Oh, I think it does - you're quick with the talking-points but slow with any kind of appreciation of the grinder the private sector had to go through, or you might have shown more empathy and understanding.
We've only meniotned RBS on this thread, but if you wish to place values on me you want to think I have, go ahead.
I think we've all gone a bit off topic though - which was about whether government should be encouraging us to give more. I'll try to get back on topic now.
Indeed. I think I can only refer you back to my original comment on that point - I can sort of see (I guess) why some might see it as hectoring or nagging (though without much in the way of detail, that's rather assumptive) but IMO it's up to Governments to try to promote what they see as Good Things for society to do - irrespective of all the other issues as to whether it could ever be a substitute for funding charities through tax and so forth. So the Green Paper, taken in isolation, I don't have a problem with. Of course there'll be arguments about underlying motivations and so forth, but I fear those sorts of arguments will take us all to familiar places...!
That's because you launched straight into an attack on the banking sector - apparently under the mistaken impression that I was fine and dandy with the notion that those responsible for the financial crisis should get off scot-free. I don't know where you get that idea, which makes this statement...
but if you wish to place values on me you want to think I have, go ahead.
...comical. Given that that's what you did to me, it would only be fair if I did that to you, wouldn't it?
I think we've all gone a bit off topic though - which was about whether government should be encouraging us to give more. I'll try to get back on topic now.
It's one thing for the government to encourage people to donate and to make giving easier (and tax efficient). The problem is when it becomes a constant nagging - that it the nanny state at its worst. People will be put off giving if they are asked everytime they do a financial transaction.
That's because you launched straight into an attack on the banking sector - apparently under the mistaken impression that I was fine and dandy with the notion that those responsible for the financial crisis should get off scot-free.
Your questions to JudgeMental suggested that his public sector role exists because of the taxpayer and thus why she he get special protection for his job.
RBS, HBOS, and Northern Rock only now still exist because of the taxpayer, yet their special protection remains in terms of bonuses, etc.
RBS, HBOS, and Northern Rock only now still exist because of the taxpayer, yet their special protection remains in terms of bonuses, etc.
Not quite so clear cut though is it?
Some of these bonuses are happening because of contractual agreements, and why should someone who works for a profitable arm of the bank, and who has generated profits for said bank, forego their bonus (and indeed why should they be penalised with bonus taxes if they had nothing to do with the credit crunch)?
I seem to recall Labour trying, unsuccessfully, to do something about Fred Goodwin's pension. Why do you think it will be any different under the coalition?
Some of these bonuses are happening because of contractual agreements, and why should someone who works for a profitable arm of the bank, and who has generated profits for said bank, forego their bonus (and indeed why should they be penalised with bonus taxes if they had nothing to do with the credit crunch)?
People in the public sector have contracts too. Your second argument could be used for the 500,000 people about to laid off in the public sector too.
I seem to recall Labour trying, unsuccessfully, to do something about Fred Goodwin's pension. Why do you think it will be any different under the coalition?
It shouldn't, pensions should be sacrosanct. Labour were wrong to try to do that, the principle should be fundamental.
Your questions to JudgeMental suggested that his public sector role exists because of the taxpayer and thus why she he get special protection for his job.
It's "her" - and I guess I can't help what other people infer from my line of questioning. There was no "thus" in it.
RBS, HBOS, and Northern Rock only now still exist because of the taxpayer,
And there are good reasons for keeping at least some (though not all, as it has transpired) of its employees gainfully employed. Not only because the collapse of two major lenders would be catastrophic for the economy (and I'm not talking "a few northern cities are a bit screwed" here - without meaning to be unduly dismissive or disparaging towards the north - I'm talking "Great Depression 2.0") but also because we stand a fair chance of seeing a decent return on that investment in time. (And in the meantime, don't we get back a pretty hefty chunk of any dividend payouts? Not sure on that one...)
yet their special protection remains in terms of bonuses, etc.
Bonuses aren't exactly a "special protection". They're an internal matter - and for all that big bonuses for senior staff are very bad PR and people may get riled up about them, they don't make a big dent a bank's profits (or, latterly, losses). Governments can wring their hands and declare it bad form all they want, but the effort required to make senior staff stop doing it probably isn't worth a Government's while to go interfering in such a heavy-handed manner in the internal affairs of a company.
