Are we Socialist now or not?

[puff the dragon]

On one hand the idiots decide to put a highly uncapitalist tax on bankers bonuses and on the other hand they deem a strike illegal.

Now, I personally think bankers who succeed should be paid whatever the company that employs them deems necessary and I would happily see all unions crushed and strikers fired with no benefit, but is it not time the politicans made up their mind if we are socialist now or not??

[J-C]

On one hand the idiots decide to put a highly uncapitalist tax on bankers bonuses and on the other hand they deem a strike illegal.

Now, I personally think bankers who succeed should be paid whatever the company that employs them deems necessary and I would happily see all unions crushed and strikers fired with no benefit, but is it not time the politicans made up their mind if we are socialist now or not??


Read this and make up your own mind....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


Personally I think socialism has never really been here, apart from say in China and Russia. The so called Socialist parties of this country have never really turned us into a true socialist state, although Wilson did try.

With the amount of wealth in this country and also having a Monarchy, you could never truly have a socialist state, having socialist values is something completely different and asks another question altogether.

[heretoday]

Imagine what this country, indeed the world, will be like in say 100 years from now.

I would reckon that there may be a pressing need for some kind of command economy just to create a kind of order.

That's if we haven't all torn each other to bits by then.

[ancienthibby]

On one hand the idiots decide to put a highly uncapitalist tax on bankers bonuses and on the other hand they deem a strike illegal.

Now, I personally think bankers who succeed should be paid whatever the company that employs them deems necessary and I would happily see all unions crushed and strikers fired with no benefit, but is it not time the politicans made up their mind if we are socialist now or not??

When were we ever????

[Green Mikey]

Imagine what this country, indeed the world, will be like in say 100 years from now.

I would reckon that there may be a pressing need for some kind of command economy just to create a kind of order.

That's if we haven't all torn each other to bits by then.

:confused:Command economies have worked so well in the past right enough.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Has anyone got any idea how taxing banker's bonuses is symptomatic of Britain becoming a People's Republic?

[Beefster]

Has anyone got any idea how taxing banker's bonuses is symptomatic of Britain becoming a People's Republic?

It's not. It's a cheap political gimmick by a dying government that will achieve nothing.

[hibsbollah]

It's not. It's a cheap political gimmick by a dying government that will achieve nothing.

I agree. Seizing their bank accounts for distribution into the coffers of the NHS and schools would be much more effective. And socialist.:agree:

[Phil D. Rolls]

On one hand the idiots decide to put a highly uncapitalist tax on bankers bonuses and on the other hand they deem a strike illegal.

Now, I personally think bankers who succeed should be paid whatever the company that employs them deems necessary and I would happily see all unions crushed and strikers fired with no benefit, but is it not time the politicans made up their mind if we are socialist now or not??

Socialist?

Hardy

Har

Har.

:faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf::faf:

Besides, Mitterand said that people have outgrown socialism. I saw it in a movie in the days before you had to worry about who was sitting next to you in a cinema.

I tell you this if any of those pinko Islamists was to come near my family, I swear I'd do time. They didn't have to much to say when it was Baby P, tells you who really cares in this country.

[heretoday]

:confused:Command economies have worked so well in the past right enough.

Yeah okay. What do you envisage the world will be like in 100 years time? My argument is not one in favour of socialist states rather than a pessimistic view of the future world e.g. food riots etc. and a feeling that some order will have to be imposed.

[Pretty Boy]

On one hand the idiots decide to put a highly uncapitalist tax on bankers bonuses and on the other hand they deem a strike illegal.

Now, I personally think bankers who succeed should be paid whatever the company that employs them deems necessary and I would happily see all unions crushed and strikers fired with no benefit, but is it not time the politicans made up their mind if we are socialist now or not??

:bitchy: Unbelievable.

[One Day Soon]

On one hand the idiots decide to put a highly uncapitalist tax on bankers bonuses and on the other hand they deem a strike illegal.

Oh dear. The Chancellor is placing the tax on bank bonuses. BA are seeking an injunction on strike action from the courts. These are two completely different institutions.

Now, I personally think bankers who succeed should be paid whatever the company that employs them deems necessary and I would happily see all unions crushed and strikers fired with no benefit, but is it not time the politicans made up their mind if we are socialist now or not??

see above

[Green Mikey]

Yeah okay. What do you envisage the world will be like in 100 years time? My argument is not one in favour of socialist states rather than a pessimistic view of the future world e.g. food riots etc. and a feeling that some order will have to be imposed.

