House Price Crash forum: Did Lauren Laverne Just Defend Bankers? - House Price Crash forum

Jump to content

powered by
  • (2 Pages) +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Did Lauren Laverne Just Defend Bankers? On 10 o clock live channel 4 just now Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   shell 

  • HPC Regular
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 25-December 08

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:42 PM

Charlie Brooker and the David Mitchell seemed to be trying to explain to her why bankers' bonuses were a bad thing especially in a bank owned by the public while she looked annoyed and kept muttering stuff about how life isn't fair and we are 'hierarchical'.

Never liked her. There's nothing worse than a meejah type who started young and never really worked in the real world being allowed to spout forth on economics, politics, society etc..

Hope she doesn't get away with this divvy bintery. Wonder if she'll remain so ubiquitous after this.

Or did no one else notice it?
weebles wobble but they don't fall down

#2 User is offline   iamdamosuzuki 

  • HPC Regular
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 687
  • Joined: 24-June 10

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:48 PM

View Postshell, on 08 February 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

Charlie Brooker and the David Mitchell seemed to be trying to explain to her why bankers' bonuses were a bad thing especially in a bank owned by the public while she looked annoyed and kept muttering stuff about how life isn't fair and we are 'hierarchical'.

Never liked her. There's nothing worse than a meejah type who started young and never really worked in the real world being allowed to spout forth on economics, politics, society etc..

Hope she doesn't get away with this divvy bintery. Wonder if she'll remain so ubiquitous after this.

Or did no one else notice it?



Bunch of young, arrogant, preening toffs who think they know it all. NEVER watch it. TOWIE on ITV2 B)
We have got into the habit of admiring colossal bandits, whose opulence is revered by the entire world, yet whose existence, once we stop to examine it, proves to be one long crime repeated ad infinitum, but those same bandits are heaped with glory, honors, and power, their crimes are hallowed by the law of the land, whereas, as far back in history as the eye can see -- and history, as you know, is my business -- everything conspires to show that a venial theft, especially of inglorious foodstuffs, such as bread crusts, ham, or cheese, unfailingly subjects its perpetrator to irreparable opprobium, the automatic dishonor, and inexpiable shame, and this for two reasons, first because the perpetrator of such an offense is usually poor, which in itself connotes basic unworthiness, and secondly because his act implies, as it were, a tacit reproach to the community. - Celine

#3 User is online   7 Year Itch 

  • My member's title is Rodney.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,227
  • Joined: 21-July 06

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:49 PM

Whilst we're on the subject, Kenickie were shit too.

This post has been edited by SeeYouNextTuesday: 09 February 2012 - 08:42 AM

 JustYield, on 30 September 2006 - 02:00 PM, said:



 padington, on 02 December 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

No need to sell up, the next phase of the economics cycle is going to be very positive for anyone that owns property.

All I'm sayings is, don't listen to the property bears people, they are wrong.

#4 User is offline   iamdamosuzuki 

  • HPC Regular
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 687
  • Joined: 24-June 10

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:54 PM

David Mitchell and (jesus christ) Jimmy Carr make me sick.


All that sitting round discussing the issues of the day, like less likeable politicians is too irritating for words.
We have got into the habit of admiring colossal bandits, whose opulence is revered by the entire world, yet whose existence, once we stop to examine it, proves to be one long crime repeated ad infinitum, but those same bandits are heaped with glory, honors, and power, their crimes are hallowed by the law of the land, whereas, as far back in history as the eye can see -- and history, as you know, is my business -- everything conspires to show that a venial theft, especially of inglorious foodstuffs, such as bread crusts, ham, or cheese, unfailingly subjects its perpetrator to irreparable opprobium, the automatic dishonor, and inexpiable shame, and this for two reasons, first because the perpetrator of such an offense is usually poor, which in itself connotes basic unworthiness, and secondly because his act implies, as it were, a tacit reproach to the community. - Celine

#5 User is offline   the stig 

  • HPC Regular
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 400
  • Joined: 01-December 07

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:55 PM

Just watching it for the first time. Quite liked it apart from the "appeal" against banker bashing.

