Popular Post peterms Posted February 11, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2014 So Barclays will pay bonuses totalling £2.4bn, twice the total budget of the Environment Agency. They will also be sacking 12-14,000 staff, though presumably not the ones who presided over, directed and committed serial acts of fraud and criminality. What an insight into the priorities which emerge if you leave the system to itself. Enough. Take them over, close them down, retrain and re-employ the majority of staff in something socially useful, prosecute the directors, senior traders and others for their repeated criminality, seize their personal assets, and spend the money on something which adds value to the world. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Bonus Street. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 ...If the 2013 bonuses match the average of £13.5bn paid each year, the total will top £80bn by the end of 2014. This is more than £1,000 for every man, woman and child in the UK and three times the £20bn of revenue HMRC collected from the banks in corporation tax, the bank levy and the bonus tax combined during the same period, according to the campaigners for a tax on financial transactions... ...According to calculations by the campaigners the bonuses being paid out could reverse all the £11.5bn additional public spending cuts announced at the 2013 spending review, or eliminate 10% of the 2012-2013 budgetary deficit, or pay for the disability living allowance with enough left over to scrap the bedroom tax... Here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Tony Benn is not very well apparently. His health has visibly deteriorated over the last year. A great politician who's lived an honourable life. Get well soon Tony. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I see Mr Cameron has decisively, manfully, resolutely, and in a wholly Churchillian manner, taken personal control of the flooding crisis. You can just tell, can't you: As more than a hundred soldiers from the 1st Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers marched through the Berkshire village that has become the latest frontline in Britain's battle against rising water, there were neither wellies nor waders in sight. Here were the men from the military trumpeted by the prime minister as proof the flooding crisis was under control, but residents in the Thameside town complained that when the water got deep, some of them couldn't even get out of their trucks. One platoon – supposed to be checking on flooded residents on the embankment – couldn't get down because the water was so deep. They ended up just sitting in the back of the lorry while locals went about in hip-high rubber boots. "They were not allowed in the water," said Ian Yorke, 50, an operations manager at British Airways who lives on the flooded street. "They had no waders, nothing. They didn't come prepared. It is all window-dressing." So to all those who scoffed that a year or two in PR was no preparation for leading the country, let this stand as a convincing rebuttal. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 'Money no object on flooding' now that Surrey has been affected As one of my mates observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 'Money no object on flooding' now that Surrey has been affected As one of my mates observed. "Londoners enjoyed public investment of £2,731 per head, far outstripping any other region. The north-east received a measly £5 per head." http://tinyurl.com/opcd7gb 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 'Money no object on flooding' now that Surrey has been affected As one of my mates observed. "Londoners enjoyed public investment of £2,731 per head, far outstripping any other region. The north-east received a measly £5 per head." http://tinyurl.com/opcd7gb I suppose England can't do a Scotland also and get out, leave the South as a (new) country on it's own ? Pro's and con's but Birmingham would be the Capital of England for a start. Below Watford could be called "TonCrusty" or similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Money is no object? Looks like Dave's rowing back on that one (appropriately enough). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Poor Dave, so out of his depth. Painful to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Just when you thought you couldn't get more angry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post peterms Posted February 12, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted February 12, 2014 During prime minister's questions, David Cameron came under fire for promising money would be "no object" in the coalition's drive to help families and businesses cope with the extreme weather and refused to say he would halt job losses at the Environment Agency or commit any new cash for major flood defence schemes. The prime minister announced grants of £5,000 for households to improve their flood protection and 100% relief on business rates for three months for firms that are affected by flooding. There will also be a £10m aid fund for farmers whose fields are under water. But pressed on cuts at the Environment Agency, Cameron three times declined to say he would stop about 500 jobs in flood risk management being lost. Here. So, what was yesterday a case of "money is no object" in a wealthy country has now become limited funds for partly compensating those most affected, with big cuts still to be made in both capital and revenue measures which would help limit or prevent future recurrences. Elastoplast. Words cannot express my contempt for this vain, silly, short-sighted little man, puffing out his chest while he tries to act the statesman, all the while presiding over a weakening of our defences against what he knows to be a growing problem. What an utter waste of space. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 12, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted February 12, 2014 A waste of space would be benign. They are so much worse than that… 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Who voted against flood prevention measures in the European Parliament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Who voted against flood prevention measures in the European Parliament?Classic British head in the sand mentality. The experts have been telling us for years where the problems lay and how to mitigate. Radical solutions are needed but in order for them to be implemented we need a government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Labour showing yet again that they're just Tory light as Tristam the scab cHunt crosses the picket line. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-jones-tristram-hunt-was-bang-out-of-order-to-cross-a-picket-lineand-his-party-is-guilty-of-not-standing-up-for-workers-rights-9124152.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Who voted against flood prevention measures in the European Parliament? I'm just wondering if you have read the directive or not. It seems they are trying for a uniform policy on water quality and management , with the same rules applying to the alps region, to the drought regions of Andalucia and to the low countries. I'm not sure that would be wise. Certainly the European landmass will have far different problems to an Island. But it seems it should all be treated the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 They were looking to consider long term strategies. Which may mean losing a lot of land to the sea, which is unfortunate but more realistic. An orderly retreat is preferable to emergency measures and knee jerk political action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 which is fine if you have a lot of land, but as we don't that would be a major problem. And wouldn't that be the end of Holland as about a third of the country is below sea level and a third in the nap level. Is that what the EU is about. Or would the dutch, who have kept the water off the alluvial plains for 100's of years be best to do what is right for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts