Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Harriet has says that even if Fred The Shed's obscenely large pension is legal and was signed off by Ministers (probably including the Chancellor) the Prime Minister will ensure he doesn't get the full sum of ?693,000 pa, she implies that the government / Gordon will enact legislation to enable it to recover the pension fund from Fred.


Harriet Speaks


I have no wish, or inclination, to defend Fred's pension but I find Harriet's statement profoundly disturbing. Retrospective legislation should never be condoned - no matter what the purpose.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/5495-freds-pension-harriet-harman/
Share on other sites

I don't find Harman's mitherings to do with anything other than the usual kowtowing to the press.

It's all blather and flummery and will possibly lead to an 'enquiry', maybe resulting in a lot of arsewind and a rich Fred.

It wouldn't be this way if Tony Soprano was running the country.

And I don't consider myself a cynic.

AllforNun Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> yer what a balls up ? did you not think to buy a

> house in ED/DV/WD/NH/Pecknarm sometime back ?

>

> if the other parties had been in charge it would

> be UK KFC by now !


Jesus AFN, just because you own the Talking Heads LP 'Stop making Sense', it doesn't mean you have to live your life by it.

Well, yes but...


If it's a private traded company he can pay himself what he wants.


If it's a public traded company then he can pay himself what the shareholders agree to, but this presupposes that they're both consulted and educated.


If it's a publicly owned company then he gets paid what politicians feels is the minimum necessary whilst still retaining the vote. This presupposes that the public are educated sufficiently well to use their vote wisely.

Harriet said: "it might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that is where the government steps in."


Now, this court of public opinion sounds like a good thing to me - how did the jury of this court find the defendant, one Mr T Blair, when he was accused, with multiple accomplices, of acting in bad faith in taking the UK into a war (or two)? For these wars there appeared to be no mandate or justification - either ahead of time with regard to any resolution/vote in the UN, or through any credible intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, or retrospectively through what was found in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what did the judge of this court of public opinion do when one J Smith, of (occasionally) Nunhead, was found with her fingers in the till of public money?


Leaving aside the implications of legislating for one badly-conducted contractual negotiation, this is a very dangerous move for the government to be talking about. The PM appears to have backtracked today, thankfully...

It will be very interesting to see what Harriet Harman has in mind....await her next move with interest.


We the people and the government and the world economy are all victims of sub prime, and the stupid "AAA" risk attached to the securitised assets which all banks bought into with their cash reserves. I blame the risk agencies, Moodys, Standard & Poor or whoever rated these "assets" for ALL of what has happended.


Fred should keep his pension, he negotaited it and its been signed. He built up a huge banking empire and but for the incorrect ratings attributed to sub prime he might still be building this bank. Eventually he did fail in the eyes of the media and the people, but not in terms of his employment contract, if he is asked to go he is entitled to a termination package in line with his earnings. There is nothing the government can now do about that, I would be very surprised if there are any changes to his termination arrangements.

If the implication is that Howard/Hague/IDS or Cameron would have behaved any differently then I am going to have a hard time buying it



Sean,


Poor logic. Howard / Hague / IDS & Cameron have not and are not in charge of government. The Labour Party is. This government - T Blair's & G Brown's has been characterised by headlining statements and then a lack of attention to detail:


Remove tax breaks on Pension Funds - ?5 Billion a year win for government coffers - but destruction of previously internationally regarded British pension system.


Make the Bank of England independent - but fail to put in place a sufficiently rigorous regulatory regime. Result - economic meltdown.


Invade Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction - whoops, no WMD. Result 150+ deaths of British service and well over a 1,000 serious injuries plus countless thousands of Iraqi deaths and heightened tensions with Islamic world.


Send Parachute REgiment to Helmand Province - John Reid states "We'll not need to fire a single shot". 3 years and several million rounds of ammunition later - we're losing servicemen's lives again.


Take over RBS and sack the CEO. Fail to check up on the small print of the deal - make a song and dance about something that is legally watertight and beyond government interference (cf: Mick Mac's post above.

Ill need to check my facts mm but im fairly sure her majesty s opposition supported blair and brown in several of those ventures


It is possible to support the intention but still find that the detail is lacking. However, of my five examples the opposition opposed at least two - Pension raid and deployment of troops to Afghanistan without adequate support.

Does it really matter what someone get in a pension, given the scale of fuckups that we have seen of late ? No one was bothered about Freds Pot when their houses were rocketing in value just like their their own company/priate pension pots ( contianing a big slice of RBS equity ) anmd whatever equities they were holding, either in person of via proxy.....all of which are part of the same set of rubbish asset valuations that led to this downfall



So why the big bother now ?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...