On a personal level: David Mitchell for Prime Minister. I seem to agree with everything the man says.
Bought 2004
STR 2008
Bought 2010

#6 User is offline   shell 

  • HPC Regular
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 25-December 08

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:55 PM

View Postiamdamosuzuki, on 08 February 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Bunch of young, arrogant, preening toffs who think they know it all. NEVER watch it. TOWIE on ITV2 B)


Yes, what WAS I thinking? :)
weebles wobble but they don't fall down

#7 User is offline   iamdamosuzuki 

  • HPC Regular
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 687
  • Joined: 24-June 10

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:56 PM

View Postthe stig, on 08 February 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

Just watching it for the first time. Quite liked it apart from the "appeal" against banker bashing.

On a personal level: David Mitchell for Prime Minister. I seem to agree with everything the man says.


He's the devil. Don't fall for it!!!!!!!
We have got into the habit of admiring colossal bandits, whose opulence is revered by the entire world, yet whose existence, once we stop to examine it, proves to be one long crime repeated ad infinitum, but those same bandits are heaped with glory, honors, and power, their crimes are hallowed by the law of the land, whereas, as far back in history as the eye can see -- and history, as you know, is my business -- everything conspires to show that a venial theft, especially of inglorious foodstuffs, such as bread crusts, ham, or cheese, unfailingly subjects its perpetrator to irreparable opprobium, the automatic dishonor, and inexpiable shame, and this for two reasons, first because the perpetrator of such an offense is usually poor, which in itself connotes basic unworthiness, and secondly because his act implies, as it were, a tacit reproach to the community. - Celine

#8 User is offline   shell 

  • HPC Regular
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 25-December 08

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:57 PM

View PostSeeYouNextTuesday, on 08 February 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Whilst we're on the subject, Kennichi were shit too.


Yes shit primarily because she came out of it and is prob earning 500k plus pa for defending bankers?!
weebles wobble but they don't fall down

#9 User is offline   Nuggets Mahoney 

  • I live on HPC!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,664
  • Joined: 22-January 09

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:14 PM

View Postthe stig, on 08 February 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

On a personal level: David Mitchell for Prime Minister. I seem to agree with everything the man says.


Telling people what they want to hear, yes, perfect politician material
edit: typo

"The problem with quotes on the internet is that many are not genuine." - Abraham Lincoln

#10 User is offline   Sir Harold m 

  • HPC Regular
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 972
  • Joined: 30-May 11

Posted 09 February 2012 - 08:18 AM

View PostNuggets Mahoney, on 08 February 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Telling people what they want to hear, yes, perfect politician material

Hardly watch this kind of tosh, too many people remind me of a vast number of people who come on this(excellent otherwise) forum and give the usual knee jerk reaction to "bankers bonuses" with zero understanding of what they are commentating on.

Of course most right thinking people regard running and working or a retail bank should exclude you from meg a rewards as the game is vastly tipped in their favour.

Yet if someone " takes on" the banks eg hedges shorting the banks and their system a la Michael burry, and then reward themselves for their profit generation, they are seen as parasites , greedy etc etc.

Fine objecting to bankers bonuses but the problem is most bankers bonuses don't go to bankers, and a good proportion goes o feed the welfare state that so many vociferously defend.

Bailouts are the problem and the bailout was an act of socialism to protect cronies and maintain a government in office. You can't blame anyone for trading against this sort of thing and profitting eg loading up on gold, yet the people who shorted lehmans were cast as the villains.

This post has been edited by Sir Harold m: 09 February 2012 - 08:19 AM


#11 User is offline   TheCountOfNowhere 

  • I live on HPC!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10,557
  • Joined: 05-October 07

Posted 09 February 2012 - 08:44 AM

Have a read:

http://en.wikipedia..../Lauren_Laverne

"Laverne is a supporter of the Labour Party, famously referring to Geri Halliwell as "Tory scum" for her support for the Conservatives in the 1997 general election.[14] Laverne's mother, Celia Gofton, was elected a councillor for the Pallion ward in the City of Sunderland in 2006, and sought nomination as Labour candidate in 2008 in the Sunderland Central constituency but was defeated by Julie Elliott, who went on to win the seat for Labour in the 2010 general election."


