The UK General Politics Thread Page 131

  • Page

    of 191 First / Last

  • Bremenacht 9 Dec 2013 00:34:00 18,275 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    MPs don't set their own pay anymore. I don't think it's quite a "think tank" either. It's this lot that now set their salary.

    Also, I don't think it will happen anyway. It's been rejected across the board because it would obviously be political suicide.
    I'd be surprised if MPs don't get what they want. They've been whinging about IPSA since it was created.
  • Bremenacht 30 Dec 2013 20:14:13 18,275 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    'Green crap'
  • localnotail 6 Jan 2014 23:10:16 23,093 posts
    Seen 7 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    A nation speaks directly to its leaders

    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

  • NBZ 7 Jan 2014 00:52:58 2,372 posts
    Seen 5 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
  • TheSaint 7 Jan 2014 01:15:07 14,397 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Conveniently misses out the fact that most of that profit came from Vince Cable's department undervaluing the company.
  • MightyMouse 7 Jan 2014 02:27:00 1,133 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @Bremenacht

    That article is hilarious. Their basic argument is that people will be better off in the future (because of technology and so on), so we shouldn't do anything about climate change because... fuck em. What utter cunts.
  • RedSparrows 7 Jan 2014 11:56:56 22,722 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    Conveniently misses out the fact that most of that profit came from Vince Cable's department undervaluing the company.
    It doesn't miss the point that there's a fuckload of back-scratching when it comes to privatisation, which, if we are to trust the public, is usually not wanted by the majority of the country.

    Opinion polls: what a cunt they are.
  • super-s1 7 Jan 2014 12:00:31 405 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 9 months ago
    Back-scratching is a pretty generous term for corruption I'd say.
  • whatfruit 7 Jan 2014 12:09:27 1,519 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    Conveniently misses out the fact that most of that profit came from Vince Cable's department undervaluing the company.
    Vince Cable's department did not undervalue the shares. The share offering was underwritten by Goldman & Sachs and UBS, it was these companies that carried out the valuation. The same two companies that actively tried to bankrupt AIG so they could receive huge insurance payments on the worthless derivative products they sold investors.

    I can guarantee that G & S and UBS made a small fortune in commission fees on the first few days trading. In addition to the huge windfall from selling preferred stock when the share value rose.

    Edited by whatfruit at 12:13:30 07-01-2014
  • TheSaint 7 Jan 2014 12:14:13 14,397 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    All managed by the department for business.

    Still we could all apply for shares and benefit from the undervaluing in the same way that Hedge Fund did.
  • TheSaint 7 Jan 2014 12:17:36 14,397 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    whatfruit wrote:
    I can guarantee that G & S and UBS made a small fortune in commission fees on the first few days trading. In addition to the huge windfall from selling preferred stock when the share value rose.
    I have no doubt they did and arguably that is a more interesting issue than the fact Osbourne's best man works for a hedge fund that invested in royal mail shares.
  • whatfruit 7 Jan 2014 12:34:34 1,519 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    whatfruit wrote:
    I can guarantee that G & S and UBS made a small fortune in commission fees on the first few days trading. In addition to the huge windfall from selling preferred stock when the share value rose.
    I have no doubt they did and arguably that is a more interesting issue than the fact Osbourne's best man works for a hedge fund that invested in royal mail shares.
    The problem is trying to sue a bank for undervaluing is like trying to hammer jelly to the wall with an octopus. There will be no inquiry because all sections of government signed off on it so nobody wants to be found culpable. The head of UBS UK division recently commented that he thinks Royal Mail's current share price is over valued.

    Lansdowne Partners acquired shares at the preferred offering rate because they were a registered financial services firm, independent investors were restricted to 500. Lansdown partners made similar profits on commissions and rapid share value rise as UBS and G& R.
  • TheSaint 7 Jan 2014 12:38:01 14,397 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    whatfruit wrote:
    Lansdown partners made similar profits on commissions and rapid share value rise as UBS and G& R.
    Good news for pensions, charities and companies that invest in that fund then.
  • whatfruit 7 Jan 2014 12:42:09 1,519 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    whatfruit wrote:
    Lansdown partners made similar profits on commissions and rapid share value rise as UBS and G& R.
    Good news for pensions, charities and companies that invest in that fund then.
    also for brokers, banks and George Osborne who gets 500k in his campaign war chest for being such a good sport.

    Shit news for the taxpayer or any business that relies on royal mail when the cost of services inevitably rises.
  • LeoliansBro 17 Jan 2014 10:11:00 44,245 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Can somebody explain to me Ed Miliband's plan to limit market share for banks, specifically as regards retail depositors? Undoubtedly it sounds great as a heroic strike against the 'too big to fail' problem, but:

    - It creates a huge amount of disruption as the banks reduce their number of branches, new banks are created. Fraud, mismanagement and errors will increase.

    - It doesn't answer the main problem - the liquidity mismatch between bank depositors and bank investment activities.

