General Election 2015

[hutch]

Then why did the banks pay so many fines for mis-selling? The problem has been that the banks creation of toxic derivatives has been a massive exercise in wealth destruction. The banks got bailed out, the governments retrieved some of the bailout money through fines - but the people who caused the crash the CEO and board members largely escaped scot free.

 

The only people who have really lost out are the taxpayers and the people with pension funds, ie most of us. There should have been far more criminal prosecutions, and of board members, not just isolated traders. The problem was systemic, not isolated rogues on the dealing floor.

 

You're off the point. We're talking about the things they didn't get prosecuted for. I don't disagree with you, but a lot of what went on was only immoral, unethical and reprehensible, but not illegal.

 

Only an idiot would think that the regulatory framework was fit for purpose or that the bonuses post '08 were justified.

[pap]

Every single Tory manifesto policy is sh*t according to you. Even if they espoused the same policy as Labour, it would still be sh*t, wouldn't it? Maybe it's not worth arguing for those policies against the likes of you, because you have already stated in your over-simplistic blinkered way that all of them are shi*t. As I already said, this is sheer arrogance from you attempting to pigeon-hole as idiots a section of voters at least as large as that which supports Labour.

 

If somebody attempted to speak in those terms about Labour supporters, you would be beside yourself in righteous indignation.

 

It seems to have escaped your mind that sometimes it is equally valid to vote against things that you disagree with as it is to vote for things that you do agree with.

 

Sadly, it would, especially after seeing the crude implementations of policy they managed in the first five years. I've said again and again that I have no problem with the principle of some of the cuts. It's where they're directed and how they're implemented. That's not to say that the Labour Party are a panacea on implementation. Far from it, but we've seen the Tories in recent action. Drove the economy into the ground in the first few years, borrowed more money than Labour managed in 13, then switched the taps back on just before the election claiming some kind of miraculous recovery.

 

I don't trust the things they say, or that they'll do them in the right way.

[trousers]

They are a corporation that operates in the country, making a great deal of money from the framework it provides.

 

That'll be 20% corporation tax please. Or fúck off. It really is that simple.

 

http://www.starbucks.co.uk/our-commitment

Q: Why does Starbucks not pay tax in the UK?

 

A: Starbucks pays a range of taxes in the UK, but it is true that we have not paid a meaningful amount of corporation tax. Corporation tax is based on the profits a company makes. We have found making a profit in the UK difficult and therefore have not been in a position to pay much corporation tax.

Nonetheless, even though we have always paid our taxes to the letter of the law, we know that to retain public trust we need to do more.

We've built a significant presence in the UK, with 760 retail stores across the country, and we employ thousands of people. In addition we have spent hundreds of millions of pounds with local suppliers on milk, cakes and sandwiches, and on store design and renovations. Annually, we contribute nearly £300m into the UK economy. We are committed to the UK for the long-term and will continue to invest here, through providing jobs and investing in providing the best experiences and coffee for our customers.

Q: How much tax will Starbucks pay - will it be a 'fair share'?

A: In 2013 and 2014 Starbucks will not claim the tax deductions for royalties or payments related to our intercompany charges for interest and mark-up on the coffee we buy. Such a move is unprecedented so we will have to work out the details of an approach that will enable us to make a change and to ultimately contribute more.

In addition, we have committed to paying a significant amount of corporation tax during 2013 and 2014 regardless of whether our company is profitable during these years. We are still working through some of the calculations, but we believe we could pay or prepay somewhere in the range of £10 million in each of the next two years in addition to the variety of taxes we already pay.

These actions will position us as a company to make a larger contribution in tax and most importantly to the communities we serve while we make the moves necessary to achieve a sustainable level of profitability.　 We believe that this is the right thing to do. We’ve listened to our customers and we’re taking the actions necessary to pay more corporation tax in the UK, above what we are required to.

 

I've no idea how much of that is corporate bowlocks but I'm sure you'll fill me in (so to speak)

 

[pap]

Ok well that's that solved. 20% of what exactly?

 

Profits made in the country, just like most other businesses have to find. If a corporation cannot commit to paying 20% of their profits here, they can fúck off. Other people can make coffee.

[pap]

http://www.starbucks.co.uk/our-commitment

 

 

I've no idea how much of that is corporate bowlocks but I'm sure you'll fill me in (so to speak)

 

 

So Starbucks defense is that their business, one driven on a huge fkn profit margin, can't make a profit here?

 

Brilliant. I don't know why like you, I didn't believe that immediately.

[saint si]

Technically Starbucks don't pay any VAT

 

You know VAT is a tax levied on and paid to HMRC by the seller, not the consumer?

