General Election 2010

[Renton 21440]

I don't think even the Conservatives would agree with you now that it was a good idea to let our entire banking industry go bust Phil. The country would have gone into meltdown - have you actually thought the implications through of even a small high street bank like NR going to the wall? Incredible.

 

Anyway, the government will also recoup most if not all the money spent on the banks, and may even make a tidy profit. Thank God that Phil or Dave weren't in charge two years ago.

 

 

When have I said let the banking industry go bust? I said transfer the important assets to a national bank, the only people to suffer would be shareholders and employees. I have sympathy for the lower level employees, but how does it differ from Rover? Setting up a national bank would create jobs.

 

 

My point was you have waved the massive debt off as just "one of those things". If you believe Gordon will make a profit on Northern Rock then where are you placing the debt?

 

You think we should all the banks should have been merged into one National Bank? Sorry, you'll have to run that by me how that would work, it sounds more like a communist manifesto than a tory one.

 

Here's a link to an interesting article by the Times btw, about how the government deftly saved all the major banks in the UK other than Barclays (who were bailed by Middle Eastern investors) - it wasn't just a case of the NR folding, the banks were toppling like dominoes. Needless to say the artcle was written before Murdoch ordered the editor to turn on Labour.

 

How does our investment into the banks impact on our deficit? Honestly I don't know the answer to that one but I'd assume once they get back into profit (which is beginning to happen) the treasury will benefit nicely thank you very much. I'm no economist like but somehow I doubt you are either.

[Park Life 71]

Renton has it right.

[NJS 4375]

How does our investment into the banks impact on our deficit? Honestly I don't know the answer to that one but I'd assume once they get back into profit (which is beginning to happen) the treasury will benefit nicely thank you very much. I'm no economist like but somehow I doubt you are either.

 

Shares aside, a lot of the bailout loans given to banks were at 11% - an extremely nice little earner.

 

A lot of the figures being banded about are like when football spending is discussed - "Keegan spent 100m" sounds good but it doesn't mention he took in 60m so actually only spent 40m (a price worth paying imo) and this is the same - the balance sheet in 5 years time will look a lot different to how it is now.

 

I'd also point out on Phil's point about the Tory 6m cut - that's a sop to say they are doing something NOW - the Labour view is that the inevitible cuts should be delayed while the economy is still fragile.

[Craig 6682]

The Conservative party have said in their manifesto they will try and keep interest rates as low as possible for as long as possible. You have to let Thatcherisms go, everything about her was wrong and the current Conservative manifesto show her views are no where near the current parties.

 

Look at the people not the manifesto. They are all black hearted evil bastards and always will be.

 

Deliberately playing devil's advocate but Renton is saying exactly the opposite... judge on policy, not personality.

[NJS 4375]

The Conservative party have said in their manifesto they will try and keep interest rates as low as possible for as long as possible. You have to let Thatcherisms go, everything about her was wrong and the current Conservative manifesto show her views are no where near the current parties.

 

Look at the people not the manifesto. They are all black hearted evil bastards and always will be.

 

Deliberately playing devil's advocate but Renton is saying exactly the opposite... judge on policy, not personality.

 

I agree - but at the same time policies are about contexts - historically the Tories have always put the rich first so anything that goes against that is untrustworthy in my view - like their plans to regulate banking - I just don't believe they would do it.

 

That doesn't mean I think Labour don't have the same contexts btw.

[Craig 6682]

The Conservative party have said in their manifesto they will try and keep interest rates as low as possible for as long as possible. You have to let Thatcherisms go, everything about her was wrong and the current Conservative manifesto show her views are no where near the current parties.

 

Look at the people not the manifesto. They are all black hearted evil bastards and always will be.

 

Deliberately playing devil's advocate but Renton is saying exactly the opposite... judge on policy, not personality.

 

I agree - but at the same time policies are about contexts - historically the Tories have always put the rich first so anything that goes against that is untrustworthy in my view - like their plans to regulate banking - I just don't believe they would do it.

 

That doesn't mean I think Labour don't have the same contexts btw.

 

History is unchangable and whilst I appreciate your reservations on trust, that doesn't mean that they definitely won't stick to their pledges.

 

Labour re-invented itself to make it electable and the Tories will have to do the same IMO. Time will tell I guess but if they make these pledges and then don't stick to them, they've put themselves back 15 years which will be an even bigger gaffe than 'mike-gate'...

[Christmas Tree 4711]

Economist Magazine Endorses Cameron

 

 

The Economist magazine, which endorsed Labour at the last election, is backing David Cameron on May 6.

 

 

It says it is voting for the Conservatives because it is concerned about the size of the state in Britain.

It comes as the three main party leaders prepare for the final televised debate on the theme of the economy.

The magazine's leading article says: "The Economist has no ancestral fealty to any party, but an enduring prejudice in favour of liberalism.

But, it goes on: "In this British election the overwhelming necessity of reforming the public sector stands out.

"It is not just that the budget deficit is a terrifying 11.6% of GDP, a figure that makes tax rises and spending cuts inevitable.

"Government now accounts for over half the economy, rising to 70% in Northern Ireland.

 

"For Britain to thrive, this liberty-destroying leviathan has to be tackled.

"The Conservatives, for all their shortcomings, are keenest to do that; and that is the main reason why we would cast out vote for them."

The Economist also says the Prime Minister has run a "grim campaign, scarcely bothering to defend his record and concentrating instead on scaring people about the Tories' plans."

It goes on: "Some hope that a hung parliament would usher in a refashioning of the centre-left: a Mandelsoned and Milibanded party would arise.

"But it is better for the country that Labour has its looming nervous breakdown in opposition."

It concludes: "A change of government is essential."

In 2005 the magazine backed Tony Blair's Labour party on the grounds that it offered "the most credible and suitable government for Britain's next four or five years."

It also praised Gordon Brown's management of the economy.

"Britain has enjoyed 13 years of uninterrupted, pretty steady economic growth, eight of them under this Labour government.

 

"Much of the credit due to Labour is for carrying on with the pro-market inheritance from Margaret Thatcher, but Gordon Brown, Labour's chancellor, also deserves praise for having given independent control over monetary policy to the Bank of England in 1997 and for keeping both public spending and taxes under control in his early years in office.

"For that reason, voters may feel calm about the likelihood that Mr Brown will succeed Mr Blair as prime minister at some stage during the next four years.

"He is unlikely to change his economic ideas just because he moves his office to 10 Downing Street."

[LeazesMag 0]

I hope this doesn't distract the debate tomorrow night from focusing on the key issue, i.e. the bare-faced lie that is "Brown as economic saviour".

 

Well, compared to Cameron he pretty much is actually. What would have happened if Cameron and Osbourne had let the banks collapse?

 

Sorry, I should have clarified: the line needs to be that it's a bit rich positioning yourself as the great rescuer when you were complicit in creating the problem and exposing the country to the global crisis to a massive extent in the first place.

 

True, but what's done is done now, and we are hardly unique in this aspect. I want to back the best man to get us out of the mess, and think Brown is still best qualified to do it.

 

 

Daftest thing I've ever read.

 

 

Brown got us into this mess by piss poor planning. We had the biggest economic boom in ages and rather paying off our debt and saving for future issues like the pension time bomb or banking collapse like the Australia did, he wasted it while making arrogant claims (e.g. 'end of boom and bust' etc...).

 

We are in £848.5 billion debt (Feb 2010) and have to pay 42 Billion a year to service it.

 

What baffles me is Gordon has the cheek to attack the Conservatives aim to cut 6 billion spending to try and reduce it, while claiming he will reduce it by half in four years. Wake up and smell the coffee mate, even Shepard would agree borrowing 14 billion a month is wrong.

 

 

The conservatives have laid out their plan to regulate the banking sector and force them to lend, which will stimulate SME and grow the economy. Super Gordon wants to piss away more money on public services which has created an unsustainable reliance on the public sector.