Nothing like being one of the working masses.

#12 User is offline   SarahBell 

  • I live on HPC!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 16,397
  • Joined: 17-August 04

Posted 09 February 2012 - 08:49 AM

I thought it was particularly vile last night.

Someone was ranting about something (Was it footballers?) and I went and found something more interesting to do.

If it was up against QT like the first serious - I can see it as a hook to get young people interested in politics but as a vile ranting machine it serves no purpose.
Let them eat cake. (or watch TOWIE)
Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.

#13 User is offline   Caveat Mortgagor 

  • HPC Veteran
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,293
  • Joined: 17-March 09

Posted 09 February 2012 - 09:08 AM

View PostSarahBell, on 09 February 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

I thought it was particularly vile last night.

Someone was ranting about something (Was it footballers?) and I went and found something more interesting to do.

If it was up against QT like the first serious - I can see it as a hook to get young people interested in politics but as a vile ranting machine it serves no purpose.
Let them eat cake. (or watch TOWIE)


By contrast, I quite liked Jimmy Carrs tirade at John Terry.

#14 User is offline   fluffy666 

  • I live on HPC!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9,730
  • Joined: 29-October 07

Posted 09 February 2012 - 09:09 AM

View PostSir Harold m, on 09 February 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Bailouts are the problem and the bailout was an act of socialism to protect cronies and maintain a government in office.


No.

The socialist/left wing response would have been full nationalization of the banking sector with the removal of the entire senior management; and the retail operations converted to mutuals. The investment banking operations would be used to direct investment to UK firms and infrastructure development, with a possible re-floatation if they demonstrated the ability to survive without government support; however, investment baking would be done on a non-limited-liability basis, with all senior managers having a stake (and therefore personal liability).

Given that socialism is meant to look after the interests of the many, measures would be put in place top vastly expand house building whilst restraining the size of mortgages allowed; this may require the appropriation of land at reasonable rates. Finding ways to bring down the cost of living and the rate of unemployment would also be socialist priorities.

Handing out vast sums of public money to banks with no strings attached is not socialist. It is crony capitalism.

#15 User is offline   Georgia O'Keeffe 

  • Fondue NOT Raclette
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,436
  • Joined: 18-March 09

Posted 09 February 2012 - 09:21 AM

View Postfluffy666, on 09 February 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

No.

The socialist/left wing response would have been full nationalization of the banking sector with the removal of the entire senior management; and the retail operations converted to mutuals. The investment banking operations would be used to direct investment to UK firms and infrastructure development, with a possible re-floatation if they demonstrated the ability to survive without government support; however, investment baking would be done on a non-limited-liability basis, with all senior managers having a stake (and therefore personal liability).

Given that socialism is meant to look after the interests of the many, measures would be put in place top vastly expand house building whilst restraining the size of mortgages allowed; this may require the appropriation of land at reasonable rates. Finding ways to bring down the cost of living and the rate of unemployment would also be socialist priorities.

Handing out vast sums of public money to banks with no strings attached is not socialist. It is crony capitalism.

Not really you are both arguing the same thing, socialism, crony capitalism, any ism has the same root of the problem, statism, it is what it does, it redistributes and hands out vast swathes of other peoples money to some favoured interest group, that is pretty much the definition of the modern state. Arguing what type of ism is pointless they are identical, the only difference is the beneficiaries of the largesse, The only constant is the non beneficiaries bitch about not receiving state largesse and beneficiaries think its great. The fundamental force driving it however is theft and forced redistribution, the very cornerstones of socialism, crony capitalism (the only type of state capitalism there is) and the state. And fundamentally the only time anyone really cares about it is when the debt cycle that has been created via the states central bank has matured and saturated, which has to come at the point of extreme wealth perception

This post has been edited by Tamara De Lempicka: 09 February 2012 - 09:26 AM


  • (2 Pages) +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users