Hain's hypocrisy

alexanderbaker Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 07:40:47 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Apparently Peter Hain is both opposed to the extortionate bonuses some city workers get, but according to BBC News online, also supportive of them.



Compare this BBC News online article, dated 10 February 2007:

Hain's charity plea to City firms

City firms should donate two-thirds of their bonus pots to charity rather than giving employees six-figure bonuses, cabinet minister Peter Hain says.

Massive bonuses - which totalled £8.8bn this Christmas - were fuelling envy and social discontent, the Northern Ireland Secretary told the Sunday Telegraph.

with this one, dated today Sunday 25th February:

Hain defends equity fund donors


Cabinet member Peter Hain has welcomed donations to the Labour Party from financiers, despite union anger.

The donations from investors behind private equity funds are expected to be included in the Electoral Commission's quarterly publication this week.


As I understand it, the recent donations from private equity bosses were private donations, presumably from money amassed from very decent wages and even more decent bonus settlements.

So what does Peter Hain really think about city wages and bonuses? He surely can't be both for them, and simultaneously against them? Or are his Young Liberal roots leading him to be all thing to all people?


tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Hain's hypocrisy | 18 comments (18 topical)

Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#1)

by JR on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 08:03:06 PM GMT

Well of course - there is nothing wrong with City bonuses and wages. They earnt that money and others around them should stop being so jealous and get on with their own lives.

With regards to Peter Hain, well he probably is a hypocrite and he's generally a bit of a loser. He certainly won't get my vote.


Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#3)

by jonesythered on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 09:33:55 PM GMT

JR - what political differences do you have with David Cameron, exactly?


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#4)

by JR on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 11:42:47 PM GMT

Blah, blah.

I think you'll find that my beliefs are in line with Tony Blair - you know, that man who's our party leader - remember, the one who won us three elections?

By the way, what political differences do you have with Arthur Scargill / Michael Foot / other 'Old Labour' losers, exactly?


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#7)

by jonesythered on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 09:39:01 AM GMT

You haven't answered the question Iasked. Once again, what political differences do you have with David Cameron? If you could list them all, that would be much appreciated.


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#8)

by JR on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:51:45 PM GMT

So you honestly think I'm going to list every single difference I have with a politician? Get real - how much time do you think I have got to spare?


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#10)

by jonesythered on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 03:42:14 PM GMT

Once again, JR, what are your political differences with David Cameron? Are there any substantial differences worth mentioning?

Your failure to be able to come up with a single difference suggests that you don't really have any. Nearly all Labour supporters/members would have no trouble listing their political differences with the Tories - indeed, it would come almost from instinct.


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#11)

by JR on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 06:35:26 PM GMT

Yawn.


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#9)

by Loz on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 01:22:56 PM GMT

I would love to answer that question, but the man is such a lightweight when it comes to policy I can only think of the following:

  1. I don't want to hug hoodies
  2. I don't want to ban terrys chocolate oranges
  3. I have no problem with short skirts

Seriously though, the guy is just so god damn perfect I can't see why anyone wouldn't support him.

I mean, he's going to increase investment in the health service, education and other public services, and CUT taxes at the same time.....yeah right.


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#6)

by CitizenAndreas on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:06:14 AM GMT

JR, while I have no problem with those of exceptional ability earning money that reflects the level of their abilities I would put it to you that city bonuses should not simply be accepted blindly.

High earners in the city generally fall into two categores, company executives (e.g the directors and senior managers of the UK's largest companies) and financial workers (equity fund partners, fund managers, stock brokers and general traders).

The pay of company executives has consistently risen over the last few years at a rate that has been (in most cases) consistently above the performance of their companies and also above those of the average employee. Since it is the executives themselves who decide their renumeration, this smacks of abuse of power rather than performance related reward.

Financial workers are a slightly different kettle of fish, but again bonuses in this sector have again risen pretty consistently at way above average earnings growth. It's hard to tell what exactly has justified these increases.


