76 people made 41% of donations to political parties

[Xordium]

Nonsense. The average worker, living an average lifestyle hasn't got time to effect change through our political system. It's been built that way. In order to effect change, you need time and money. ie, you need to either be rich or represent the rich.

Our whole socio-economic system is built around the accumulation of capital. Everthing else is a means to that end. Tell me how to change that, whilst running two businesses, barely paying my mortgage and driving a 10+ year old car. I don't even had kids.

What we do get is a vote. But even that is relatively meaningless unless you happen to live in a marginal constituency.

Nonsense. That's just a load of excuses. You're the very type of person I was on about. You just find reasons to not effect change. Throughout history we have people who have had the guts to step forward and make changes and use whatever force they could use to achieve their political goals.

You have limited yourself by your own rules and locked yourself in your own boundaries.

 

[arknor]

dunno about that - tis more a matter of perception... the current govt has reduced unemployment, created jobs etc... objectively austerity has worked as intended

no it has not the recession ending has done this it's the same in murica and everywhere else that has a lot in common with the UK.

anyone in power would have seen the same crap happen and magically take responsibility for it as if they had some guiding hand.

oil prices plummeted , transport costs went down , food costs when down as a result, heating costs are down or should be.

all hail david cameron ! a master class in how to manipulate the worlds oil price to crush Russias economy and bring us all cheaper goods.

oh wait it's nothing to do with cameron at all but give him credit for it anyway.


those barrels of oil supposedly found down south probably wouldn't have been found if it wasn't for the tories either, they single handedly brought it into existence with a philosophers stone

 

[dowie]

you're being a bit optimistic if you think that not attempting to address the deficit would have still lead to a similar recovery regardless

 

[StriderX]

Austerity only affects the public purse, which is never touched by an economy made up of private organisations.

Irritating, if there were any effect at all, it would be marginal at best in one of the largest financial centres in the world...

 

[ancientmariner]

People need to remember why there was a deficit. The crash in 2008 did not simply happen. It was created by the financial sector and it was deliberate. Bankers made millions of pounds using funds from their customers. Selling them bad loans and mortgages, then selling on those loans (at profit) and then placing bets on the customers not being able to pay back their loans. All the while taking millions themselves in bonuses until the pot ran dry. Once dry, politicians screamed it was IMPERATIVE than the amazing banking system continued in exactly the same way...so the tax payer paid billions to allow them to go right back to screwing everyone again. Once the deficit was established it was the tax payers responsibility (again) to pay for the recovery in the form of austerity measures. No lessons learned, no bankers held accountable and business as usual.

Anyone who believes the system works, is a mug

 

[Dolph]

The deficit was growing in both relative and absolute terms since 2002, that was the fault of labour, not the banks, and the reason we were so unprepared for the crash when it came.

 

[Tefal]

Off the top of my head:

VAT raised to 20%
Bedroom Tax
50p rate of income tax reduced to 45p
Health and Social Care Act 2012 i.e. death of NHS

I don't think any of the above would have happened had Labour won the 2010 general election.

tax free income allowance raised?

 

[John40]

People need to remember why there was a deficit. The crash in 2008 did not simply happen. It was created by the financial sector and it was deliberate. Bankers made millions of pounds using funds from their customers. Selling them bad loans and mortgages, then selling on those loans (at profit) and then placing bets on the customers not being able to pay back their loans. All the while taking millions themselves in bonuses until the pot ran dry. Once dry, politicians screamed it was IMPERATIVE than the amazing banking system continued in exactly the same way...so the tax payer paid billions to allow them to go right back to screwing everyone again. Once the deficit was established it was the tax payers responsibility (again) to pay for the recovery in the form of austerity measures. No lessons learned, no bankers held accountable and business as usual.

Anyone who believes the system works, is a mug

Bit simplistic that is, wasn't exactly like that.

 

[dowie]

Austerity only affects the public purse, which is never touched by an economy made up of private organisations.

Irritating, if there were any effect at all, it would be marginal at best in one of the largest financial centres in the world...

And what would happen to the UK's cost of borrowing if we weren't taking steps to tackle the deficit.