It's "her" - and I guess I can't help what other people infer from my line of questioning. There was no "thus" in it.
And there are good reasons for keeping at least some (though not all, as it has transpired) of its employees gainfully employed. Not only because the collapse of two major lenders would be catastrophic for the economy (and I'm not talking "a few northern cities are a bit screwed" here - without meaning to be unduly dismissive or disparaging towards the north - I'm talking "Great Depression 2.0") but also because we stand a fair chance of seeing a decent return on that investment in time. (And in the meantime, don't we get back a pretty hefty chunk of any dividend payouts? Not sure on that one...)
Bonuses aren't exactly a "special protection". They're an internal matter - and for all that big bonuses for senior staff are very bad PR and people may get riled up about them, they don't make a big dent a bank's profits (or, latterly, losses). Governments can wring their hands and declare it bad form all they want, but the effort required to make senior staff stop doing it probably isn't worth a Government's while to go interfering in such a heavy-handed manner in the internal affairs of a company.
I'm interested to know what you think the impact would be of the collapse of two major lenders - compared, say, to 430k public sector job cuts and 500k private sector follow on job cuts. I don't think it's just a few Northern cities that will be affected - but I agree the government might take it a bit more seriously if those affected were on their doorsteps like the banking sector are.
I'm interested to know what you think the impact would be of the collapse of two major lenders - compared, say, to 430k public sector job cuts and 500k private sector follow on job cuts. I don't think it's just a few Northern cities that will be affected - but I agree the government might take it a bit more seriously if those affected were on their doorsteps like the banking sector are.
We may eventually make our money back and even profit from the bank bailouts. Continuing to allow public sector wastage will only keep the deficits coming.
Don't forget that the health of the UK financial industry, rightly or wrongly, has implications for the world economy (London is after all one of the "global command centres" alongside Tokyo and New York).
I don't think the loss of a few diversity counsellors or UKFC non-jobbers or street football co-ordinators is going to have quite the same reach.
We may eventually make our money back and even profit from the bank bailouts. Continuing to allow public sector wastage will only keep the deficits coming.
I supported Brown's decision to bail out the banks and hope we will get our money back.
We have always borrowed money to support the provision of public services - and we always will. There is little real 'wastage' - whatever that actually means. But clearly different views about how much should be spent on public services and welfare.
I'm interested to know what you think the impact would be of the collapse of two major lenders - compared, say, to 430k public sector job cuts and 500k private sector follow on job cuts.
I don't happen to know off-hand how many people are (or were) employed by Northern Rock, HBOS and RBS, but I'm pretty sure it's not insignificant. RBS alone apparently employs more than 183,000 people in the UK (I've no idea how many it employed before 2008). Of course you'd still have the knock-on effects to the welfare system and to other private companies that you mention as a risk of shedding jobs from the public sector, but you also have the added problem that there's less lending available - and that means a far tougher environment for new businesses and further restrictions on the ability of existing businesses to expand. If we'd let them collapse, I think we'd be looking at more job losses in total than your 930k figure. Credit is due, of course, to the last Government for not allowing them to collapse.
I don't think it's just a few Northern cities that will be affected
I actually slightly self-censored my remarks there. I expect that plenty of areas will be affected, but I think that it is only certain more vulnerable local economies who have the potential to be, for want of a better term, royally screwed by severe public service cutbacks. By contrast, I think the collapse of two of the Big Five(?) banks would result in a nationwide economic situation of "royally screwed".
- but I agree the government might take it a bit more seriously if those affected were on their doorsteps like the banking sector are.
Well, the fact that the Tories and Lib Dems are only slightly less popular than bubonic plague in places like Middlesborough doesn't exactly provide an incentive for them to look out especially for them. They are, after all, MPs with constituencies of their own to look after. Which is also one of the problems you get when you form a Government from amongst the members of a legislative chamber who are elected to represent specific communities.
I don't happen to know off-hand how many people are (or were) employed by Northern Rock, HBOS and RBS, but I'm pretty sure it's not insignificant. RBS alone apparently employs more than 183,000 people in the UK (I've no idea how many it employed before 2008). Of course you'd still have the knock-on effects to the welfare system and to other private companies that you mention as a risk of shedding jobs from the public sector, but you also have the added problem that there's less lending available - and that means a far tougher environment for new businesses and further restrictions on the ability of existing businesses to expand. If we'd let them collapse, I think we'd be looking at more job losses in total than your 930k figure. Credit is due, of course, to the last Government for not allowing them to collapse.
