The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

As long as we told our mates to bet against them, and people who wanted to be our mates but weren't quite rich enough to bet for them. Unless you think that's unethical?

We could also see if the German banks would buy a load too, what with them not really having a concept of wanker banker, they'll probably be daft enough to trust us as well! This could be a winner.

[Lord Kangana]

And then we could tell the world that seeing as now we're making only a small amount of profit, instead of money beyond the dreams of avarice, that yes, we too are hurting. And thats punishmnet enough. So we might aswell keep hold of our millions.

And that would be ok!

I love it when a plan comes together.

[thebish]

what the cock is Clegg up to? publicly stating he supports cameron's euro-walkout - then "privately" briefing everyone who will listen that cameron is a buttock-faced cock-up?

I thought Clegg was the "I'm gonna be straight with you" man?

[William the White]

what the cock is Clegg up to? publicly stating he supports cameron's euro-walkout - then "privately" briefing everyone who will listen that cameron is a buttock-faced cock-up?

I thought Clegg was the "I'm gonna be straight with you" man?

He'd like to be...

It's just that he finds it really hard to say 'I've been had for a total nice person by the one I thought loved me...'

Lib Dems stand for?

1. 'Fair votes now and forever.' Mmm...

2. 'Britain at the heart of Europe'. Double mmm...

3. 'Being genuinely helpful to poor people.' Always sickeningly unbelievable in this anyway...

Success so far in the coalition?

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps he has an inkling of the truth?

[Hoboh]

Well we used our veto!

Has the world ended yet?

Just wait we won't be alone long once the others finally get wise to the Frog/Kraut stich up or they get to election time

[thebish]

Well we used our veto!

Has the world ended yet?

Just wait we won't be alone long once the others finally get wise to the Frog/Kraut stich up or they get to election time

what exactly did we stop happening?

what exactly was in the treaty that threatened our interests (seriously - can anyone tell me? Hoboh?)

have any financial safeguards for the city of London financial sector been guaranteed?

[Hoboh]

Well we used our veto!

Has the world ended yet?

Just wait we won't be alone long once the others finally get wise to the Frog/Kraut stich up or they get to election time

what exactly did we stop happening?

what exactly was in the treaty that threatened our interests (seriously - can anyone tell me? Hoboh?)

have any financial safeguards for the city of London financial sector been guaranteed?

Aye it won't be moving to Frankenfuter anytime soon also we stopped ourslelves being taken for a one way journey to the end of the Euro at great cost to us to help save Merkels face!

[thebish]

c'mon hoboh - you can do better than that surely!

what was in that treaty - specifically - that would have harmed our national interest?

and what guarantees do we have now (that we didn't have before) over the security of our financial sector?

[Bruce Rioja]

Well we used our veto!

Has the world ended yet?

Just wait we won't be alone long once the others finally get wise to the Frog/Kraut stich up or they get to election time

what exactly did we stop happening?

what exactly was in the treaty that threatened our interests (seriously - can anyone tell me? Hoboh?)

have any financial safeguards for the city of London financial sector been guaranteed?

Are you Ed's brother?

[thebish]

Are you Ed's brother?

damn! rumbled! yes, I am!

[Bruce Rioja]

Are you Ed's brother?

damn! rumbled! yes, I am!

Listened to the same interview earlier. Will be quite interesting to hear what DC has to say about it all later.

[thebish]

Are you Ed's brother?

damn! rumbled! yes, I am!

Listened to the same interview earlier. Will be quite interesting to hear what DC has to say about it all later.

I was immediately struck by the question - why the blazing feck did the labour party pick the mumbling, weak, evasive Ed? yes - I know David has baggage - but his performance this morning - clear, calm and firmly put - whether you agree with him or not - sounded a million times more authoritative and in control and trustworthy than Ed has managed in his entire oppositionship so far...

[Bruce Rioja]

Have to agree. I didn't know who it was speaking until the end of the interview but what he had to say and the manner in which he said made me hang on to find out.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I still maintain that he had no choice in these negotiations, because the City of London is now more powerful than any government this country could elect. That is a very dangerous position to be in. Especially if one day they get bored of us.