 

[ancientmariner]

Bit simplistic that is, wasn't exactly like that.

Please elaborate, how was it then?

 

[dowie]

People need to remember why there was a deficit. The crash in 2008 did not simply happen. It was created by the financial sector and it was deliberate. Bankers made millions of pounds using funds from their customers. Selling them bad loans and mortgages, then selling on those loans (at profit) and then placing bets on the customers not being able to pay back their loans. All the while taking millions themselves in bonuses until the pot ran dry. Once dry, politicians screamed it was IMPERATIVE than the amazing banking system continued in exactly the same way...so the tax payer paid billions to allow them to go right back to screwing everyone again. Once the deficit was established it was the tax payers responsibility (again) to pay for the recovery in the form of austerity measures. No lessons learned, no bankers held accountable and business as usual.

Anyone who believes the system works, is a mug

If 'the bankers' were placing bets against these loans then who took the other side and why did they end up with such huge losses?

 

[dazzerd]

Difference is that Unite represent 1.4 million British workers, so that's less than £1 each. When a business donates to a political party it's normally on behalf of a small number of very wealthy shareholders.

Correct and spot on. If we all remembered that unions are there for the benefit of us all (i.e. people who work for a living) we would live in a far more equitable society.

 

[ancientmariner]

If 'the bankers' were placing bets against these loans then who took the other side and why did they end up with such huge losses?

Take a read up on how Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and the effect this had on the markets. Also, look at how much money Lehman Brothers paid themselves in the few years leading up to the crash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_0Y8OCAgk8

 

[dowie]

Take a read up on how Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and the effect this had on the markets. Also, look at how much money Lehman Brothers paid themselves in the few years leading up to the crash.

that doesn't answer my question...

you said:

Selling them bad loans and mortgages, then selling on those loans (at profit) and then placing bets on the customers not being able to pay back their loans.

As though they actually had some foresight into this, most didn't else they wouldn't have taken such huge losses.

 

[Tefal]

Difference is that Unite represent 1.4 million British workers, so that's less than £1 each. When a business donates to a political party it's normally on behalf of a small number of very wealthy shareholders.

actually it's 66p a month.

Also unite pays about £3 million year to labour in affiliation fees that's not included in the "donations" totals.

 

[ancientmariner]

that doesn't answer my question...

you said:



As though they actually had some foresight into this, most didn't else they wouldn't have taken such huge losses.

This is well documented, if you cannot be bothered to look, then take a read up on this

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/24trading.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Then take a look at the link i posted earlier. Once you have done that, read up on leverage and fractional banking.

 

[dowie]

I'm asking you a question about a claim you've made, you seemingly can't be bothered to answer but are instead posting some links and telling me to go and read them as though they'll answer a query about a specific claim you're making.

You should be able to answer the question yourself. If you notice most banks took huge loses in the financial crisis, they didn't all have any great foresight or large bets against the toxic loans else they wouldn't have lost so much... someone has to be on the other side of those bets too you know. In fact if anyone was able to predict the crisis then they'd be in the position to make huge sums of money... yet lots of these banks failed. So GS making some bets isn't quite the same as claiming that was the case in general.

 

[ancientmariner]

You are suggesting this is a claim I have made. It isn't, it is documented fact as illustrated in the link I provided. The fact you cannot understand this suggests that in order to explain it to you, I would have to explain the fractional banking system, investment banking practises and employee bonus schemes among other things. Read the link, watch the video and if you can't understand it, let me know.

Additionally...when bank ceo's are taking home half a billion in bonuses then claiming bankruptcy while all the time knowing the government's will cover these losses it isn't to hard to work out. Banks made losses at huge private gain to employees...We covered those losses. Not the banks.

The link I provided details exactly the claim/fact I made

 

[dowie]

You have made a claim, I quoted your post and asked you a question. Perhaps you don't understand as you're unable to discuss it, you're just linking to articles. No you don't have to explain any of those things in order to answer my previous question.

Do you understand how some banks with very little to do with sub prime debt ended up in trouble for example?

 

[ancientmariner]

Again, I didn't make a claim. I posted a proven, established fact. I answered your question and you want to side step that. I have been discussing it here all afternoon.