Tony Blair: hanging bankers won't help
Discussion
Digga said:
I can imagine Bliar is having one of his sweaty shirt moments right now. I'd be surprised if, when push came to shove, there are not those within the banking industry with enough dirt on his finances to drag him into it.
1000% this.It can be no coincidence that he is trying to get back into politics right at the time that his crimes are about to come under scrutiny.
Blair had many faults, but stupidity and ideological correctness were never amongst them. That's why the Left of the Labour party have always despised him more than the Tories ever did. It's no surprise that he sees the truth on this issue, anyone with any sense sees it, the only question raised is what his angle is in saying so.
0000 said:
Great. Let's hang him instead.
Good plan.I do find Tony Blair fantastically entertaining these days. He has elevated himself to such a degree that he genuinely has no apparent sense of his own absurdity, or the contempt that so many people hold toward him.
It is bloody funny. And to think he converted to Catholicism so he could knuckle down and seek redemption. He is a deliciously tragic figure.
Edited by toppstuff on Tuesday 24th July 17:52
toppstuff said:
...I do find Tony Blair fantastically entertaining these days. He has elevated himself to such a degree that he genuinely has no apparent sense of his own absurdity, or the contempt that so many people hold toward him.
It bloody funny. And to think he converted to Catholicism so he could knuckle down and seek redemption. He is a deliciously tragic figure.
& Untouchable, he thinks.It bloody funny. And to think he converted to Catholicism so he could knuckle down and seek redemption. He is a deliciously tragic figure.
otolith said:
Blair had many faults, but stupidity and ideological correctness were never amongst them. That's why the Left of the Labour party have always despised him more than the Tories ever did. It's no surprise that he sees the truth on this issue, anyone with any sense sees it, the only question raised is what his angle is in saying so.
If I remember rightly even Mrs Thatcher took a liking to Tony Blair, commenting on how she saw no socialism in him despite it being present in his party. Blair has always been to the right of the Labour Party, he wanted to abolish Clause IV before he even became leader. He is a free market centrist who would've joined the Tory party had they been out of office for 18 years instead. He could've won either of them an election. Labour accepted him because after 18 years they just wanted to win, they never really liked him. The man is clearly not an idiot, he is an expert politician and very clever. Of course the fact he could've fitted into either main party does demonstrate his slipperyness but by 1997 the public wanted a sort-of Tory Government without having to vote for the Tories and that's what he offered them. I do wonder what he could've achieved without the 'Old Labour' old guard of Brown, Prescott etc alongside him because keeping them happy can't have been easy. Brown wanted him out from day one, for instance.
martin84 said:
If I remember rightly even Mrs Thatcher took a liking to Tony Blair, commenting on how she saw no socialism in him despite it being present in his party. Blair has always been to the right of the Labour Party, he wanted to abolish Clause IV before he even became leader. He is a free market centrist who would've joined the Tory party had they been out of office for 18 years instead. He could've won either of them an election. Labour accepted him because after 18 years they just wanted to win, they never really liked him.
The man is clearly not an idiot, he is an expert politician and very clever. Of course the fact he could've fitted into either main party does demonstrate his slipperyness but by 1997 the public wanted a sort-of Tory Government without having to vote for the Tories and that's what he offered them. I do wonder what he could've achieved without the 'Old Labour' old guard of Brown, Prescott etc alongside him because keeping them happy can't have been easy. Brown wanted him out from day one, for instance.
Seems appropriate that Tony Blair PM was an anagram of 'Im Tory Plan B' thenThe man is clearly not an idiot, he is an expert politician and very clever. Of course the fact he could've fitted into either main party does demonstrate his slipperyness but by 1997 the public wanted a sort-of Tory Government without having to vote for the Tories and that's what he offered them. I do wonder what he could've achieved without the 'Old Labour' old guard of Brown, Prescott etc alongside him because keeping them happy can't have been easy. Brown wanted him out from day one, for instance.