I actually slightly self-censored my remarks there. I expect that plenty of areas will be affected, but I think that it is only certain more vulnerable local economies who have the potential to be, for want of a better term, royally screwed by severe public service cutbacks. By contrast, I think the collapse of two of the Big Five(?) banks would result in a nationwide economic situation of "royally screwed".
Well, the fact that the Tories and Lib Dems are only slightly less popular than bubonic plague in places like Middlesborough doesn't exactly provide an incentive for them to look out especially for them. They are, after all, MPs with constituencies of their own to look after. Which is also one of the problems you get when you form a Government from amongst the members of a legislative chamber who are elected to represent specific communities.
Thanks for the info. It was right to prevent them going under. The impact on lending is definitely something that wouldn't have helped any recovery.
I do think some areas of the country are going to be royally screwed by these policies including those rural areas with Tory MPs
I do think some areas of the country are going to be royally screwed by these policies including those rural areas with Tory MPs
Some areas are permanently royally screwed by governments of all colours. The South West of England, for one. Makes you wonder why people only think of "the North" when we're not exactly swimming in money.
Some areas are permanently royally screwed by governments of all colours. The South West of England, for one. Makes you wonder why people only think of "the North" when we're not exactly swimming in money.
I agree - it's not just the North. It will be any area where there are few jobs in the private sector. It just so happens that a number of these combined with a lack of economic resiliance generally happen to be in the North of England.
Some areas are permanently royally screwed by governments of all colours. The South West of England, for one. Makes you wonder why people only think of "the North" when we're not exactly swimming in money.
I think that depends on which definition of "South West" you're working with. The South West "region" encompasses some pretty diverse economies. What's going on in Bristol and Bath isn't exactly a reflection of what's going on in Newquay, and vice versa.
But you are right, of course - Cornwall is I think the only part of England* with Objective 1 status...?
But you are right, of course - Cornwall is I think the only part of England* with Objective 1 status...?
* (contentious?)
I think so (is the Objective One programme still going? I thought it shut down, but Cornwall still gets a lot of EU money. I think we're the only part of the country (NI might be another, but that isn't England) that is getting fibre-optic broadband through EU subsidy for example)
Either way, it still seems like the South West in general is overlooked (at least by Westminster) - possibly because it's mostly an area where Labour can't win (so no help from them), and an area where if you stuck a blue or yellow rosette on a turd it'd still win, so no incentive for the other two parties.
I think so (is the Objective One programme still going? I thought it shut down, but Cornwall still gets a lot of EU money. I think we're the only part of the country (NI might be another, but that isn't England) that is getting fibre-optic broadband through EU subsidy for example)
I stand corrected. I had thought Convergence Cornwall was the continuation of the Objective 1 programme. It turns out that it's another set of funding altogether. I do get a bit lost with all these funding programmes sometimes...!
Either way, it still seems like the South West in general is overlooked - possibly because it's mostly an area where Labour can't win (so no help from them), and an area where if you stuck a blue or yellow rosette on a turd it'd still win, so no incentive for the other two parties.
Be interesting to see to what extent that changes next time around. I expect a few evictions of toys from prams which, paradoxically, will result in more seats going blue than last time.
I stand corrected. I had thought Convergence Cornwall was the continuation of the Objective 1 programme. It turns out that it's another set of funding altogether. I do get a bit lost with all these funding programmes sometimes...!
I'm confused too. I'm not even sure what the Objective One money was spent on. I think the Eden Project got some of it.
Let's hope that the latest round of funding is spent usefully (the fibre-optic broadband plan sounds very useful).
It's a shame that it has to come from the EU rather than our own government (although I suppose that it effectively does given the amount we send to Brussels).
Be interesting to see to what extent that changes next time around. I expect a few evictions of toys from prams which, paradoxically, will result in more seats going blue than last time.
Indeed. I guess it will depend on how well the coalition performs, and how the cuts will affect us down here. I'm not quite at the stage of proclaiming doom and gloom as some Labour supporters here are.
Although, Cornwall can never seem to vote Labour. It says a lot when Mebyon Kernow and UKIP are outperforming (or are not a million miles away from) Labour in the local and general elections. I wonder how people will vote when both of the coalition parties are despised?
