Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Truss v Starmer



El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,713
Pattknull med Haksprut
She will get better as she grows in confidence. She will be fine. Its whether she delivers on her promises or not. She doesn't have much time to convince the general public though. Let's give her our support

Absolutely. I for one am fully behind the policy to abolish the cap on banker bonuses but to have a cap on benefits.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,315
I think it's more of a 'level playing field' argument.

Are there any examples where restrictions on bonuses have hindered investment or financial performance?

probably, if there aren't, then why have it? the justification was to change banker behaviour.
 


Randy McNob

Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
Jun 13, 2020
4,464
probably, if there aren't, then why have it? the justification was to change banker behaviour.

it just shows who the Tories stand up for, corporate greed and the city bankers, and just throw a few crumbs to the peasants like energy bill caps, (which the taxpayer will have to pay for generations to come, not the energy companies who made a killing)

We had to endure 10 years of failed austerity, services cut to the bare bones because greedy bankers created the crisis, yet here we are giving them licence to do it again and fill their boots. Thatcherite Utopia
 
Last edited:


nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
17,611
Gods country fortnightly
it just shows who the Tories stand up for, corporate greed and the city bankers, and just throw a few crumbs to the peasants like energy bill caps, (which the taxpayer will have to pay for generations to come)

We had to endure 10 years of failed austerity, services cut to the bare bones because greedy bankers created the crisis, yet here we are giving them licence to do it again and fill their boots. Thatcherite Utopia

To coin John Major's famous line its "back to basics", get back to rewarding big business especially those that f**k the environment, rewarding the bankers for gambling and ending crazy ideas like healthy diets

Its all so refreshing from Mistrust, no wasting her time on gaslighting the red wall and that kind of BS.
 


Randy McNob

Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
Jun 13, 2020
4,464
To coin John Major's famous line its "back to basics", get back to rewarding big business especially those that f**k the environment, rewarding the bankers for gambling and ending crazy ideas like healthy diets

Its all so refreshing from Mistrust, no wasting her time on gaslighting the red wall and that kind of BS.

She knows she has 18 months in No10 before they are smashed in 2024, all she is doing now is damage maximisation, widening wealth inequality to harm the next government who have to pick up the pieces. Unless she is hounded out by anarchy on the streets
 




nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
17,611
Gods country fortnightly
She knows she has 18 months in No10 before they are smashed in 2024, all she is doing now is damage maximisation, widening wealth inequality to harm the next government who have to pick up the pieces. Unless she is hounded out by anarchy on the streets

Former head of the Tax Payer Alliance pulling the strings..... for the little people....
 


horshamite

Now Saltdeanite.
Nov 16, 2010
468
Close your eyes and Liz Truss sounds like Miranda Richardson -Queenie in Blackadder. Well to me she does.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,315
it just shows who the Tories stand up for, corporate greed and the city bankers, and just throw a few crumbs to the peasants like energy bill caps, (which the taxpayer will have to pay for generations to come, not the energy companies who made a killing)

we should adopt Stamer's plan on an energy cap instead.

oh, its the same plan. which was the same plan from Liberals. you can try a wider windfall tax on the oil and energy producing companies, but as thats mostly overseas it'll get taxed and spent there as EU plans to.
 




nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
17,611
Gods country fortnightly
we should adopt Stamer's plan on an energy cap instead.

oh, its the same plan. which was the same plan from Liberals. you can try a wider windfall tax on the oil and energy producing companies, but as thats mostly overseas it'll get taxed and spent there as EU plans to.

Sunak's so called Windfall Tax was as leaky as a sieve as they could get away by investing back into fossil fuels. They could extract more tax from them but they're not interested, too many internal links to big oil, opaque think tanks etc

A tax break for further investment in renewables would be an alternative approach, we can't wait for NUC's, they take decades to have any positive effect and even that comes with a toxic legacy
 
Last edited:


rippleman

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2011
4,578
Lifting the restriction on bankers bonuses. Failing to impose a windfall tax on the energy companies.

Retired MPs & ministers getting seats on the Boards of banks and energy companies and huge consultancy agreements from them.

Are they perchance somehow related?
 






drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,070
Burgess Hill
probably, if there aren't, then why have it? the justification was to change banker behaviour.

As you say, the controls were to change behaviour and remove the 'excessive risk, excessive reward' attitude that led us into the global financial crisis in 2008!

As for your first comment, surely the answer should be that if there is no evidence that the restrictions have hindered investment and financial performance then why remove them?
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,070
Burgess Hill
we should adopt Stamer's plan on an energy cap instead.

oh, its the same plan. which was the same plan from Liberals. you can try a wider windfall tax on the oil and energy producing companies, but as thats mostly overseas it'll get taxed and spent there as EU plans to.

It's not the same plan though is it. Truss is borrowing and charging it to the consumer and future generations whereas Starmer was for the windfall tax on the energy producers.

It's a bit like the previous windfall tax which the tories were adamant they weren't going to do right up until the point they did.

Perhaps the tories might have a chance of winning the next election if they adopt more of Starmer's policies!!!
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,315
It's not the same plan though is it. Truss is borrowing and charging it to the consumer and future generations whereas Starmer was for the windfall tax on the energy producers.

Starmer's plan expected to raise £8bn from windfall, the rest from existing spending plan. a windfall tax doesnt raise a lot without european wide, or worldwide, application. if you do that those local areas will benefit, the funds dont flow back to UK. you cant windfall tax twice or thrice. during the summer many were calling for the borrowing/defered payment approach, as the only practical solution, it only got a kicking when Truss announced it.
 




cunning fergus

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2009
4,747
I think it's more of a 'level playing field' argument.

Are there any examples where restrictions on bonuses have hindered investment or financial performance?



I am not surprised that you have missed the point, the legislation (CRD and CRR) that is likely to be changed is going to affect regulated firms’ internal capital and prudential arrangements to a much greater extent than bankers bonuses, and the obligations of remuneration committees to set compensation for senior employees.

You need to see through the media headlines on the wicked Tory Toffs changing the rules to give bankers greater bonuses to understand what is actually happening.

If the headlines were about the U.K. Government making much needed alterations to existing prudential requirements you and the damp mattress brigade wouldn’t be clutching your pearls.
 


rippleman

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2011
4,578
I am not surprised that you have missed the point, the legislation (CRD and CRR) that is likely to be changed is going to affect regulated firms’ internal capital and prudential arrangements to a much greater extent than bankers bonuses, and the obligations of remuneration committees to set compensation for senior employees.

You need to see through the media headlines on the wicked Tory Toffs changing the rules to give bankers greater bonuses to understand what is actually happening.

If the headlines were about the U.K. Government making much needed alterations to existing prudential requirements you and the damp mattress brigade wouldn’t be clutching your pearls.

Said a "Tory toff" banker???

(No offence intended :lolol:)
 


D

Deleted member 2719

Guest
I believe you missed part of of my post with your highlight which I have corrected above. And I don't think simple selfishness is the sole reason this country is on it's arse.

As my post highlighted, there has been quite phenomenal amounts of stupidity from Blair and Brown over quite a long period as well, in order to get us to the place we are now :shrug:

Thought your post needed correcting too.
 






Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here