criticising your opponents for not doing what you yourself had the opportunity to do, but chose not to do is not a good way of getting them onside. They will rightly say "well, OK, if this is what you truly believe, then why didnt you do it when you had the chance to? Why only talk about it now?"
Dont you see?
I might tweak your tail a bit by putting it in terms that look to wind you up a bit, but the substance remains the same.
--------------------
The opinion polls shows different and there is time for labour to get it right. And more people will switch to labour as they see the true nature of conservative politics. And every party has the right to regroup and start afresh. Like the tories did. Although it doesn’t seem they have changed at all.


"Your comment on this blog for example on December 20, 2010 at 9:57 am
https://order-order.com/2010/12/20/monday-morning-cartoon-8/"
Why? Evasion is evasion and avoidance is avoidance isnt it? By not paying tax on either goods or services on which that tax is properly due, regardless of how you do it, its still the same, is it not? You're just peeved that a department that your previous leader made unfit for purpose by politicising it dropped the ball and lost the country a minimum of about 30bn in corporation tax revenue because he was utterly fixated on getting the top job that the country would never have wanted him to do. If you believe that all tax avoidance and evasion is wrong, I presume you never use an accountant for your small business that you run, that you never use an ISA, that you never use BOGOF offers - all of these things are depriving the exchequer of revenue that is legally and legitimately due.
Or is it just WHO does it, rather than how? Or, does it vary by degree? Its bad for Philip Green to take advantage of offshore wealth, but not as bad, if at all bad, for the Guardian Media Group, or a former Labour Prime Minister to do it?
You have to be consistent mate, you have to apply these things equally across the board, lest you be accused of favouritism - otherwise you're not saying look, here is a realistic political alternative - all you're giving people is the choice of the tribal politics of hate or nothing.
Given your very hardline stance on these issues and your alleged support for the poor and the downtrodden, I think I'm entitled to ask these questions of you. Just as you are of me.
---------------------------
Yes I can be quite clear about this. All tax evasion and avoidance in large scale is wrong. It does matter to what degree it is done. I certainly wouldn’t scowl at the window cleaner for doing a bit of cash in hand , knowing hes only just keeping afloat, and maybe hes not even managing to do that. Very different to a multi millionaire who has more money than he could ever need, purposefully using schemes for the sole purpose of reducing his tax liability to a few percent and all at a time when hundreds and thousands of others are struggling to put food on the table. If you cant see the difference it can only be because you choose not to.

"I certainly wouldn’t scowl at the window cleaner for doing a bit of cash in hand , knowing hes only just keeping afloat, and maybe hes not even managing to do that."

But he's breaking the law. He's denying the exchequer what is rightfully theirs. What is legally theirs, what they are entitled to, what is ETHICALLY theirs, according to your mate's 3000 word essay. What if he runs a network of window cleaners, all doing cash in hand? Soon mounts up.

So, you believe in one rule for one, one for another then. Anything so long as its stab the rich. Even your own former political svengali is on record as saying "havent the rich suffered enough?" A pity your members didnt take that to heart, eh? After all, one just sent down for 18 months for fraud and another about to follow. They ripped off the very people they were elected to protect. The poor were just a tool to be used to get elected to line their pockets.

At least you're consistent though, I'll give you that. Your deputy party chairman believes in one rule for us one rule for them too. All women shortlists for everyone else who wants to be a parliamentary candidate except her husband. Your former deputy prime minister who demanded House Of Lords reform, but couldnt be sized up for the ermine vermin jacket fast enough.

Not a good stance to take if you want to have any kind of political credibility whatsoever. Jealousy does not make for good politics. Suits you though.

"The opinion polls shows different and there is time for labour to get it right."

And you set great credence by opinion polls? Remember 1992? Yes, there is still time for Labour to get it right. But its running out. I dont think its going to happen under this leadership, somehow. Its just more of the same.

"And more people will switch to labour as they see the true nature of conservative politics."

Maybe they will. But if they do that, they should do it when - and because - Labour have acknowledged their mistakes, learned from them and HAVE changed. And they havent done that yet. Thats why the voters should do it. Not just because its a knee jerk reaction and that they figure Red Wallance'll go around handing out free money again, just like the good old days and they wont have to lift a finger to wipe their backsides from the cradle to the grave. Politically, the British electorate are sub-optimal. They have a rapidly decreasing understanding of politics and a decreasing interest in it.

"And every party has the right to regroup and start afresh. Like the tories did. Although it doesn’t seem they have changed at all."

They do indeed. Although, anyone who was a serious observer of politics in the UK would know that this administration, in terms of its political colours, in terms of its political intentions, in terms of its ideology is very very very far removed from that of John Major's administration, let alone the one of the Gargoyle Of Grantham. They're not even in the same postcode.

Just as well I wasnt expecting any different from you then, innit? I'd have been disappointed otherwise, wouldnt I?

Thats what happens when you base your political outlook on hatred, rhetoric and jealousy instead of true leadership, altruism and a notion of genuine public service.

"Its a perfectly reasonable position to support a loosely socialist party because they are the only current viable and realistic alternative to prevent the type of damage the conservatives caused in the 80s, early 90s and now in 2010."

What, a blank sheet of paper is a viable alternative? Nothing is a viable alternative to something, even though you dont agree with the something? Curious.

"You know as well as I do that UKIP if an offshoot of the conservative party."

Arguably so. I wouldnt deny it.

"Only more right wing."

Only to your mind and those of other fellow travellers. You spit the words "right wing" as if it were poison. This kind of rhetoric is all well and good, but is not particularly helpful, is it?

"And as I have said to you before it shows a huge degree of hypocrisy and shallowness to vote for a party that wants at its core independence from europe, yet you live in belgium and have worked on european contracts. To anyone’s mind, hardly the thought process of integrity."

To your mind. No more hypocritical than your position highlighted above.

"Ok so show me five posts over the last year where you have critisised cameron or the conservatives."

Youre normally very keen at digging out my old posts, particularly when you want to use them against me. So, YOU go find them. Why should I tell you what I already have done, for you to further dismiss as right wing frothery? On your bike, son. You want to find it, you dig it out.


"im pointing out quite clearly how absolutely disgusting it is to enact policies of cuts and austerity which affect the poorest in society worst and at the same time allowing billions to be paid to bankers and allow billions to be avoided by millionaire individuals and businesses in tax avoidance."

You reap what you sow, old chum. You reap what you sow.

"I have never heard you up in arms about this, infact all your posts on here and all over the internet on the other blogs are about bashing anything left wing."

usually because the left wing deserve to be bashed. And when I do raise the subject, as I did only yesterday saying that I would ban all bonuses to anyone, regardless of whether they be banker or billboard sticker poster, you were as quiet as a mouse. You only see what you want to see and you only hear what you want to hear. Your way or no way.

"So please don’t pretend you are some kind of reasoned debater of middle ground because that’s laughable and the facts show this couldn’t be further from the truth."

And neither are you mate. You're a loony leftist.

lefty 78

Same old hypocrisy. So you are happy to see someone who may be taking benefits as well as working cash in hand, take income from the state that could be used for people in real need.

You are also happy to see in some cases poor Countries, lose out on investment, because you want to grab what business they attract by low tax rates for the greedy British, who have no idea what real poverty is.

Says everything.

Looking at the picture that goes with the story, I was wondering what was pssing through each man's head...

Ed - "Oh, my GOD! What was I THINKING??!!"

Alan "la la la la la....I wonder what's for tea. Hope it's a sticky bun"

""5. Guidance and instruction to HMRC to quickly clear up the case against Vodafone resulting in a loss of tax paid of up to 6 BILLION POUNDS."

Which happened under a LABOUR chancellor. Dont you dare try and blame that on anyone else."

fat chance, Fubar. Lefty's one track 'Tory Toffs' soundtrack is myopic, we all know that.