 

 

If you want the country to stand any chance vote conservative, if you want to work until you die and live in a crappy over crowed care home with a worthless pension, stick with Gordon - the debt is out of control.

 

 

the other side of the coin being that the Tories - as always - want to reduce income tax. Then they complain about the underfunded police force, armed forces, education, railways.......and say they can "improve" the NHS. By creating a "pay as you use" policy as the millionaires who will immediately boost their fortunes overnight by the said reduction in income tax can easily afford to pay for health treatment and the best schools for their kids don't appear to realise such things are beyond the means of other people who would love to have it but they are working for about £2.50 an hour.

 

Cameron is a wanker. The Tories are greedy wankers. Labour are idealistic arseholes, just like their leader.

 

Labour think we have a bottomless pit of money to help out everyone even those who don't want to work and all the immigrants who they are letting into the country. Tories want to reduce income tax to zero so the rich man keeps more of his cash ie spend as you use.

[ewerk 30405]

Labour think we have a bottomless pit of money to help out everyone even those who don't want to work and all the immigrants who they are letting into the country.

 

So how do you feel about Brown's comments on your wife?

[LeazesMag 0]

Labour think we have a bottomless pit of money to help out everyone even those who don't want to work and all the immigrants who they are letting into the country.

 

So how do you feel about Brown's comments on your wife?

 

you can comment on the rest of the post in your own time you daft cunt.

[NJS 4375]

Labour think we have a bottomless pit of money to help out everyone even those who don't want to work and all the immigrants who they are letting into the country.

 

Again, unemployment among immigrants is less than in the general populace.

 

The only reason EU immigrants come here is to work - the only way non-EU immigrants can come here is if they have a job.

[Renton 21440]

Economist Magazine Endorses Cameron

 

 

The Economist magazine, which endorsed Labour at the last election, is backing David Cameron on May 6.

 

 

It says it is voting for the Conservatives because it is concerned about the size of the state in Britain.

It comes as the three main party leaders prepare for the final televised debate on the theme of the economy.

The magazine's leading article says: "The Economist has no ancestral fealty to any party, but an enduring prejudice in favour of liberalism.

But, it goes on: "In this British election the overwhelming necessity of reforming the public sector stands out.

"It is not just that the budget deficit is a terrifying 11.6% of GDP, a figure that makes tax rises and spending cuts inevitable.

"Government now accounts for over half the economy, rising to 70% in Northern Ireland.

 

"For Britain to thrive, this liberty-destroying leviathan has to be tackled.

"The Conservatives, for all their shortcomings, are keenest to do that; and that is the main reason why we would cast out vote for them."

The Economist also says the Prime Minister has run a "grim campaign, scarcely bothering to defend his record and concentrating instead on scaring people about the Tories' plans."

It goes on: "Some hope that a hung parliament would usher in a refashioning of the centre-left: a Mandelsoned and Milibanded party would arise.

"But it is better for the country that Labour has its looming nervous breakdown in opposition."

It concludes: "A change of government is essential."

In 2005 the magazine backed Tony Blair's Labour party on the grounds that it offered "the most credible and suitable government for Britain's next four or five years."

It also praised Gordon Brown's management of the economy.

"Britain has enjoyed 13 years of uninterrupted, pretty steady economic growth, eight of them under this Labour government.

 

"Much of the credit due to Labour is for carrying on with the pro-market inheritance from Margaret Thatcher, but Gordon Brown, Labour's chancellor, also deserves praise for having given independent control over monetary policy to the Bank of England in 1997 and for keeping both public spending and taxes under control in his early years in office.

"For that reason, voters may feel calm about the likelihood that Mr Brown will succeed Mr Blair as prime minister at some stage during the next four years.

"He is unlikely to change his economic ideas just because he moves his office to 10 Downing Street."

 

All parties are agreed that the public sector has to be cut back, and this is going to hurt. But how savage do you want those cuts to be? There's very good economic reasons that there is proportionately more public sector jobs in the provinces - can you imagine what Longbenton would cost if it were based in the South East? Cameron has already said he will slash public sectors, specifically in the North East. He says they can be replaced by private sector jobs. But how? Where is this investment going to come from? He'll be a disaster for the North East, that is a practically a given.