 

Yes, ultimately the burden falls on the consumer. But the same is true for all other taxes on businesses. It's just much more transparent with VAT as it's shown as being directly linked to the price (retailers like it that way as they can imply their prices are lower but it's the pesky government that is pushing them up, and it's not their fault, honest).

[trousers]

I don't know why like you, I didn't believe that immediately.

 

I've no idea whether to believe it or not. I'm rubbish at forming opinions on stuff I read....

[Torres]

They are a corporation that operates in the country, making a great deal of money from the framework it provides.

 

That'll be 20% corporation tax please. Or fúck off. It really is that simple.

 

Another stunning over-simplification.

 

How much profit did Starbucks make in this country last year pap? How much do you calculate their corporation tax liability to be? How much tax have they evaded?

[hutch]

You know VAT is a tax levied on and paid to HMRC by the seller, not the consumer?

 

Yes, ultimately the burden falls on the consumer. But the same is true for all other taxes on businesses. It's just much more transparent with VAT as it's shown as being directly linked to the price (retailers like it that way as they can imply their prices are lower but it's the pesky government that is pushing them up, and it's not their fault, honest).

It is collected from the consumer by the seller, then passed on to HMRC by the seller.

[buctootim]

http://www.starbucks.co.uk/our-commitment

 

 

I've no idea how much of that is corporate bowlocks but I'm sure you'll fill me in (so to speak)

 

 

There is the famous (you can google) case where the UK arm was pleading poverty and how impossible it was to make a profit while Starbucks Inc's annual report boasted of the rude health and profitability of the UK arm. Their trick is paying inter company franchise fees - which amazingly enough add up to exactly what their profits would otherwise have been. But I suspect you knew that.

[trousers]

There is the famous (you can google) case where the UK arm was pleading poverty and how impossible it was to make a profit while Starbucks Inc's annual report boasted of the rude health and profitability of the UK arm. Their trick is paying inter company franchise fees - which amazingly enough add up to exactly what their profits would otherwise have been. But I suspect you knew that.

 

Not really, you give me far too much credit. I'm making this up as I go along, as per usual

 

Doesn't this bit: "In 2013 and 2014 Starbucks will not claim the tax deductions for royalties or payments related to our intercompany charges" offset the inter-company profit jiggery-pokery stuff?

Edited 7 May, 2015 by trousers

[Wes Tender]

Sadly, it would, especially after seeing the crude implementations of policy they managed in the first five years. I've said again and again that I have no problem with the principle of some of the cuts. It's where they're directed and how they're implemented. That's not to say that the Labour Party are a panacea on implementation. Far from it, but we've seen the Tories in recent action. Drove the economy into the ground in the first few years, borrowed more money than Labour managed in 13, then switched the taps back on just before the election claiming some kind of miraculous recovery.

 

I don't trust the things they say, or that they'll do them in the right way.

 

JB produced an extensive list of Tory election manifesto policies, echoing the one I linked to.

 

You have labelled all Tory policies as sh*t and said that the Tory supporters on here had not defended them, only being interested in attacking Labour policies.

 

So go on, if you aren't to be called a hypocrite; answer JB's request to either state that not every single one of those policies is sh*t, or tell us which ones you disagree with and why.

[pap]

There is the famous (you can google) case where the UK arm was pleading poverty and how impossible it was to make a profit while Starbucks Inc's annual report boasted of the rude health and profitability of the UK arm. Their trick is paying inter company franchise fees - which amazingly enough add up to exactly what their profits would otherwise have been. But I suspect you knew that.

 

It's not really a franchise then, is it? Having worked for an actual franchiser, we used to sell Master Franchises for an entire region, who would then have the right to licence new franchisees in the country. The parent company would always get a kick-back, but it was laid out, defined and anything over the top went to the master franchiser, because hey, they brought the franchise!

 

Sounds like Starbucks are doing franchising, without the actual franchising, to avoid all the profit they would have paid. Nice work if you can get it (you can't get it, that franchise isn't really for sale).

[Unbelievable Jeff]

JB produced an extensive list of Tory election manifesto policies, echoing the one I linked to.

 

You have labelled all Tory policies as sh*t and said that the Tory supporters on here had not defended them, only being interested in attacking Labour policies.

 

So go on, if you aren't to be called a hypocrite; answer JB's request to either state that not every single one of those policies is sh*t, or tell us which ones you disagree with and why.

 

Good luck!

[sadoldgit]

I have just voted although up until today I wasn't going to bother. I am in a safe Tory seat but want to do my bit to unseat them if I can.

I was talking to Mrs SOG about this year's campaign last night and neither of us can but a cigarette paper between Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. They all look the same, they all sound the same. They are all squabbling over the middle ground. God help us whoever gets in although I think we are in for another coalition.

[Johnny Bognor]

JB produced an extensive list of Tory election manifesto policies, echoing the one I linked to.

 

You have labelled all Tory policies as sh*t and said that the Tory supporters on here had not defended them, only being interested in attacking Labour policies.

 

So go on, if you aren't to be called a hypocrite; answer JB's request to either state that not every single one of those policies is sh*t, or tell us which ones you disagree with and why.

 

... considering some policies match labour policies, pap (if he doesn't respond), is in effect confirming that some labour policies are in fact sh*t

[buctootim]

Not really, you give me far too much credit. I'm making this up as I go along, as per usual

 

Doesn't this bit: "In 2013 and 2014 Starbucks will not claim the tax deductions for royalties or payments related to our intercompany charges" offset the inter-company profit jiggery-pokery stuff?

 

You might be right, I havent looked into them recently. The damage is done and it doesnt really matter, for me, what the PR team come out with. I used to go there and now use Costa.

 

It's not really a franchise then, is it? ....Starbucks are doing franchising, without the actual franchising, to avoid all the profit they would have paid. Nice work if you can get it (you can't get it, that franchise isn't really for sale).

 

Of course. Its all set out here quite neatly

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britain-starbucks-tax-idUSBRE89E0EX20121015

 

Its also notable that the number of directly managed stores is declining and 'licensed' stores is increasing. I wonder why they are doing that...

http://www.statista.com/statistics/218388/number-of-starbucks-stores-in-the-uk/

[pap]

JB produced an extensive list of Tory election manifesto policies, echoing the one I linked to.

 

You have labelled all Tory policies as sh*t and said that the Tory supporters on here had not defended them, only being interested in attacking Labour policies.

 

So go on, if you aren't to be called a hypocrite; answer JB's request to either state that not every single one of those policies is sh*t, or tell us which ones you disagree with and why.

 

I don't mind being called a hypocrite, especially not by you. It doesn't matter.

 

Anyway, here are those policies:-

 

Taxation

 

 

• Raise personal allowance to £12.5k AGREE
  
• and 40% tax threshold to £50k DISAGREE
  
• - AGREE (helps low and middle income families) - DISAGREE
  
• Increase inheritance tax threshold for married couples and civil partners to £1m - DISAGREE (leave as is, for now) DISAGREE (tax for rich)
  
• Legislate to keep people working 30 hours on minimum wage out of income tax - AGREE (helps incentivise people to work) Isn't that the same as personal allowance
  
• No rise in VAT or National Insurance contributions. - AGREE (Leave as is) DISAGREE. VAT should be lowered. It is 20%, FFS. Should also be removed entirely from utility bills
  

 

 

Transport

 

 

• Deliver the biggest programme of investment in roads since the 1970s - DISAGREE AGREE with infrastructure. DISAGREE on focus. Faster travel into London should not be priority.
  
• Deliver the biggest investment in railways since the Victorians, including 850 miles of electrified railways - DISAGREE
  
• Reform strike laws, including on the transport network - DISAGREE (leave as is for now)
  
• Start work on High Speed 2 rail lines and continue development for a "HS3" Leeds-Manchester link - DISAGREE
  

 

 

Rural Affairs

 

 

• Invest £2.3 billion in over 1,400 flood defence schemes to protect 300,000 homes - DISAGREE (if you want to live by the seaside, why should I pay for it?) - AGREE - British are a seafaring people on an island nation. 300,000 homes and the integrity of affected areas is worth protecting. Any R&D resulting from this can be sold on.
  
• Work to improve and simplify the Common Agriculture Policy - AGREE AGREE - but not even worth discussing. Won't change without EU Commission. Tories won't change that.
  
• Hold a free vote on repealing the Hunting Act - DISAGREE (more important things to worry about) DISAGREE. Vile practice carried out by vile people.
  
• Provide near-universal superfast broadband by 2020 and secure the future of 3,000 rural Post Offices - AGREE (critical for business innovation) AGREE on both.
  

 

 

EU

 

 

• Hold an "in-out" referendum on Britain’s renegotiated EU membership by 2017 - AGREE Won't happen. EU exit definitely won't happen. Disregarded.
  
• Protect the UK economy from further integration of the Eurozone. Expand the Single Market - AGREE Bullshít policy. Member states have no right to reject new member. See Maastricht.
  
• Scrap Human Rights Act and replace with a British Bill of Rights - DISAGREE (more important things to worry about) DISAGREE.
  
