observer Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 The credit crunch, the banking crisis, the bail out - then the GOV (who own a majority of the banks) say they can't curb bonus payments to bankers, "as they are a contractual obligation". Now, in the light of a period of forthcoming austerity; thousands of civil service jobs, pay and conditions are under threat - even where there are "contractual obligations". So yet again, it's the rich that get the pleasure and the poor who get the pain, ain't it all a bloody shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 You should put that to music Obs. Gravy train also rhymes. Thought exactly the same thing when one of the losers was interviewed on the radio. Doesn't seem right to me. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 If the big banks had gone under we'd have all known about it as soon as the cash machines stopped dispensing and our debit cards stopped working, but has anybody actually noticed any difference considering that 1/4 million civil servants are out on strike? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 will let you know later as i am due to sign on today at eleven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Durnim Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Reading the press about this so called ?quantative easing? by giving billions of pounds to bail out the banks, apparently this was equal to giving every tax payer between ?20,000 to ?30,000, the next time they do it, here is an idea, just give the money to the tax payer, may be they will spend it more wisely and frivolously, by doing this it will give the economy a better kick start, than any loan shark bank could achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Sue you are so right. This would be the right thing to do. let the people decide where the money is spent. Less debt, less profit for banks Too sensible for HMG and treaury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Durnim Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Sue you are so right. This would be the right thing to do. let the people decide where the money is spent. Less debt, less profit for banks Too sensible for HMG and treaury. Thanks wahl, I sometimes think that the easy and common sense solution, is the hardest thing to do, when it comes to politics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Good post Obs Completly agree with you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Inky: the reason the banks were "bailed out" was simply the fact that they had become too big and had delved in the toxic world of speculation - so to prevent it happening again, there needs to be tight regulation of mergers and a strict divide between high street banking and the murky world of global gambling. As for the threat of an exodus of these bonus hungry wonder boys - let them migrate asap (minus any bonus) - award their jobs to the next in line (sure there will be a queue) and pay them a lot less. In another world - this problem could have been dealt with by decimation - one speculator in every ten publicly executed as an example to the rest - guess that would get their attention and concentrate minds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wireless Posted March 14, 2010 Report Share Posted March 14, 2010 Two points, I have no problem with the banks being bailed out- as we saw with Northern Rock the alternative is panic with mortgages and business loans going up the spout. Having said that, now the government owns the banks they should be calling the shots and ensuring those responsible pay in the pocket.If they don't like it lets see who employs them having lost billions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 14, 2010 Report Share Posted March 14, 2010 Government own the banks after bailing them out. Bankers are still getting huge bonus payment and the government can't (or wont) interevene. So what would happen if everyone who is totally peed off with the whole farce and who has savings in the banks suddenly decided to withdraw their all their money... would they be allowed to and what would happen if they did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 14, 2010 Report Share Posted March 14, 2010 Life would be a lot easier if we went back to cash, instead of plastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2010 Presumably precisely what happened with Northern Rock, when there was a run on the bank?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 since its the government that make the law, they can invoke an extreem measures act when the government step in to bail out a company that it is a condition of the bail out that bonuses and salarys are reviewed and reduced where required. Alternatively the company (CEOs etc) can go into administration, and the bonus earners can go to the back of the queue after all creditors and customers are resolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.