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#12)

by JR on Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 06:39:00 PM GMT

I understand what you are saying, but in my opinion, as soon as Labour leaders start going on about controlling wages (nobody how high), it scares the public that we're going back to the bad old days. Especially when people like Peter Hain start going on about it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#2)

by grimupnorth on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 08:11:18 PM GMT

Why aren't I surprised JR  thinks  city bonuses are OK?


Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#5)

by CitizenAndreas on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 11:45:25 PM GMT

The judgement here is whether those donors are donating out of a belief in the principles of the Labour party or whether they are donating with the intention of lobbying MP's.

An equity fund manager who believes in the social democratic principle's of the Labour party would hopefully bear those beliefs in mind when performing a leveraged mangement buyout or whatever it is they do.

I would agree with Peter Hain's sentiments that we have to look at donors individually rather than refusing all donations from city high flyers.


Re: Hain's hypocrisy (#13)

by grimupnorth on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:27:12 AM GMT

Newsnight  last  night  featured Sion Simon and John McDonnell on this very subject.John told Paxo  in no uncertain terms why private equity firms( as  currently being campaigned against  by the GMB) are not appropriate funders for the Party.A rare sight  of a Labour MP  actually talking   like one. Even Paxman seemed surprised.


Hain is spot on (#14)

by Cruella on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:00:33 PM GMT

these city fat cats really are vermin. They make grotesque sums whilst there are people sleeping rough around central London. I do hope the interns dont post the link to the government website that deliberately understates the number of rough sleepers in central London.

In a civilised society, money should be taken from the mega rich to provide housing & welfare for the most disadvantaged.

I suspect JR will object to that. I can only imagine that JR aspires to be a lifelong policy wonk because theres no way such provocative right wing sentiments would get you anything other than assaulted at a Labour Party PPC selection event.


Re: Hain is spot on (#15)

by Glass House on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:17:46 PM GMT

Are you the ACTUAL Cruella DeVille?


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain is spot on (#16)

by JR on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 05:56:45 PM GMT

Lol! Cruella / Anzi / Anzibel / Katie, you must be a real laugh to hang around with! Your positive, forward thinking, pleasant comments are always a joy to read.

Nobody would get assaulted at a Labour PPC event because the attacker would end up being arrested and locked up. I doubt many people in the Labour party are thuggish enough to want this to happen.

I have no problem with redistribution of wealth (to an extent). Of course richer people should contribute more than poorer people.

But if we want to reduce inequalities then we should focus on lifting the poor up rather than pulling the rich down. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy and earning vast amounts of money nor is it wrong to want to be rich. We as a party should never punish people for being rich and thankfully those in government (including Brown) think the same way.


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain is spot on (#17)

by JamesM on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:16:09 AM GMT

One can only marvel at the lack of self-awareness necessary to write - seemingly with a straight face - of a civilised society, whilst in the same comment suggesting that those with provocative views would be attacked at a Labour selection meeting.

I once - I'm very proud to say - gave a strong defence of my pro-war views at a PPC selection meeting. Those present were apparently more civilised that Cruella because I somehow avoided being attacked. In fact, everyone present was a model of politeness and understanding.


[ Parent ]

Re: Hain is spot on (#18)

by ComradeNorton on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 06:47:27 PM GMT

I think that the party would understand the city bonus position if they saw traders more as business owners whose product is their own time than employees.  Their payments reflect their success in the service they offer to the banks and if they are unsuccessful then their bonus fail to exist.  

The extent of the bonuses are reflective that we dominate the world of financial services and is something to be celebrated and in itself funds a massive proportion of our public services.  These people also have the opportunity to stick two fingers up to us as well and move whenever they like so it is a stupid and destructive argument.

They pay their taxes and if there is a problem with homelessness then it is our fault in that we have failed to tackle the issue with the funding available.

Likening them to vermin is merely the politics of envy.


[ Parent ]

Hain's hypocrisy | 18 comments (18 topical)