I am in 2 minds about bonuses

 

When a company has made a profit it is totally right that bonuses should be paid

 

In many cases the company has made a loss and bonuses are still paid, not just banks

 

Bonuses should only be paid as a reward for doing a good job and making a good profit

A rare area where you and I agree, but not all of it. Bonuses should be a reward for hard work, even if the business makes a loss there are still some people who have worked hard and deserve to be rewarded. There is a culture of entitlement towards bonus payments though and it's that that should be wiped out but that is going to take a lot of culture shifts within organisations to achieve.

You do realise that they are referring to the big 6 figure bonuses that the investment bankers in the city (i.e. the 'Square Mile' i.e. the centre of London) take home and not the extra couple of hundred quid most people get at christmas or the end of the financial year.

 

Plus Bonuses are liable and subject to standard income tax as is. It works like Income Tax does and would kick in at a certain threshold.

 

From the FT (Financial Times): [Full article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e3d6dcee-247f-11...l#axzz2fqDf497i]

 

Mr Miliband will also use his conference speech in Brighton to target the “privileged few”, in a clear signal that the rich will be expected to alleviate the “cost of living crisis” endured by many households. He is proposing a bank bonus tax, a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2m and a possible increase to 50p in the top rate of income tax.

Quite explicitly not targeting the people you described there.

I didn't know that was the exact target, no, but still - the quarterly bonuses that some bank managers get can be rather large sums (I know one month last year my mum got a £750 bonus, or something up that end of the scale - obviously that doesn't compare to the thousands that other managers are getting from the description you have there, but it's still effectively a lot of money). Not saying that these people lording it up with their six figure sums after a certain amount of time deserve every penny they get (because some managers probably receive bonuses for sitting on their arse drinking coffee all day), but surely they're getting the bonuses for a reason; putting in extra hours, doing absolutely everything in their power to make sure the bank(s) run efficiently, among other things?

 

I just think there's a better way to go about taking bonuses away as opposed to just taking them without any valid reason apart from it being the simplest means of gaining more money for the government and the economy. Assessments of physically seeing these managers in practise would be a good way to do this, but of course the government don't have time to carry out such a simple task because they're all too far up one another's backside.

I don't think Ed would make a particularly strong Prime Minister. Not at this time anyway - he doesn't seem very comfortable being in the role of leader of the labour party and constantly gives the impression on tv interviews that he has just been given a pre-prepared script that he won't deviate from. I'm sure he is a very proficient and intelligent politician but he doesn't seem to have the charisma or self belief necessary to be a strong leader.

 

A pretty glossy set of policies issued today, designed no doubt to take in the easily persuaded - but I don't think it will make a significant impact on what is looking increasingly likely to be another hung parliament in 2015.

 

Housing however will become an increasingly important issue - in most parts of the UK it is now unaffordable (without EXTORTIONATE and completely irresponsible mortgages) and crack-pot schemes like Osbourne's heavily criticised 'help 2 buy' which is just driving up house prices rather than making them more affordable relative to take home wages. In London, houses are so far through the roof that some young people are saving for a deposit to RENT A FLAT. Absolutely MENTAL.

 

As for bonuses - I don't have any problems with them (on the whole). Team bonuses give the entire workforce a feeling of collective responsibility, an incentive to drive up efficiency and productivity and are mostly used to supplement income. Where I start to find them a bit annoying is bankers who gamble irresponsibly to gain higher yields and get rewarded for these actions.

I don't think Ed would make a particularly strong Prime Minister. Not at this time anyway - he doesn't seem very comfortable being in the role of leader of the labour party and constantly gives the impression on tv interviews that he has just been given a pre-prepared script that he won't deviate from. I'm sure he is a very proficient and intelligent politician but he doesn't seem to have the charisma or self belief necessary to be a strong leader.

 

Housing however will become an increasingly important issue - in most parts of the UK it is now unaffordable (without EXTORTIONATE and completely irresponsible mortgages) and crack-pot schemes like Osbourne's heavily criticised 'help 2 buy' which is just driving up house prices rather than making them more affordable relative to take home wages. In London, houses are so far through the roof that some young people are saving for a deposit to RENT A FLAT. Absolutely MENTAL.

 

As for bonuses - I don't have any problems with them (on the whole). Team bonuses give the entire workforce a feeling of collective responsibility, an incentive to drive up efficiency and productivity and are mostly used to supplement income. Where I start to find them a bit annoying is bankers who gamble irresponsibly to gain higher yields and get rewarded for these actions.

I agree with most of this, Milliband just doesn't look or sound like a Prime Minister to me (though admittedly I was never likely to vote for him anyway).

 

Bonuses are a difficult matter- I do think they boost performance in many instances so I don't think they are wrong MORALLY but I don't think any reasonable person would advocate a reward for poor performance.