It is impossible to predict what the world will be like in 100 years.

[One Day Soon]

It's not. It's a cheap political gimmick by a dying government that will achieve nothing.

No, its an intervention by the majority shareholder to say that having used substantial volumes of public money to keep these important institutions afloat they should not then be conducting themselves as though they are immune to the effects of the recession being felt by everyone else in the private and public sectors. Its an entirely reasonable and proportionate action to be taking in my view.

It also lets the management in these bodies know that if they try to play brinksmanship with the government then they will find that its a two way street and that they are actually accountable and not untouchable as they undoubtedly thought they were before the banking collapse.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------


I agree. Seizing their bank accounts for distribution into the coffers of the NHS and schools would be much more effective. And socialist.:agree:

FFS. There you go again, as Ronald Reagan once said.

It would actually be completely destructive, utterly ineffective and more like fascism than socialism.

[One Day Soon]

:bitchy: Unbelievable.

It can get a lot worse than that. Have you read some of the other threads on here?

[ancienthibby]

No, its an intervention by the majority shareholder to say that having used substantial volumes of public money to keep these important institutions afloat they should not then be conducting themselves as though they are immune to the effects of the recession being felt by everyone else in the private and public sectors. Its an entirely reasonable and proportionate action to be taking in my view.

It also lets the management in these bodies know that if they try to play brinksmanship with the government then they will find that its a two way street and that they are actually accountable and not untouchable as they undoubtedly thought they were before the banking collapse.



---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------



FFS. There you go again, as Ronald Reagan once said.

It would actually be completely destructive, utterly ineffective and more like fascism than socialism.

Go and read Andy 74's posts on the Rbs thread and you will find an employee(?)/apologist who clearly believes RBS are neither accountable nor touchable!!

[hibsbollah]

No, its an intervention by the majority shareholder to say that having used substantial volumes of public money to keep these important institutions afloat they should not then be conducting themselves as though they are immune to the effects of the recession being felt by everyone else in the private and public sectors. Its an entirely reasonable and proportionate action to be taking in my view.

It also lets the management in these bodies know that if they try to play brinksmanship with the government then they will find that its a two way street and that they are actually accountable and not untouchable as they undoubtedly thought they were before the banking collapse.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------



FFS. There you go again, as Ronald Reagan once said.

It would actually be completely destructive, utterly ineffective and more like fascism than socialism.

I wasnt being wholly serious. I was under the impression this was a 'joke' thread:confused:

[One Day Soon]

I wasnt being wholly serious. I was under the impression this was a 'joke' thread:confused:

Fair enough Mr Bollah. I'm afraid I take my politics pretty seriously (as in everything is politics) so my sense of humour bypass is more often than not engaged.

[hibsbollah]

Fair enough Mr Bollah. I'm afraid I take my politics pretty seriously (as in everything is politics) so my sense of humour bypass is more often than not engaged.

No problem:thumbsup: Its hard to know when people are joking and when theyre not. I assumed 'I would happily see all unions crushed and strikers fired with no benefit' must have been a windup...

[Beefster]

No, its an intervention by the majority shareholder to say that having used substantial volumes of public money to keep these important institutions afloat they should not then be conducting themselves as though they are immune to the effects of the recession being felt by everyone else in the private and public sectors. Its an entirely reasonable and proportionate action to be taking in my view.

If it wasn't a cheap political gimmick, the tax would have been in place permanently or until the taxpayers' money is paid back.

What's to stop banks saying 'we won't pay you a bonus in 2010 but we'll make it up to you in 2011'?

[ancient hibee]

No problem:thumbsup: Its hard to know when people are joking and when theyre not. I assumed 'I would happily see all unions crushed and strikers fired with no benefit' must have been a windup...
Well i thought so particularly when I couldn't find anything about thumbscrews.

[hibsbollah]

If it wasn't a cheap political gimmick, the tax would have been in place permanently or until the taxpayers' money is paid back.

What's to stop banks saying 'we won't pay you a bonus in 2010 but we'll make it up to you in 2011'?

Or whats to stop them paying the bonuses in the form of shares, which the legislation does not control? (Vince Cable pointed out in the Commons the other day that some of the banks have already been using this as a loophole)...