Job Hunting in the City looking up?

Graham_Devon

bendix wrote: »

No taxpayer money was given to the financial services sector. Instead, money was loaned to banks (and some of it is being repaid already) and in other cases the government took an equity position in banks which, of course, can be disposed of at will. If the government wanted to sell its stake in any bank it currently part owns, it would - as a result of the rise in bank share prices since February - recoup all that money and more, making a vast profit for the taxpayer in the process.

More facts please, and a little less hyperbole.

May I just mention Northern Rock.

Ta.

geoffky

or the damage to the economy the banks have done....."trillions"

bendix

geoffky wrote: »

or the damage to the economy the banks have done....."trillions"

Could you explain this please?

To blame the banks solely for a downturn in the world economic order is a bit miopic. There are numerous factors at play - consumerism, the rise in the price of oil spurred on by China and India, large pension scheme obligations in massive corporations negotiated by trades unions crippling GM etc etc.

The banks have a part to play, but they are the servants of global capitalism, not its masters.

bendix

Graham_Devon wrote: »

May I just mention Northern Rock.

Ta.

It was nationalised. It has cost the Government nothing because, scandalously, the while the act nationalising it suggests shareholders will be given fair compensation, they are in effect likely to get nothing.

How has nationalising Northern Rock been a waste of taxpayers money in this regard?

Indeed, the plan is to reprivatise it in due course, and that money will go to the public purse, NOT the aggrieved previous shareholders.

I dont get your point.

Generali

bendix wrote: »

It was nationalised. It has cost the Government nothing because, scandalously, the while the act nationalising it suggests shareholders will be given fair compensation, they are in effect likely to get nothing.

How has nationalising Northern Rock been a waste of taxpayers money in this regard?

Indeed, the plan is to reprivatise it in due course, and that money will go to the public purse, NOT the aggrieved previous shareholders.

I dont get your point.

NRK shareholders got what their shares were worth - nothing. The company was insolvent which is why they required a loan of GBP20,000,000,000 from the taxpayer prior to nationalisation.

There is little chance that NRK, RBS, LLOY etc will fully repay the full amount of state aid given to them IMO. Time will tell of course but let's face it, the Government doesn't have a great record of investment over the decades.

bendix

You could be right, of course, Generali. Time will tell.

I'm arguing on rather thin ice on this one, I fear. If I ruled the world, no money would have been LENT to any bank and basketcases like NR would have been allowed to fail. However, I post my comments to try to quell the common view that taxpayer money was GIVEN.

It wasn't.

Jonbvn

Nenen wrote: »

I'd seriously suggest your son has a look at Loughborough. Good luck.

I would agree that Loughborough has a good reputation in engineering. I did a course in project managment there and was impressed.

Generali

bendix wrote: »

You could be right, of course, Generali. Time will tell.

I'm arguing on rather thin ice on this one, I fear. If I ruled the world, no money would have been LENT to any bank and basketcases like NR would have been allowed to fail. However, I post my comments to try to quell the common view that taxpayer money was GIVEN.

It wasn't.

Probably the best thing that could have been done with the failing banks is nationalisation and wind-up. None of this rubbish of propping them up with taxpayers' money. It's rather like the Zombie Banks in Japan in the 1990s.

It would have saved a lot of political flak for the Govt about Fred's pension as he wouldn't have got the extra top-up.

We'll find out soon enough if Broon and his Merry (Wo)Men have saved our collective bottoms.

bendix

lostinrates wrote: »

I'll raise it in conversation

Funnily anough as to the legal system as a whole, as opposed to legal aid :D I do remember vaguely, relevant conversations, but I only remember half of them, so I'll wait and addrss the issue as a whole when I'm back and better informed. But you'll need to remind me.

Legal aid costs per capita are much higher in the UK than in comparative societies for the same reason welfare costs are higher - there are more people using it and, culturally, the British are more prone to use state-assisted support. It's not rocket science.

You could also argue that as legal aid is almost exclusively used in criminal cases, the disparity might be due to the rise in chavs and petty crime here, and the resulting nannying of them, compared to overseas where attitudes are slightly less sympathetic.

lostinrates

bendix wrote: »

Legal aid costs per capita are much higher in the UK than in comparative societies for the same reason welfare costs are higher - there are more people using it and, culturally, the British are more prone to use state-assisted support. It's not rocket science.

You could also argue that as legal aid is almost exclusively used in criminal cases, the disparity might be due to the rise in chavs and petty crime here, and the resulting nannying of them, compared to overseas where attitudes are slightly less sympathetic.

I cn't remember th extent of the changes, and its obviously outside DH's area of law, and I expect yours, so I'm not sure ow far reaching they are and if here is much difference as far as defendants are concerned, (i.e. if/how they apply for legal aid or if its something their solicitor takes care of etc etc.)

I think its also relevant, however, to look at what some of the criminal layers point out: legl aid fees are NOT set by them. Mansfield, I know, has been public in sayig e thinks he gets paid to much but that his £1 million plus annual earnings are not set by him, he simply does the paper work and gets the pay.

I also feel tht as well as an attempt to provide continuity for defndnts, the move to try and make sure barristers followed a case through (rather than passing PCMHs and PTH etc etc to baby Barristers/less experienced representation) might have been a measure partly to reduce costs: the payment for a hearing like that being lower. Of course you can stack them up: but there is a limit to the cases/courts one can juggle in a day.