 

In terms of housing this will always be a problem given the space we have in the UK coupled with the fact that 65% of the population are owner occupiers so anything that effects price (which an increase in supply would undoubtedly cause to some extent) coupled with the fact that social housing in an area undoubtedly affects price would be a major vote loser, so if it comes to upsetting 65% of households or 17% (the current level of social housing households) then it's a no brainer politically. I don't say its right, but it's the way of the world. I don't think his announcement on repealing the bedroom tax will convert anyone who wasn't likely to vote Labour anyway, a tenant already said to me that he wouldn't bother paying the shortfall as he's waiting for Labour to get in, interestingly when asked what his advice would be to tenants who were in arrears (i.e should they pay) Liam Byrne refused to answer, or rather answered another question never posed.

I have about 30-40 that sorta age follow me on Twitter, I follow most back, but in all the time i have followed any of them i don't recall a single tweet or opinion about politics from any of them unless it involved animals (fox hunting etc), ok that is not representative of 16-17 year olds as a whole but they have been prolific in tweeting about TOWIE, Geordie Shore, Big Brother etc so my opinion is that the number of 16-17 year olds in this country interested in politics does not justify lowering the age of voting, people under 18 with no interest in politics just voting for sake of it could make a lot of difference to the end result

 

I would rather voting was kept to people who are likely to be paying tax or have interest in politics, 18+

Dear god Craig, how many times does it need saying? Your personal experience means SOD ALL when it comes to finding a representative sample to base an opinion on - pretty much all of your opinions seem to be based entirely on 'I know this one person who x' or 'I follow a few 16 year olds who y'. At least you admit here it probably isn't representative but in any case - since when did a few 17 year olds you know not being interested override the argument that it may be morally right that people of that age who can be taxed (or whatever reason) ought to be able to vote?

 

(As it goes I agree with you and don't think 16 year olds should have the vote, but there we go. My lips are pursed regarding the rest of what I think of the speech of the leader I voted for.)

The middle classes are comfortable enough to know who they want to vote for and Sun readers generally need a bit of guidance when it comes to who to vote for though. It seems like a perfect strategy to me. I'm glad to see everything fall into place for Labour now.

 

Also, off-topic, but I've been recently wondering if you're allowed to vote in two or more constituencies without anyone noticing. There must be a way you can do it but yet I've never heard about anyone actually doing it.

Since when were the middle classes a group that apparently always knows which way they're going to vote based on them being comfortable? If anything it goes the other way - the middle classes tend to be the swing vote in elections.

 

Taxing bankers' bonuses now? Really? "Oh here's a sum of money for your excellent contribution this quarter. BUT... ACTUALLY, let me take some of that back because really, it's not a bonus it's just some amount of money you're getting before the government steal some of it from you!" :/ The government really need to suggest better means of fuelling money back into the economy.

In what way does your problem with that differ from the basic principle of a government being able to tax income?

Oh, and for the record Griff, you can only be registered to one constituency at a time unless you're a student (in which case they check to see you've only voted in one). They do check the records to see if someone with the same details for everything has voted twice.

Yes, this speech was the first time in ages I've thought they have a chance of winning. Actual concrete proposals that are different to what the other parties are offering, rather than silly empty platitudes like "one nation Labour" or whatever. I'm just worried that some of the cowards at the top of the party will lose their nerve, make the party ditch these pledges and go into the next election and promising essentially nothing distinctive (I've already seen on Newsnight just before a "Labour-supporting" journalist say that promising to freeze energy prices will put "aspirational" voters off Labour -- because obviously, anyone who's aspirational wants lazy executives of big businesses who are already much wealthier than they themselves are pocketing millions in profits, right?), or by supporting things like the "bedroom tax" and driving away people who would consider voting Labour, in a futile attempt to impress people who would never consider voting Labour in a million years.

 

I've actually never thought Ed Miliband's personality was a big obstacle. He will always be very boring and geeky, and will never have the "celebrity" air that Blair, Cameron or even Clegg have, but that isn't even necessarily a bad thing since most people don't trust a word that politicians who are slick and "charismatic" say anyway.

Edited September 24, 201311 yr by Danny

I don't see how the "16 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote because most of them aren't interested in politics" argument stands up given that so many over 18s are completely apathetic as well.

 

I still haven't watched the whole speech but what I heard was solid and the policy's starting to come through which is the main thing - although the energy bill capping seems like it could be a little flimsy. If we're to maintain our poll lead over the next 18 months we'll need more simple, resonant policies like the Bedroom Tax pledge to stick but I'm becoming more confident that it'll happen. If I were guessing now I'd say a fairly slim majority with some informal negotiations with the Lib Dems once Clegg's been booted out just to make Commons votes a little less tight.