Banging on about the tories tax policy when he can never answer why:

Labour did nothing for 13 years to stop the use of EBTs as a tax planning tool and the coalition did within 6 months.
Under Labour a businessman could contribute £225,000 a year to his pension tax free and that's been slashed by the coalition to £50,000
Under LAbour the lifetime pension pt cap was £1.8m and it's been cut to £1.5m by the coalition
Why it is the coalition not Labour who are planning the biggest increase in personal tax allowances EVER and why they are limiting it to 20% tax payers

No, according to Lefty it's all evil pit owners and starving orphans.

"All tax evasion and avoidance in large scale is wrong. It does matter to what degree it is done. I certainly wouldn’t scowl at the window cleaner for doing a bit of cash in hand , knowing hes only just keeping afloat"



So what's your fiscal cap on illegal tax evasion that you think is OK, Leftie? And since every penny tax evaded has to come from someone else and since we 'know' that it won't be from the rich under the current system, you're adocating some sort of dog-fight amongst the poor with some avoiding tax that others have to pay? Some morality that is. What do you do, laugh at the honest window cleaner who feels it's his duty to declare everything?

And if I employ a hundred workers and keep them all off the books by paying each one of them a bit of cash in hand, you applaud that? Or will you claim that the payer is guilty and the recipient innocent in your eyes. Again, some morality.

80. croft
I didn’t say anything about anyone being on benefits. But you brought that in to your post because it is in your agenda. I said if the window cleaner does some cash in hand in order to survive, its very different to someone who has 10 million pounds, then using an avoidance scheme to say reduce his tax liability down to say 3.5%. You know the sort of scheme andyc555 earns a (£180 per hour)living out of.
I know you wont understand. You cant . Your you.

79 fubar.
But he's breaking the law. He's denying the exchequer what is rightfully theirs. What is legally theirs, what they are entitled to, what is ETHICALLY theirs, according to your mate's 3000 word essay. What if he runs a network of window cleaners, all doing cash in hand? Soon mounts up.
----------------------
Yes it does. But tits rather different for a window cleaner to do some cash in hand work to feed his kids than for a multimillionaire to purposely and solely us tax avoidance schemes to get his tax rate down to 3.5%. Alot less than the window cleaners tax rate.
SURELY EVEN YOU ARENT THAT STUPID NOT TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE.


So, you believe in one rule for one, one for another then. Anything so long as its stab the rich. Even your own former political svengali is on record as saying "havent the rich suffered enough?" A pity your members didnt take that to heart, eh? After all, one just sent down for 18 months for fraud and another about to follow. They ripped off the very people they were elected to protect. The poor were just a tool to be used to get elected to line their pockets.
At least you're consistent though, I'll give you that. Your deputy party chairman believes in one rule for us one rule for them too. All women shortlists for everyone else who wants to be a parliamentary candidate except her husband. Your former deputy prime minister who demanded House Of Lords reform, but couldnt be sized up for the ermine vermin jacket fast enough.
Not a good stance to take if you want to have any kind of political credibility whatsoever. Jealousy does not make for good politics. Suits you though.
----------------------------
Ah the jealousy card. Designed to pull the rug from underneath the moral argument. But in reality it doesn’t address the rights and wrongs. Its a cop out used when the right are faced with an unchallengeable moral dilemma.


The rest was just hot air fubar. And i opened the window. Terrible smell.

"its very different to someone who has 10 million pounds, then using an avoidance scheme to say reduce his tax liability down to say 3.5%. You know the sort of scheme andyc555 earns a (£180 per hour)living out of."



Leftie, I realise the 19th century is as up to date as you'd like to be but, honestly, you ought to try harder.

I've already explained that the Coalition have closed that particular scheme. Not Labour. They allowed it to go unchecked for 13 years. But the coalition have closed it down.

And I have said on many occasions that I do not EARN £180 an hour, that is what my firm CHARGES. We do have overheads you know.

85#

Breaking the law is breaking the law mate. No-one is above it. And you're calling ME stupid.