I'm confused too. I'm not even sure what the Objective One money was spent on. I think the Eden Project got some of it.
Let's hope that the latest round of funding is spent usefully (the fibre-optic broadband plan sounds very useful).
It's a shame that it has to come from the EU rather than our own government (although I suppose that it effectively does given the amount we send to Brussels).
It all comes from some taxpayer somewhere - such is the way of things. As long as it's useful and it's finished and done properly, I don't really think it matters whether the funding comes from Whitehall, Brussels or Bill Gates.
Indeed. I guess it will depend on how well the coalition performs, and how the cuts will affect us down here. I'm not quite at the stage of proclaiming doom and gloom as some Labour supporters here are.
Nor me. Of course I reserve the right to change my mind.
Although, Cornwall can never seem to vote Labour. It says a lot when Mebyon Kernow and UKIP are outperforming (or are not a million miles away from) Labour in the local and general elections. I wonder how people will vote when both of the coalition parties are despised?
Comments
We've only meniotned RBS on this thread, but if you wish to place values on me you want to think I have, go ahead.
Indeed. I think I can only refer you back to my original comment on that point - I can sort of see (I guess) why some might see it as hectoring or nagging (though without much in the way of detail, that's rather assumptive) but IMO it's up to Governments to try to promote what they see as Good Things for society to do - irrespective of all the other issues as to whether it could ever be a substitute for funding charities through tax and so forth. So the Green Paper, taken in isolation, I don't have a problem with. Of course there'll be arguments about underlying motivations and so forth, but I fear those sorts of arguments will take us all to familiar places...!
That's because you launched straight into an attack on the banking sector - apparently under the mistaken impression that I was fine and dandy with the notion that those responsible for the financial crisis should get off scot-free. I don't know where you get that idea, which makes this statement...
...comical. Given that that's what you did to me, it would only be fair if I did that to you, wouldn't it?
It's one thing for the government to encourage people to donate and to make giving easier (and tax efficient). The problem is when it becomes a constant nagging - that it the nanny state at its worst. People will be put off giving if they are asked everytime they do a financial transaction.
Your questions to JudgeMental suggested that his public sector role exists because of the taxpayer and thus why she he get special protection for his job.
RBS, HBOS, and Northern Rock only now still exist because of the taxpayer, yet their special protection remains in terms of bonuses, etc.
Not quite so clear cut though is it?
Some of these bonuses are happening because of contractual agreements, and why should someone who works for a profitable arm of the bank, and who has generated profits for said bank, forego their bonus (and indeed why should they be penalised with bonus taxes if they had nothing to do with the credit crunch)?
I seem to recall Labour trying, unsuccessfully, to do something about Fred Goodwin's pension. Why do you think it will be any different under the coalition?
People in the public sector have contracts too. Your second argument could be used for the 500,000 people about to laid off in the public sector too.
It shouldn't, pensions should be sacrosanct. Labour were wrong to try to do that, the principle should be fundamental.
It's "her" - and I guess I can't help what other people infer from my line of questioning. There was no "thus" in it.
And there are good reasons for keeping at least some (though not all, as it has transpired) of its employees gainfully employed. Not only because the collapse of two major lenders would be catastrophic for the economy (and I'm not talking "a few northern cities are a bit screwed" here - without meaning to be unduly dismissive or disparaging towards the north - I'm talking "Great Depression 2.0") but also because we stand a fair chance of seeing a decent return on that investment in time. (And in the meantime, don't we get back a pretty hefty chunk of any dividend payouts? Not sure on that one...)
Bonuses aren't exactly a "special protection". They're an internal matter - and for all that big bonuses for senior staff are very bad PR and people may get riled up about them, they don't make a big dent a bank's profits (or, latterly, losses). Governments can wring their hands and declare it bad form all they want, but the effort required to make senior staff stop doing it probably isn't worth a Government's while to go interfering in such a heavy-handed manner in the internal affairs of a company.
I'm interested to know what you think the impact would be of the collapse of two major lenders - compared, say, to 430k public sector job cuts and 500k private sector follow on job cuts. I don't think it's just a few Northern cities that will be affected - but I agree the government might take it a bit more seriously if those affected were on their doorsteps like the banking sector are.
We may eventually make our money back and even profit from the bank bailouts. Continuing to allow public sector wastage will only keep the deficits coming.