I work in the City in a law firm that has its headquarters here. I have a couple of problems with your analysis.

The first is this idea that the City can ever be thought of as a single, unified, coherent entity. It's not. It's almost entirely populated by individuals and companies who are out for themselves. I don't mix with the people at the top (for now) but my impression is not that there is some sort of council of elders calling the shots.

As an aside, I think you'd like this article I read the other day: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 75084.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I agree with a lot of what he says, especially about the lazy drawing of meaningless parallels and the problem of a lack of separation of powers when it comes to the financial institutions and government. The thing he doesn't include, however, along with countless other similar commentators, is that the way governments avoid being beholden to banks and ratings agencies is byrunning their countries in a way that does not depend on massive regular borrowing.

The second thing to say is that the reaction to what's happened from the City is mixed at best. Some have offered faint paise, mainly for the sentiment, others have criticised and questioned the timing.

What I say is that we've not really been seriously influential in Europe on many occasions in the EU's history. We've been outsiders ever since Eden didn't sign us up in 1955.

More than that, in Paris they viscerally hate Cameron and the Tories in the same caricatured way some of his back benchers hate Europe (both sides are as bad as each other).

In this sense we have always been 'isolated' even if formally we were involved in everything. When was the last time Britain wanted something different to the prevailing view and got its way on something serious? I cannot recall an example. What then are the consequences of losing this so-called 'influence'?

My own view is that this diplomatic crash was inevitable - Britain does not want the same things for Europe as France and Germany and never has - there was always going to come a point at which this truth could not be avoided. In fact the remarkable thing is that it has taken so long.

I think Cameron had to make this stand at the outset of this new era for the EU. It's true that the 12% of our GDP that EU trade represents is crucial, but so is the 10% that financial services in the City accounts for. If what he was asking for wasn't a big deal, then why wasn't he given it?

To be honest, I could have understood the criticism of Cameron if, by exercising the veto, he were endangering a serious attempt to repair the troubles of the Euro. But no such proposals were on the table - all he's done is hindered a muddled, inadequate and half-hearted response to the problem, which the actors involved seem incapable of realising is, in fact, existential.

[Lord Kangana]

On the issue of ratings agencies, they were still giving Bear Sternes and the other big one who went bust (for some reason the name escapes me) an A rating days before they went pop to the tune of multiple billions (trillions perhaps?).

At the congressional hearings trying to ascetain what went wrong, the single defence offered was merely that they "merely offer advice" (I'm sure, from a legal standpoint, you appreciate the beautiful ambiguity of this reponse).

But if the world is beholden to their ratings, and it certainly has been to this point, then surely they should have something of theirs on the line? For me this links into a point that the Political Editor of The Telegraph, along with a Tory MP (who's name also escapes me) made about casino banking having been encouraged by Limited Liability being applied to banks. Previously, the owners, boards, shareholders, investors bore the brunt. Ultimately the buck stopped somewhere. If you can take huge financial risks, and make huge financial judgements, without fear of personal loss (and I don't consider the loss of a previously hugely lucrative job commensurate to losing your house/savings/fortune) I firmly believe that encourages reckless behaviour.

I guess, in short, what I'm suggesting is that from somewhere a form of "ethical capitalism" has to emerge if Western Capitalism is to survive at all. I realise you're uncomfortable with the mixing of morals into any political or economic argument, but I can't see any other way, short of massive regulation and legislation (which is not even on the table at this present time). I say that because I don't think we can acceptably keep using a system that constantly risks economic armageddon.

And thanks for the Fisk Article, I hadn't seen that one. As you might expect, I agree with the overwhelming majority of what he has to say. Giving voice to the concern is one thing though...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I guess, in short, what I'm suggesting is that from somewhere a form of "ethical capitalism" has to emerge if Western Capitalism is to survive at all. I realise you're uncomfortable with the mixing of morals into any political or economic argument, but I can't see any other way, short of massive regulation and legislation (which is not even on the table at this present time). I say that because I don't think we can acceptably keep using a system that constantly risks economic armageddon.