About the jealousy card, so, what have you got against the rich then? Apart from they're rich and you're not? You're in no position to lecture me or anyone else on rights or wrongs mate. Your PM DOUBLED the income tax on the poorest of the poor OVERNIGHT by getting rid of the 10p band. You cant possibly hang me up on any moral dilemma hook. You believe in one rule for one and one for another, if they're rich. Your moral position is worth about as much as Gordon's moral compass; Jack Diddly Squat.

"But tits [sic] rather different for a window cleaner to do some cash in hand work to feed his kids"

How about if the window cleaner is doing it so he can spend the money down the bookies or at the pub? Is that OK?

Suppose there's a 1,000 window cleaners doing it. All skimming off £500 quid each. How many nurses would that employ?

85 - "And i opened the window. Terrible smell."

You did say you were a bit fat. Sweat, probably.

89. andy.
all contributes to your profile mate.

87. fubar.
Its expained clearly on post 92 next blog.
You want to make it envy against the rich. I undersstand that. Of course its not anywhere near the reality. post 92.
And he wasnt my pm.
sigh

90 - Thanks. I thought it was rather clever.

lefty 84

I know you wont understand. You cant . Your you.

---------------------------------------------

Thank goodness for that lefty, I would have worried if I was no longer me.

Actually I do understand extreme poverty, I have seen it many times in other Countries, and I will tell you this, in all honesty, it does not exist in Britain. People in this Country who are unskilled and uneducated should count their blessings because they are protected beyond the wildest dreams of those in other Countries. The state cushions these people from the realities of life. Children in this Country are only made poor by the actions of bad parents who choose to spend on their fags, booze and other. Parents who have no jobs and live off benefits continue to have children that other peoples tax money pays for and have very little interest in their childrens education or welfare. Children in other Countries are desperate for education as they know this is the means to a better life. In this Country they cannot be bothered to learn in many instances or bright childrens chances are blighted by a lack of advancement by one size fits all education.

You need to visit poor estates in Britain and then you may start to understand. The actual truth of what is happening in Britain is totally different from the picture you try to paint though it saddens me to say so.

I understood a long time ago that the way to increase the chances for people living in poverty, is to increase the wealth of a Country and by good education. You do not do this by high taxation which chases away those who have the ability to create wealth nor by being jealous of those who have it.

The Coalition will not work in my opinion, not because Labour have the right policies and the Coalition has not, but because they have not been tough enough. Tax rises instead of making cuts in spending are a recipe for a sprial down for a economy, when spending is too high.

There is however something in what you say about rich people in politics is a bad idea, but not for the reason you have given. It is because they do not understand what is happening around them, and continually try to make up for the fact they are better off. This leads to poor decisions due to misguided empathy. Only really tough measures, mainly deep cuts will pull Britain round. Cuts will come sooner or later no matter which party takes power, because they have to, lets hope it is not too late.

90#

"all contributes to your profile..."

Hang on, he's got you on watch Andy. Trying to set up his own Stasi. Come the day of the glorious revolution, you might be the first against the wall.

Come to think of it, if he ever gets into power, I think I might volunteer to take your place. I'd rather be pushing up daisies that existing in a comradely socialist "paradise"... You got a spare blindfold and a rope?

87#

Youre a paid up member of the party. He was the PM. Therefore, he was your PM. You didnt dare vote against the dear leader, did you?

93 - Well said.

Fubar.
a) funny how you were happy to holiday in cuba twice though.
b)i wasn’t a member of the labour party when gordon brown was pm. Wrong again.
c) these blogs are of no consequence. Just tattle and opinion. On the other hand, whose to say there aren’t consequences to what is written. Thats all I can say. Keep going fubar. You may be acidentally correct about some things.

Fubar 94

No don't even joke about it, the way Britain is going at the moment a socialist state is not beyond possibility from what I have seen recently.

Anyway, I think lefty would have me against the wall long before you guys.

Andy

Santa must have brought you something really nice in your stocking, you seem very chirpy.

Fubar - Have you been on holiday to Cuba then?

Never been myself, I assume they have self-contained holiday camps where the ravages of the failures of socialismsm are excluded.

97 "On the other hand, whose to say there aren’t consequences to what is written. Thats all I can say."

If only it was.