    - Has anyone thought what removing the 'too big to fail' aspect of banks would mean? Is this setting up a culture of banks that are small enough to fail? What if you're a depositor at one of those banks? How much will the government guarantee this time around?

    - It doesn't distinguish between banking activities - it was a market wide problem that caused the 2008 crash, so what if the 5 big banks are turned into 10 medium banks, but they all do the wrong thing and all fail at once next time?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • TheSaint 17 Jan 2014 10:16:27 14,397 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The anti-bank crowd who clap like seals every week on question time whenever someone take a cheap shot at the industry never strike me as the brightest bunch. The headlines alone will probably be enough to get their vote, I doubt they care about specifics.

    All he needs to do now is declare war on Starbucks, Vodafone and Amazon and he'll have that whole group of voters sewn up.
  • LeoliansBro 17 Jan 2014 10:23:09 44,245 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Oh, it'll also make banking more expensive.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • mcmonkeyplc 17 Jan 2014 10:30:26 39,457 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Can somebody explain to me Ed Miliband's plan to limit market share for banks, specifically as regards retail depositors? Undoubtedly it sounds great as a heroic strike against the 'too big to fail' problem, but:

    - It creates a huge amount of disruption as the banks reduce their number of branches, new banks are created. Fraud, mismanagement and errors will increase.
    Competition will increase as a result meaning hopefully a better deal for consumers. Regulation needs to be strict to avoid an increase in fraud and mismanagement but this might also inadvertently create a barrier to entry.

    - It doesn't answer the main problem - the liquidity mismatch between bank depositors and bank investment activities.
    Agreed, this needs tightening but doesn't Basal 3 go towards this?

    - Has anyone thought what removing the 'too big to fail' aspect of banks would mean? Is this setting up a culture of banks that are small enough to fail? What if you're a depositor at one of those banks? How much will the government guarantee this time around?
    100,000 like they do now? Most people won't be effected by this limit.

    - It doesn't distinguish between banking activities - it was a market wide problem that caused the 2008 crash, so what if the 5 big banks are turned into 10 medium banks, but they all do the wrong thing and all fail at once next time?
    Agree, but again can be fixed through better regulation. Regulators need to keep on top of what banks are doing. That was a major problem last time, just letting things slide cause everything was rosy. They should take the opposite view from now on. If things are great then regulators need to go through things "with even more of a fine tooth comb" and even stop practices they don't understand until they do. Yes this may lead to slower innovation but it's safer.

    Growth through financial innovation is not sustainable over the long term. It's just money.

    Edited by mcmonkeyplc at 10:35:22 17-01-2014

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 17 Jan 2014 11:12:30 6,654 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    The anti-bank crowd who clap like seals every week on question time .... never strike me as the brightest bunch. ..
    I like that they clap at polar opposite opinions depending on the force of conviction of the speaker.

    Why turn up to a political program if you're stupid?
  • mcmonkeyplc 17 Jan 2014 11:16:53 39,457 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Stupid people have opinions too.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Dougs 17 Jan 2014 11:18:14 67,728 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l93yjako2j8&feature=em-uploademail

    :D
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 17 Jan 2014 11:27:17 6,654 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    heh. He's technically right but I hate the fact that someone who comes across as such a pompous snob is representing us.
  • mcmonkeyplc 17 Jan 2014 11:28:10 39,457 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    What a fucking utter cunt. :)

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • mcmonkeyplc 17 Jan 2014 11:28:38 39,457 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    bitch_tits_zero_nine wrote:
    heh. He's technically right but I hate the fact that someone who comes across as such a pompous snob is representing us.
    In what way is he right?

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 17 Jan 2014 11:29:00 6,654 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    yeah; that :D
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 17 Jan 2014 11:29:59 6,654 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    bitch_tits_zero_nine wrote:
    heh. He's technically right but I hate the fact that someone who comes across as such a pompous snob is representing us.
    In what way is he right?
    Well, stating that there is a resurgence in the far right in greece etc.
  • mcmonkeyplc 17 Jan 2014 11:33:18 39,457 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Ok that was about all he was correct about. :)

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 17 Jan 2014 11:36:16 6,654 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    They interviewed a French political commentator on Channel 4 news a while ago who articulated my opinion on Europe, that the focus on the mechanics of making it work is missing the point of the value of the idea of a union.

    Edited by bitch_tits_zero_nine at 11:37:09 17-01-2014
  • RedSparrows 17 Jan 2014 11:37:58 22,722 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    You mean we should be asking questions of the value of the union, rather than the mechanics?

    Because people are asking the former, and the latter does justify opinions on the former.
  • mcmonkeyplc 17 Jan 2014 11:38:14 39,457 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    bitch_tits_zero_nine wrote:
    They interviewed a French political commentator on Channel 4 news a while ago who articulated my opinion on Europe, that the focus on the mechanics of making it work is missing the point of the value of the idea of a union.
    So we should ignore trying to make it work properly?

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Page

    of 191 First / Last

Log in or register to reply