No discomfort - just don't see the point?

It's just a 'good idea' for the reasons you suggest.

[Lord Kangana]

I suppose it was a little pejorative, but I based it on something an experienced (older!) lawyer told me about administration a few months back, (I'm paraphrasing here, but) "the larger financial institutions never used to touch certain areas of finance because they were considered immoral or unethical, dirty work. Now they'll do anything for a fast buck". I was intrigued, because I'd always assumed that deregulation had played a significant part, but actually it was the ethics (in lieu of a more appropriate term) and approach that had changed the way finacial institutions were now acting. Of course, it was just one man's opinion, but it gave me food for thought.

[Worthy4England]

I still maintain that he had no choice in these negotiations, because the City of London is now more powerful than any government this country could elect. That is a very dangerous position to be in. Especially if one day they get bored of us.

I work in the City in a law firm that has its headquarters here. I have a couple of problems with your analysis.

The first is this idea that the City can ever be thought of as a single, unified, coherent entity. It's not. It's almost entirely populated by individuals and companies who are out for themselves. I don't mix with the people at the top (for now) but my impression is not that there is some sort of council of elders calling the shots.

I too, am currently sat in the offices of one of the City law firms, and would agree that there isn't a single, unified, coherent entity that constitutes the City and that they all have potentially differing objectives.

But one thing is clear, the offices of the law firm I'm sat in will advise on whether the Contract I'm putting in place is defensible in law, not whether it's morally/ethically dubious. I've yet to find one that refuses to accept business on moral/ethical grounds of the implications of the deal, they're not, in my experience, that judgemental. They might advise that the particular thing we're doing would be difficult to defend in law and do the legalese that defends their Client to the best of their ability.

In that sense, they're complicit with the entity I refer to as "the City" which are the Financial institutions.

Would a law firm take a view on whether short selling was ethical? doubtful...

In that sense they act with common accord.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I still maintain that he had no choice in these negotiations, because the City of London is now more powerful than any government this country could elect. That is a very dangerous position to be in. Especially if one day they get bored of us.

I work in the City in a law firm that has its headquarters here. I have a couple of problems with your analysis.

The first is this idea that the City can ever be thought of as a single, unified, coherent entity. It's not. It's almost entirely populated by individuals and companies who are out for themselves. I don't mix with the people at the top (for now) but my impression is not that there is some sort of council of elders calling the shots.

I too, am currently sat in the offices of one of the City law firms, and would agree that there isn't a single, unified, coherent entity that constitutes the City and that they all have potentially differing objectives.

But one thing is clear, the offices of the law firm I'm sat in will advise on whether the Contract I'm putting in place is defensible in law, not whether it's morally/ethically dubious. I've yet to find one that refuses to accept business on moral/ethical grounds of the implications of the deal, they're not, in my experience, that judgemental. They might advise that the particular thing we're doing would be difficult to defend in law and do the legalese that defends their Client to the best of their ability.

In that sense, they're complicit with the entity I refer to as "the City" which are the Financial institutions.

Would a law firm take a view on whether short selling was ethical? doubtful...

In that sense they act with common accord.

What in earth were you doing there at 10pm?!

Go on, which one have you been at? PM if necessary. Are you there again soon?

Anyway, I feel as though this debate has gone at a bit of tangent - I only mentioned my situation to suggest I wasn't clueless when passing comment on the City.

I'd say you're absolutely right though. Not that I ever come across anything even approaching that in my fairly tame tech and outsourcing department myself.

[Hoboh]

Joseph Daul, leader of the centre-right European People's Party, called for the UK to lose its veto, saying: "The British cheque is now up for question. Tax monies should be spent on someone else rather than compensating selfish nationalism."

How about we stop "paying in" completley you Euro twerp!!! We dont need friends like you anyway shall we reform the CAP to keep you happy? Bloody French!