As ever Tony is wrong.
"Should we kill bankers? I don’t mean as vengeance for their past misdeeds. Instead, I mean that, if banks are to remain in the private sector, the death penalty should be part of the new regulatory regime.
The problem with any regulation is that regulators are always at an informational disadvantage; outsiders know less than insiders. There is therefore a danger that breaches of the new regulatory code - excessive risk-taking - will not be identified quickly; as Warren Buffett said, it’s only after the tide’s gone out that you can see who’s been swimming naked.
This means that if the penalties for breaches are low, bank bosses might have an incentive to ignore regulations - as they discount punishments by the probability of getting away with their crimes. To prevent this, punishments must be huge.
What I’m advocating here is a system of perfect deterrence, as discussed by Saul Smilansky in 10 Moral Paradoxes; if the punishment is high enough, no crime will occur.
What’s more, the death penalty will focus bosses’ minds. As Chesley Sullenberger showed us, when a man faces the likelihood of death, he finds a way to do a great job. The notion that bank bosses require big bonuses to incentivize them rather than the threat of punishments was always a self-serving fiction, not a realistic psychological proposition.
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_...
"Should we kill bankers? I don’t mean as vengeance for their past misdeeds. Instead, I mean that, if banks are to remain in the private sector, the death penalty should be part of the new regulatory regime.
The problem with any regulation is that regulators are always at an informational disadvantage; outsiders know less than insiders. There is therefore a danger that breaches of the new regulatory code - excessive risk-taking - will not be identified quickly; as Warren Buffett said, it’s only after the tide’s gone out that you can see who’s been swimming naked.
This means that if the penalties for breaches are low, bank bosses might have an incentive to ignore regulations - as they discount punishments by the probability of getting away with their crimes. To prevent this, punishments must be huge.
What I’m advocating here is a system of perfect deterrence, as discussed by Saul Smilansky in 10 Moral Paradoxes; if the punishment is high enough, no crime will occur.
What’s more, the death penalty will focus bosses’ minds. As Chesley Sullenberger showed us, when a man faces the likelihood of death, he finds a way to do a great job. The notion that bank bosses require big bonuses to incentivize them rather than the threat of punishments was always a self-serving fiction, not a realistic psychological proposition.
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_...
martin84 said:
If I remember rightly even Mrs Thatcher took a liking to Tony Blair, commenting on how she saw no socialism in him despite it being present in his party. Blair has always been to the right of the Labour Party, he wanted to abolish Clause IV before he even became leader. He is a free market centrist who would've joined the Tory party had they been out of office for 18 years instead. He could've won either of them an election. Labour accepted him because after 18 years they just wanted to win, they never really liked him.
The man is clearly not an idiot, he is an expert politician and very clever. Of course the fact he could've fitted into either main party does demonstrate his slipperyness but by 1997 the public wanted a sort-of Tory Government without having to vote for the Tories and that's what he offered them. I do wonder what he could've achieved without the 'Old Labour' old guard of Brown, Prescott etc alongside him because keeping them happy can't have been easy. Brown wanted him out from day one, for instance.
Lets face it at the present moment he is to the right of the current tory party leaderThe man is clearly not an idiot, he is an expert politician and very clever. Of course the fact he could've fitted into either main party does demonstrate his slipperyness but by 1997 the public wanted a sort-of Tory Government without having to vote for the Tories and that's what he offered them. I do wonder what he could've achieved without the 'Old Labour' old guard of Brown, Prescott etc alongside him because keeping them happy can't have been easy. Brown wanted him out from day one, for instance.
Jasandjules said:
0000 said:
Great. Let's hang him instead.
Instead?As well.
Along with Gordon Brown who also led us to financial disaster.
And his awful wife.
And that Harriet Harpy person.
And anyone who was in Blair's cabinet and turned the other way when he did his dodgy deeds.
And there should be a special place in hell reserved for Alastair Campbell.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff