As the union which represents staff in the financial services sector, Unite has seen the devastating impact that the financial turmoil which has gripped the world has brought on staff. Unite has expressed concern that the crisis has brought insecurity to staff in the UK and damaged the reputation of this vital sector of the economy.
It is unlikely to be too long before the finance industry is back to ‘business as usual’ with extraordinarily high profits being made by the banking sector which can more than pay for such a financial transaction tax. To put things in context, prior to the crisis in 2007 the top 5 UK banks made profits amounting to £40 billion.
We already see huge bonuses being paid out to investment bankers who continue to receive bonuses based on risky behaviour, despite the fragile recovery. The ‘Robin Hood’ tax would help to reduce the speculative short selling of financial transactions and the quick gain incentives used by financial institutions to increase profits, which was identified as one of the main causes of the crisis.
UK taxpayers have paid out over £850 billion to stabilise the UK finance sector. As a result, the Government has had tough choices to make which has led to a dramatic reduction in public sector spending. A financial transaction tax will provide much needed funds to repay the public purse and to ensure public services are protected.
The cost of such a tax is minimal - perhaps as low a 5p in every £1,000 traded - and will only apply to trading between financial institutions. Therefore, for little cost to companies who trade in stocks and derivatives, the finance sector can give something back to society towards repayment for the crisis it created in the global economy and the billions of pounds it has received in maintenance.
Unite believes that the introduction of a financial transaction tax would be a justified response to Lord Turner’s comments questioning whether sections of the finance sector were ‘socially useful’. Traders themselves would become part of the solution and not just seen as part of the problem.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
We are trying to talk to next incumbents of this battered and listing SS Labour and not the current string orchestra playing 'Abide with me on the bridge wing' while the Captain sticks a big girls blouse on to push his way into the lifeboats.
Maybe we can better effect Midshipman Milliband to listen to us old sea dogs. So here's another Adam Smith gem (which leaves you wondering why folk think Smith is a Tory) -
"The man of system…is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it… He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it."
The Theory Of Moral Sentiments, Part VI, Section II, Chapter II, pp. 233-4, para 17.
I agree blogging can be a minefield of misunderstanding.
I agree the tone has improved a little- I think we are all responsible here as bloggers.
My earlier comment was about a domination of "nay sayers" sometimes, which I think can be offputting and depressing for all.
I don't mean constructive criticism; it is the opportunistic sniping and mockery that spoils the site.
I've heard many others say this too.
Thanks- really must go now.
I agree though we need good quality debate.
* We believe (no more than that) that only Labour at its best has the ability, inter alia, to protect the poor and and less fortunate in our society (as has been better articulated by others on this list);
* If Labour spends ten years in opposition, the remedial work for society that will need to be done will be immense - perhaps irreparable;
* If the Tories obtain power, we fear for the underprivileged;
* We believe that the Tories have the wrong economic policies - Osborne is chaffing at the bit;
* Cameron will attempt to construct a single-party politics.
Yes, o.k., some of us are unreconstructed in this regard, although we favour a mixed economy.
Good question. They don't apply to Lib Dem's because frankly I find what they say totally irrelevant.
The Tories are a bit of a strange one to judge. I would say that they tend to fall into "bright young things" and "old guard"
The Old Guard moan about anything and everything. You would think that many don't even want the Tories to win unless Dave swings the party to the right. What I find most fascinating about these people is that on the whole they are more right wing that Thatcher. I think they still have a thing for Blair!
The "bright young things" are a different kettle of fish. Excited and excitable they sniff victory and get a bit carried away as a result.
I find the old guard boorish and not in the least bit amusing. The BYT's are amusing.
I don't get a sense of many being uber loyal. They tend to speak out much more.
However the group I didn't mention is the pragmatist middle. We have a few here who I enjoy reading immensely. Meanwhile on the other side of the fence you get a great many who seem more frustrated than anything. They just want an election.
I think there are a cadre of Libertarians many of whom are almost ceirtainly followers of Guido Fawkes (a man who seems to dislike the Conservative leadership as much as he dislikes Labour). As long as they don't engage in personal abuse they should be welcome here. Some of them may just be a consequence of the fact that Labour are in gov't If the Conservatives get in, I'm sure most of the grumbling and complaints will swictch to Tory sites.