Don't forget that the health of the UK financial industry, rightly or wrongly, has implications for the world economy (London is after all one of the "global command centres" alongside Tokyo and New York).
I don't think the loss of a few diversity counsellors or UKFC non-jobbers or street football co-ordinators is going to have quite the same reach.
I supported Brown's decision to bail out the banks and hope we will get our money back.
We have always borrowed money to support the provision of public services - and we always will. There is little real 'wastage' - whatever that actually means. But clearly different views about how much should be spent on public services and welfare.
I don't happen to know off-hand how many people are (or were) employed by Northern Rock, HBOS and RBS, but I'm pretty sure it's not insignificant. RBS alone apparently employs more than 183,000 people in the UK (I've no idea how many it employed before 2008). Of course you'd still have the knock-on effects to the welfare system and to other private companies that you mention as a risk of shedding jobs from the public sector, but you also have the added problem that there's less lending available - and that means a far tougher environment for new businesses and further restrictions on the ability of existing businesses to expand. If we'd let them collapse, I think we'd be looking at more job losses in total than your 930k figure. Credit is due, of course, to the last Government for not allowing them to collapse.
I actually slightly self-censored my remarks there. I expect that plenty of areas will be affected, but I think that it is only certain more vulnerable local economies who have the potential to be, for want of a better term, royally screwed by severe public service cutbacks. By contrast, I think the collapse of two of the Big Five(?) banks would result in a nationwide economic situation of "royally screwed".
Well, the fact that the Tories and Lib Dems are only slightly less popular than bubonic plague in places like Middlesborough doesn't exactly provide an incentive for them to look out especially for them. They are, after all, MPs with constituencies of their own to look after. Which is also one of the problems you get when you form a Government from amongst the members of a legislative chamber who are elected to represent specific communities.
Thanks for the info. It was right to prevent them going under. The impact on lending is definitely something that wouldn't have helped any recovery.
I do think some areas of the country are going to be royally screwed by these policies including those rural areas with Tory MPs
Some areas are permanently royally screwed by governments of all colours. The South West of England, for one. Makes you wonder why people only think of "the North" when we're not exactly swimming in money.
I agree - it's not just the North. It will be any area where there are few jobs in the private sector. It just so happens that a number of these combined with a lack of economic resiliance generally happen to be in the North of England.
I think that depends on which definition of "South West" you're working with. The South West "region" encompasses some pretty diverse economies. What's going on in Bristol and Bath isn't exactly a reflection of what's going on in Newquay, and vice versa.
But you are right, of course - Cornwall is I think the only part of England* with Objective 1 status...?
* (contentious?)
I think so (is the Objective One programme still going? I thought it shut down, but Cornwall still gets a lot of EU money. I think we're the only part of the country (NI might be another, but that isn't England) that is getting fibre-optic broadband through EU subsidy for example)
Either way, it still seems like the South West in general is overlooked (at least by Westminster) - possibly because it's mostly an area where Labour can't win (so no help from them), and an area where if you stuck a blue or yellow rosette on a turd it'd still win, so no incentive for the other two parties.
I stand corrected. I had thought Convergence Cornwall was the continuation of the Objective 1 programme. It turns out that it's another set of funding altogether. I do get a bit lost with all these funding programmes sometimes...!
Be interesting to see to what extent that changes next time around. I expect a few evictions of toys from prams which, paradoxically, will result in more seats going blue than last time.
I'm confused too. I'm not even sure what the Objective One money was spent on. I think the Eden Project got some of it.
Let's hope that the latest round of funding is spent usefully (the fibre-optic broadband plan sounds very useful).
It's a shame that it has to come from the EU rather than our own government (although I suppose that it effectively does given the amount we send to Brussels).
Indeed. I guess it will depend on how well the coalition performs, and how the cuts will affect us down here. I'm not quite at the stage of proclaiming doom and gloom as some Labour supporters here are.
Although, Cornwall can never seem to vote Labour. It says a lot when Mebyon Kernow and UKIP are outperforming (or are not a million miles away from) Labour in the local and general elections. I wonder how people will vote when both of the coalition parties are despised?
It all comes from some taxpayer somewhere - such is the way of things. As long as it's useful and it's finished and done properly, I don't really think it matters whether the funding comes from Whitehall, Brussels or Bill Gates.
Nor me. Of course I reserve the right to change my mind.
Pirate Party?