 

Of course, it was only a couple of years ago that a tory think tank said we should abandon Northern cities and all move to Cambridge, echoing what that odious turd of a man Tebbit said a decade or so earlier. Nothing's changed.

[Happy Face 29]

Economist Magazine Endorses Cameron

 

Members of the board of directors of the Economist Group include Sir Robert Wilson, Helen Alexander CBE, Sir David Bell, Lynn Forester de Rothschild and Lord Stevenson of Coddenham.

 

Plum sucking mother fuckers.

[ewerk 30405]

Labour think we have a bottomless pit of money to help out everyone even those who don't want to work and all the immigrants who they are letting into the country.

 

So how do you feel about Brown's comments on your wife?

 

you can comment on the rest of the post in your own time you daft cunt.

 

You reckon both Conservatives and Labour are a pack of wankers. I didn't think there was much worth commenting on, I decided to ignore all the filler that happened to be mostly bollocks.

[LeazesMag 0]

Labour think we have a bottomless pit of money to help out everyone even those who don't want to work and all the immigrants who they are letting into the country.

 

So how do you feel about Brown's comments on your wife?

 

you can comment on the rest of the post in your own time you daft cunt.

 

You reckon both Conservatives and Labour are a pack of wankers. I didn't think there was much worth commenting on, I decided to ignore all the filler that happened to be mostly bollocks.

 

in your opinion. Can't say I've saw too much sense from you either here or in the football threads tbh. Anyway, such a juvenile response says much about you.

[LeazesMag 0]

Economist Magazine Endorses Cameron

 

 

The Economist magazine, which endorsed Labour at the last election, is backing David Cameron on May 6.

 

 

It says it is voting for the Conservatives because it is concerned about the size of the state in Britain.

It comes as the three main party leaders prepare for the final televised debate on the theme of the economy.

The magazine's leading article says: "The Economist has no ancestral fealty to any party, but an enduring prejudice in favour of liberalism.

But, it goes on: "In this British election the overwhelming necessity of reforming the public sector stands out.

"It is not just that the budget deficit is a terrifying 11.6% of GDP, a figure that makes tax rises and spending cuts inevitable.

"Government now accounts for over half the economy, rising to 70% in Northern Ireland.

 

"For Britain to thrive, this liberty-destroying leviathan has to be tackled.

"The Conservatives, for all their shortcomings, are keenest to do that; and that is the main reason why we would cast out vote for them."

The Economist also says the Prime Minister has run a "grim campaign, scarcely bothering to defend his record and concentrating instead on scaring people about the Tories' plans."

It goes on: "Some hope that a hung parliament would usher in a refashioning of the centre-left: a Mandelsoned and Milibanded party would arise.

"But it is better for the country that Labour has its looming nervous breakdown in opposition."

It concludes: "A change of government is essential."

In 2005 the magazine backed Tony Blair's Labour party on the grounds that it offered "the most credible and suitable government for Britain's next four or five years."

It also praised Gordon Brown's management of the economy.

"Britain has enjoyed 13 years of uninterrupted, pretty steady economic growth, eight of them under this Labour government.

 

"Much of the credit due to Labour is for carrying on with the pro-market inheritance from Margaret Thatcher, but Gordon Brown, Labour's chancellor, also deserves praise for having given independent control over monetary policy to the Bank of England in 1997 and for keeping both public spending and taxes under control in his early years in office.

"For that reason, voters may feel calm about the likelihood that Mr Brown will succeed Mr Blair as prime minister at some stage during the next four years.

"He is unlikely to change his economic ideas just because he moves his office to 10 Downing Street."

 

All parties are agreed that the public sector has to be cut back, and this is going to hurt. But how savage do you want those cuts to be? There's very good economic reasons that there is proportionately more public sector jobs in the provinces - can you imagine what Longbenton would cost if it were based in the South East? Cameron has already said he will slash public sectors, specifically in the North East. He says they can be replaced by private sector jobs. But how? Where is this investment going to come from? He'll be a disaster for the North East, that is a practically a given.

