They’ve let the Teenage Trots out again

Campaigners for City and pay reform were concerned by the Barclays proposals. David Hillman, a spokesman for the Robin Hood Tax campaign, which lobbies for a tax on bank transactions, said: “Despite protestations to the contrary, it’s clear that banks have still not curbed their addiction to grotesque levels of pay. Having brought down the global economy, accepting reduced bonuses should be the least bankers do to make amends.

“Rather than taking the EU bonus cap to court, the UK government should be ensuring such excessive wealth helps pay for the sector’s past mistakes,” Hillman said.


All rather
D. Spart really.

And here’s the problem with his logic. The cap on bonuses was imposed specifically because, in theory at least, the chasing of bonuses led bankers to take risky decisions. Curb the bonuses and you’ll curb the risk taking.

Now that bonuses are curbed the little tosspot is changing his tune. It’s the total amount of money that irks him, not the risks.

Jealousy in other words.

6 comments on “They’ve let the Teenage Trots out again

  1. When I was a teenage Trot, we wanted to nationalize the banks, not tax them. One reason for this was that we realized (as you do) that taxing them wouldn’t achieve socialist objectives.
    You have more in common with Trots than you might think. We’re both sceptical of the soft left.

  2. @ Monoi / Steve

    neither. this sector of the Left is just the latest incarnation of “c*nts who want to tell everyone what to do”

    they vary by period in history and by country, they may vary by inclination, but you can always spot them – there might as well be a fucking checklist:

    - Do they claim to have ‘the answer’?
    - Is this in inverse proportion to their qualifications and experience?
    - Do their facts seem remarkably malleable?
    - Are their propositions non-falsifiable?

    and, most crucially of all,

    is the group composed of the mediocre, the dull, the ugly, the witless, the unshaggable and the undeserving poor. Basically, people who don’t have any social power because they don’t really deserve any, but nevertheless still want power?

  3. They have ambition for power.
    I have heard it said power corrupts, should be power consumes – is the group made up of people consumed by the power they want?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>