I can understand you feel a bit disapointed with some of the criticism of Brown, but that is just a reflection of the fact that over the last twenty years the Labour leadership has aleniated many of their core supporters. I have seen people branded "Tory Trolls" when that is probably the last thing they are. Its my personal belief that if Labour is to rebuild and renew itself over the next decade it needs to reengage the mass on the left of the party who have been lost. It also requires re-evaluating Labour's policies and genral direction, and sites like this where Labour-minded people (and others) can have an open debate on such issues can only help this. The potential of the internet is to build bottom-up movements, rather than top-down ones.
However- looking across threads on a daily basis, so much sniping and unpleasantness.I do believe it's possible for robust debate without nastiness and personal attacks on people.(I haven't seen you do that.)I also prefer constructive comments that lead somewhere rather than just moaning.
John- I respect much of your comment, but sometimes you get incredibly negative and critical, eg having a go at Alex- who to me seems remarkably open minded and tolerant.I think you are a good person to debate with.
I'm happy to have a discussion with you over the next few days, but often have to cut things short.
Sorry have to go now- hope to be back tomorrow for a short time.
Jo.
Hi Jo, thanks for the reply, maybe I have been desensitised by other sites but I still think its reasonably civilised here, I am glad your comments are not aimed at me though one of the drawbacks of the ineternet is that people will always think you mean them.
You talking to me? YOU talking to me? You talking to ME? You TALKING to me? You talking TO me?
I don't belong to any party but I have voted Labour since 1997. I broke the Labour voting record in the last local elections. I tried to send a message. No one listened to us. Labour will now get a message at the General Election. I think Labour has totally lost its attraction.
Why do I post here rather than right wing blogs? Three reasons:
1) What little democracy we do have needs a decent opposition. I want to see a Labour party that can fulfil that role well.
2) I would like to see a Labour party that stood for something beyond a thirst for power. In a decade the Tories will be as tired as the current government is. I don't want another 1992 in a decade. I want a party that is healthy and ready to govern.
3) Two types on here make me laugh - the uber loyal Brownites and the old lefties. Both utterly ridiculous.
Hope that helps
PS - You didn't answer my question about what you would cut if you were in charge of Notts CC. Be interested in your views
"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
The Wealth Of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII, p.96, para. 36.
The question I pose is simply this: just how will the proposed legislation meet this core socialist requirement to create a more equitable UK when the people who will pay for it are the banks customers and not the banks?
How can this legislation be construed as to being to the good of the greater part of society?
Just how is the FSA going to police this so that customers do not take an extra hit from bank's hidden charges to fund this proposed tax?
How many banks in the UK will find the loop hole to get out of paying it anyway?
If the Chancellor needs this extra money why does Labour not simply put 1p in the pound on everyone's income tax - it would be more honest in my opinion .... sorry we are talking Westminster sespit here, silly me!
"It is the highest impertinence and presumption… in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."
The Wealth Of Nations, Book II, Chapter III, p.346, para. 36.
Didn't make much impression on Pitt the Younger who introduced a vast range of personal taxes to fund the wars.
I'm mainly referring to people who themselves proclaim their Tory allegiance, or as you say, a few "Libertarians" perhaps.
I'd just like to hear a lot more from Labour supporters, and that they can post without being verbally attacked.
After all- it's a Labour campaign site- and one could spend all day having to defend oneself, instead of sharing some consensus or coming up with new ideas...
But thankyou anyway- and good luck yourself.
Jo.
It's easy to get totally fed up with all the backbiting generally on LL- and such a waste of energy engaging in it sometimes.
I've heard many people comment on this.
I don't mind constructive stuff- but not sniping.It's not the cleverist thing to do- hiding behind blogs to have a go at people.
I too miss Derek, and hope he is OK. I also miss Shibley and Dave Postles.They might have left for similar reasons.I hope they return- even if occasionally.
You've done a lot to strenghten this site Ludwig, and a great morale booster- thankyou.
Hope you're still able to carry on?
I'm still rather unwell- but able to use the keyboard!
You are welcome to email me any time via Alex- if he doesn't mind- if there's anything I can help with.
Wishing you all best, and signing off for this eve.
Jo.
I'm not sure many (or any) of the people who come here are active Tories. A fair few are from the Libertarian Right, but they are rarely friends of Cameron and the Tory Leadership. The vast majority of the comments I have read here over the last few months appear to come from "old Labour" activists, voters, ex-voters and ex-activists. You seem to under the misaprehension that all criticism of Blair/Brown and the New Labour project as being entirely generated by Tory activists. It really isn't.
Labourlist also attracts people like me who are floating voters. I am not a member of any political party, but I take an interest in the direction of both Labour and Tory parties. I am "Labour-minded" on some issues, and not so much on other issues. This is a well-run site where you can engage in intelligent debates on political issues, so it is not a surprise that people of different political persuasions choose to do so. I think it's all to Labourlist's credit that they do.
I wonder if Con Home is having problems with Labourites swamping their site! Somehow I doubt it.
Wasn't it Eric Pickles who urged Tory members to swamp the blogisphere?
Just a thought.
Jo, please please please stop confusing anyone who doesn't eulogise Gordon Brown and the Labour Party in the style of the Not The Nine O'Clock News TV licence sketch (I know you remember the 80s) as a Tory. Thanks (o:
From a financial perspective the unions receive more than they donate from a number of government instruments.
I don't understand this - perhaps you would clarify?
I read an article some time back that basically said the Unions receive around £12-£14 million a year from government programs and grants and whatever including the overseas development fund.
They donate to Labour about £10 million.
£2 Million profit to run money through the books isn't a bad margin.
What do you suggest?
As for "openness"- I think guidelines for moderation are standard to all blogging sites- otherwise all and sundry could say what they liked, and it would be a no go area for most genuine posters.
Look at the net persae- it's full of verbal abuse.
This is after all meant to be a serious political campaigning site, and high quality at that.
I think Alex is the most tolerant and kind moderator imaginable!
And I suppose ultimately- we are all "guests" on here.
This would be the same Unite that pays LabourList £10,000 a year for advertising and who are now the Labour parties main donor. In fact without them Labour would of been declared bankrupt in the summer
So is this article a advert or editorial?
Mike Craven is a former Labour spin doctor who now represents Monsanto and he has paid LL £3000 - nice.
Alex - you said:
"Contrary to popular belief, LabourList is not funded by large donations from large organisations. Indeed, LabourList doesn’t yet have an office or editorial staff.”
Let's jsut give some of this article a quick fisking shall we, given that most of it is quite simply untrue;
- Short selling has been shown not to have been a factor in this economic crisis. When it was banned, markets crashed further and faster. Markets went down because of a lack of confidence in economic fundamentals.
- The government is accounting for the bailout at a cost of £10bn in its latest budget forecasts.
- Bank bailouts have had NO effect on public spending. We already had a budget deficit before the crash, and the recession has caused that to widen. Only the £10bn above is included in the projected £178bn budget deficit.
- The banking industry is already a major taxpayer. In fact, around 10% of GDP. Significantly higher taxes will either force banks offshore or simply damage their profitiability. The total amount of tax they will pay is unlikely to increase (tax substitution).
- This tax would quickly get passed on to customers, such as corporates and pension funds. Making both less competative and taking yet more money from investors savings.
It's a zero sum game. If banks have made £40bn profits (which are PRE TAX by the way), then if you stick another huge tax on them, they will either pass the cost on to other people, or make less money. If they make less money, they pay less tax. Zero sum.
But I'm guessing that logic won't cross the minds of many people. Maybe I should describe it n terms of a tax on unions. After all, unions could be argued to serve no purpose other than as special interest groups with extraordinary lobbying powers thanks to funding the governing party.
Everything from 0% finance on your sofa to contracts to build a new hospital all require those nasty bankers.
Thanks to the government ineptitude and absence of any semblance of an industrial policy, the banks and financial services industry is now the dominant money earner for UK plc.
So do you really want to wring the neck of the goose that laid the golden eggs?
Such is the vindicative nature of the Labour Party it is something of a rhetorical question I admit.
As for funding, it's no secret that £8 in every £10 spent by the Labour party comes from the Unions. I take it then that 80% of their policies will be coming from the same place then?
Who's influence is the most pernicious, evil bankers or vindicative unions? I know which carciature is the more accurate.
Everything from 0% finance on your sofa to contracts to build a new hospital all require those nasty bankers.
Err...I hate to tell you this, Mike, but the Treasury, or the BoE as its agent, could quite easily create this credit under the management of credit service providers, and overseen by a monetary authority.
This Public Credit has a name: it's called QE, and it comes without the costs of bank management fat-cattery and of dividends to shareholders on the regulatory capital maintained by banks to support the credit they create. The costs of such QE development credit are the costs of service provision by credit managers, and any defaults.
Public Credit may not be conventional, but it is necessary, and is less inflationary than private credit.
Vindictive unions?
'As for funding, it's no secret that £8 in every £10 spent by the Labour party comes from the Unions. I take it then that 80% of their policies will be coming from the same place then?'
Perhaps you would care to recite what these vindictive unions have received between 1997 and 2010?
Who pays for benefits?