I think yesterday will be seen as the day that the tories won the 2015 election

 

I was reading the editorials in Waitrose when I did a shop before work and in all the time I have been reading papers I don't think I have seen a savaging such as that from the papers (Mirror and Guardian excepted), it wasn't an attack dog it was a pack of rottweilers ripping Ed and Labour limb from limb, a clear insight into what is going to happen at election time

 

When you then throw into the mix the fact we have Crosby and Obama's campaign manager directing the election campaign it really is going to be the most ruthless and formidable party machine the western world has ever seen, those 2 plus the media is going to make a tory majority very likely imho.

 

All the talk this morning is of 'Red Ed' 'socialism' 'strikes' 'power cuts' 'lurches to the left' and people will believe it as many people believe everything the media tells them, the media have told people that the unemployed are scum of the earth and that disabled people are trying it on and are out to defraud the taxpayer and given the hate shown in social attitudes surveys the press attacks have definitely influenced a good number of people so the Daily Mail and Murdoch will do everything to ensure a tory victory

Edited September 25, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri

Oh god Craig can we NOT start with the predictions that a leader about as inspirational as a wet rag will be able to form 'the most ruthless and formidable party machine the western world has ever seen' just because he has Michael Howard's campaign manager from 2005 on board and one of Obama's advisers. They're not going to be able to outdo OBAMA for god's sake. I'd wager it probably won't even match up to Blair's operation in '97 as it goes.

That said if you want to go ahead and predict a majority then be my guest :D 100? 200? All of the seats?

I can think of at least 50 seats they'd never ever win...

Oh god Craig can we NOT start with the predictions that a leader about as inspirational as a wet rag will be able to form 'the most ruthless and formidable party machine the western world has ever seen' just because he has Michael Howard's campaign manager from 2005 on board and one of Obama's advisers. They're not going to be able to outdo OBAMA for god's sake. I'd wager it probably won't even match up to Blair's operation in '97 as it goes.

 

Not just Crosby and Obama's campaign manager but Daily Mail and Murdoch too, that is one hell of a tag team

 

Expect daily assaults on labour policy in the media and over promotion of good news like house price rises

 

If i was a betting man i would say at this stage that the Miliband effect combined with soaring house prices and an improving economy will provide a Cameron majority of 40-60 but that could go up or down between now and May 15 depending on house prices and economy

I can think of at least 50 seats they'd never ever win...

 

We won't get any seats in Scotland, much of Wales, London bar the usual suspects like Westminster, Chelsea etc, the North East, Merseyside and much of Yorkshire imho, might as well forget campaigning in those areas, should focus on Essex, Midlands, Cheshire and Lib Dem territory like South West

The Daily Mail is preaching to the choir at this point, and Murdoch's loathing was a given.

Edited September 25, 201311 yr by Cassandra

I'm now convinced that Labour will win an overall majority in 2015 despite Ed's relative unpopularity. Some great policies announced this week including freezing gas and electricity prices for 21 months, extended childcare and not renewing the Atos contract in 2015, which may affect me in years to come.

 

I highly doubt that will happen. It's a void promise. Energy companies are not owned by the state, they are private, so Ed will have a tough job convincing them to keep energy bills frozen. They have no obligation to do so.

 

Extended childcare I am a bit annoyed about as well. Why should taxpayers with no children continue to pay to care for other people's children? Shouldn't their parents get jobs (both if needed) and provide for their own children? I don't think there is an excuse either. My nan who had 8 children continued to work, while my grandad also worked, to get by. My aunt who has 6 children continued to work and her husband too, in order to provide. My other aunt, a single mum of 4, works to provide and there are many other examples.

 

I'm just bored of labour's "nanny" mentality. I've prefered the changes I've seen with the conservatives in power over the last few years, than the changes caused by labour's 13 year long run at power.

The Daily Mail is preaching to the choir at this point, and Murdoch's loathing was a given.

 

Daily Mail is UK's 2nd best selling paper and the 2nd most viewed news website in the world, it has enormous influence

 

Yes many view the site for half naked celebs but many do for the news/politics

I think yesterday will be seen as the day that the tories won the 2015 election

 

oh dear.. what a load of puffed-up right wing Tory nonsense.

 

Ed Milliband did superbly yesterday - yes, he's an absolute fool, but that speech, an hour minus ANY notes..... inspired, whether you agreed with what he actually said or not.

 

The sad fact is.... we have two posh chinless wonders vying for the PM position - it's a simple case of... which chinless posh boy do you dislike the most?

 

As for all this sweeping nonsense from the member above... oh please. Rantings of a lunatic.

oh dear.. what a load of puffed-up right wing Tory nonsense.

 

Ed Milliband did superbly yesterday - yes, he's an absolute fool, but that speech, an hour minus ANY notes..... inspired, whether you agreed with what he actually said or not.

 

The sad fact is.... we have two posh chinless wonders vying for the PM position - it's a simple case of... which chinless posh boy do you dislike the most?

 

As for all this sweeping nonsense from the member above... oh please. Rantings of a lunatic.

 

I love you Russ :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

Edited September 25, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri