2015 Election night discussion.

[I1L2T3 10]

The price for Labour setting on 1 million public sector workers the country cannot afford. Fortunately the electorate knew this and the reasons why Osbourne is having to cut £175 million a year from the 2010 Labour governments spending commitments.

 

Your sums don't add up.

 

I think you mean £175bn. But then the extra million workers would be on £175,000 a year each.

 

Hmmmmmm. Stop making stuff up

 

---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 23:04 ----------

 

He's a funny bloke that Osborne, providing you can get his name right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

 

He said he spend more than Labour. I'd do a laughing smiley but it's not funny

[SteveJ68 10]

Your sums don't add up.

 

I think you mean £175bn. But then the extra million workers would be on £175,000 a year each.

 

Hmmmmmm. Stop making stuff up

 

---------- Post added 13-06-2015 at 23:04 ----------

 

 

He said he spend more than Labour. I'd do a laughing smiley but it's not funny

 

Is that Osborne or Osbourne?

[I1L2T3 10]

Is that Osborne or Osbourne?

 

That guy with bum cheeks on the end of his nose.

[SteveJ68 10]

That guy with bum cheeks on the end of his nose.

 

That's him!

Edited June 14, 2015 by SteveJ68

[Mister M 1,625]

That guy with bum cheeks on the end of his nose.

 

I wonder if he got that while sniffing cocaine with the prostitute Natalie Rowe

[L00b 441]

To be honest it sounds like we kind of agree on the main points. Firstly that we need to reduce systemic risk. Secondly that whatever changes happen will be a transition.

 

Where we differ is the speed and nature of the transition. I think it's going to be ugly, you think it could be amicable. It won't be amicable no matter what. You don't think it's right to cheer the exit of a rogue bank. I do.

Here's a couple older posts of mine in that Russell Brand thread.

 

I should have linked or copy-pasted them sooner, might have avoided a lot of repetition and thread-hogging in here:

 

Why do people keep skirting round the issue of banker bonuses?!?

For this reason:

Its because nurses and doctors in this country are trained to very high standards and because of that they are sought out for jobs abroad with much higher wages. The pay and conditions for UK trained health professionals in the USA for instance is much better, so they leave quickly. Those countries that head-hunt UK trained people will not easily take on other nationals who may have language problems and not trained as well.

 

So we end up having people head hunt other countries in order to fill the shortage. I had a professor friend (nursing and midwifery) who was always taking trips abroad hunting for candidates and the above is how he saw it.

London is the world's capital for finance (or a close second) that head-hunts elite financiers the world over. That generates a ton and a bit of £s for the Exchequer.

 

Target the talent that keeps London in the top dog spot, and eventually enough of them will leave where they're not targeted (Merkel and co. have long been at it with their siren calls, but Singapore and other ASEAN are still an easy and more preferable choice) that London will cease being the top dog. That ton and a bit of £s for the Exchequer will start to shrink in proportion. That means less to fund the NHS, welfare <etc.>, in clear-speak

 

It's a M-A-D -like equilibrium. More or less the same dynamic as 'too big to fail'. No, it's not a nice thought. No, I'm not particularly happy that financiers effectively have this country over a barrel as the outcome of sector overspecialisation.

 

Then again, we have at least some of the benefits, i.e. the tax take and the local consumption; others don't. Those others will if you keep pushing though, because money has no morals, as you have long found out and as Brand keeps reminding us. History is littered with the corpses of governments, prime ministers and heads of state who made the populist miscalculation of cutting their financial nose to spite their budgetary faces.

 

So, the lesser of two evils, or learn to do without: ultimately and objectively, them's your choices, however unpalatable.

 

[in reply to above] I've heard that same lame excuse a million times.

It's simple economics grounded in realism, Bonzo.

 

Is the UK better off with resident bankers working in the City, rather in Munich or Hong-Kong? Yes.

 

Would the UK lose tax revenue with less resident bankers working in the UK? Yes.

 

Do highly-skilled workers with easily-transferrable skillsets in high demand move countries in pursuit of better deals? Yes.

 

Statements of fact, all. There's nothing partisan about it.

Stuff em. Let the greedy swines go and bleed someone else's population dry.

But you now look ready to p** away tax revenue in anger at the mere thought that some of them may leave the parched yellow field you propose for greener pastures? Hard to take you seriously at times, B

 

I didn't say you had to like it, just that this was the de facto situation. One of these 'truths-everybody-knows-and-nobody-likes-to-hear'. So you either make your peace with it, or come up with a credible alternative. So...what's you alternative?

What I think is that it is in the national interest for it to be amicable. Edited June 15, 2015 by L00b