 

Of course, it was only a couple of years ago that a tory think tank said we should abandon Northern cities and all move to Cambridge, echoing what that odious turd of a man Tebbit said a decade or so earlier. Nothing's changed.

 

all of that is sadly correct.

[Craig 6682]

What's your constituency LM? Have they got much alternative to the main 3?

[LeazesMag 0]

What's your constituency LM? Have they got much alternative to the main 3?

 

yes we have a fair few alternatives but tbh after many years and elections, you realise they are all self centred whichever party they represent, you become oblivious to it all, if that is the right word.

 

A bit like too many modern footballers........

 

Having said that, as I said earlier, half the world would kill to vote and it is almost criminal if people in this country don't see the value of that.

[Park Life 71]

Economist Magazine Endorses Cameron

 

Members of the board of directors of the Economist Group include Sir Robert Wilson, Helen Alexander CBE, Sir David Bell, Lynn Forester de Rothschild and Lord Stevenson of Coddenham.

 

Plum sucking mother fuckers.

 

Imagine what it's like for me having to read a thread like this.

[Craig 6682]

What's your constituency LM? Have they got much alternative to the main 3?

 

yes we have a fair few alternatives but tbh after many years and elections, you realise they are all self centred whichever party they represent, you become oblivious to it all, if that is the right word.

 

A bit like too many modern footballers........

 

Having said that, as I said earlier, half the world would kill to vote and it is almost criminal if people in this country don't see the value of that.

 

And the constituency is?

[LeazesMag 0]

What's your constituency LM? Have they got much alternative to the main 3?

 

yes we have a fair few alternatives but tbh after many years and elections, you realise they are all self centred whichever party they represent, you become oblivious to it all, if that is the right word.

 

A bit like too many modern footballers........

 

Having said that, as I said earlier, half the world would kill to vote and it is almost criminal if people in this country don't see the value of that.

 

And the constituency is?

 

haven't you done an ip check

 

I'm hoping to move back home later in the year/next year.......

[Meenzer 15466]

Not saying you're being paranoid, but I don't think he's trying to score out-of-towner points here, Leazes.

 

Lewisham Deptford here, for what it's worth. Outside the big three, we've got a Green who thinks he has a chance but doesn't, plus a Socialist Alternative candidate (two of their five local councillors nationwide are in this constituency) and a Christian Peoples Alliance nutjob.

[Meenzer 15466]

A mental health charity says it is waiting for a formal apology from Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg after he used "inappropriate" language during the second prime ministerial debate. He described parties in Europe allied to the Conservatives as "nutters". The charity Stand to Rights claims this stigmatises those with mental health issues. All three party leaders signed an agreement in March not to use mental health "slurs" during the election campaign. The Liberal Democrats have refused to confirm whether the party is going to issue a written apology but a spokesman said Mr Clegg "regretted" using the word.

 

This country is a joke.

[LeazesMag 0]

A mental health charity says it is waiting for a formal apology from Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg after he used "inappropriate" language during the second prime ministerial debate. He described parties in Europe allied to the Conservatives as "nutters". The charity Stand to Rights claims this stigmatises those with mental health issues. All three party leaders signed an agreement in March not to use mental health "slurs" during the election campaign. The Liberal Democrats have refused to confirm whether the party is going to issue a written apology but a spokesman said Mr Clegg "regretted" using the word.

 

This country is a joke.

 

can't help but laugh at shite like this

[Park Life 71]

Not saying you're being paranoid, but I don't think he's trying to score out-of-towner points here, Leazes.

 

Lewisham Deptford here, for what it's worth. Outside the big three, we've got a Green who thinks he has a chance but doesn't, plus a Socialist Alternative candidate (two of their five local councillors nationwide are in this constituency) and a Christian Peoples Alliance nutjob.

 

We all know you'll jiust vote for the best looking one.