[shell]

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?

[iamdamosuzuki]

shell, 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

[SeeYouNextTuesday]

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

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

[iamdamosuzuki]

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.

[the stig]

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.

[shell]

iamdamosuzuki, 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

Yes, what WAS I thinking?

[iamdamosuzuki]

the 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!!!!!!!

[shell]

SeeYouNextTuesday, 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?!

[Nuggets Mahoney]

the 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

[Sir Harold m]

Nuggets 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

[TheCountOfNowhere]

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.

[SarahBell]

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)

[Caveat Mortgagor]

SarahBell, 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.

[fluffy666]

Sir 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.

[georgia o'keeffe]

fluffy666, 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