• Resist EU attempts to restrict legitimate financial services activities - AGREE (we are more exposed to FS) DISAGREE. FS is a fiction that we need to get off of.
  

 

 

Defence

 

 

• Second new aircraft carrier will be brought into active service - DISAGREE (Can't afford it at the moment) DISAGREE - until UK's defence mission clearly enumerated.
  
• Replace Trident with four submarines to maintain continuous at sea nuclear deterrent - AGREE (keeps us at the top table) DISAGREE. Waste of money. Probably won't work if push comes to shove.
  
• Work for peace in Syria and Iraq and pursue a comprehensive strategy to defeat Islamic State - AGREE DISAGREE - wrong focus in Middle East, but all parties are going for this.
  
• Create new award for service in the reserve forces - DISAGREE Who cares? Apart from Tories and reserve forces people. Very limited appeal. I'm ambivalent.
  

 

 

Education

 

 

• Protect school funding per pupil - AGREE AGREE in principle. Seen class sizes rise in practice. Don't trust Tories on education.
  
• Create at least a further 500 free schools in England by 2020 - DISAGREE DISAGREE - Let the freaks pay for their own schools.
  
• Zero tolerance for failure – immediate support to turn around failing or coasting schools - AGREE - This is a policy? Weren't we doing this already?
  
• 30 hours free childcare for working parents of 3&4-year-olds - AGREE - AGREE in principle, but doesn't go far enough. 5 year old kids don't finish school at the same time as their parents. Would much rather see state-run nursery facilities, as in Denmark.
  

 

 

Welfare

 

 

• Make £12bn welfare savings - DISAGREE (without knowing where it comes from) We know where it'll come from. £23k cap on benefits. Kids/employment help facilities shut down. Loads of fkn nutters roaming the streets in 20-30 years time. DISAGREE.
  
• Maintain the freeze in working-age benefits for two years - AGREE (especially with zero inflation at the moment) DISAGREE - people will continue to have less money
  
• Household benefit cap cut from £26,000 to £23,000 a year - DISAGREE (keep the cap as families budget on this, but dont increase for the foreseeable) DISAGREE - the £26K thing sounded great on paper. Just pushed certain families toward destitution. Large families will be hit hard by the cap.
  
• Replace JSA for 18-21-year-olds with a Youth Allowance limited to 6 months & end automatic Housing Benefit for this age group - DISAGREE (We need to inspire the young, not punish them) DISAGREE, but also disagree with your reasoning. Likely only people getting punished here are the parents.
  

 

 

Health

 

 

• Increase NHS spending in England by at least £8bn above inflation over the next five years - AGREE Not when most of that will be lining private industry pockets after the exemplary horror story has been wheeled out. It's AGREE in principle, but no confidence in those doing the implementation.
  
• Seven-day access to GPs by 2020 & same day appointments for over-75s when needed - DISAGREE DISAGREE - More pensioner bribery.
  
• Integrate health and social care - AGREE (If it reduces costs) DISAGREE - Just fkn fund social care. Easier.
  
• Improve access to mental health treatments - AGREE AGREE - but again, this is a policy.
  

[Johnny Bognor]

That's not my point at all.

 

The point is that for all the bluster, and by fúck there has been a lot of it, the Tories on here haven't been able to champion Tory policies.

 

Because they're all shít.

 

Look at what you've all reduced yourselves to. You're not arguing for anything you stand for, just against who you don't like. Because that's (right-wing) politics.

 

Hmmm

 

I don't mind being called a hypocrite, especially not by you. It doesn't matter.

Anyway, here are those policies:-

Raise personal allowance to £12.5k AGREE

Invest £2.3 billion in over 1,400 flood defence schemes to protect 300,000 homes - AGREE

Work to improve and simplify the Common Agriculture Policy - AGREE.

Provide near-universal superfast broadband by 2020 and secure the future of 3,000 rural Post Offices -AGREE on both.

Protect school funding per pupil - AGREE in principle

30 hours free childcare for working parents of 3&4-year-olds - AGREE in principle

Improve access to mental health treatments - AGREE

 

Ah, I see what you did. You'll now claim that it is not all tory policies that are sh*t (by your own admission), but in fact that it is all tory posters on here that are sh*t. :lol:

 

Apologies for misreading the above post

[pap]

Hmmm

 

Ah, I see what you did. You'll now claim that it is not all tory policies that are sh*t (by your own admission), but in fact that it is all tory posters on here that are sh*t. :lol:

 

Apologies for misreading the above post

 

Eastleigh wouldn't suddenly get to be Barcelona because they put a statement out saying that's what they'd do.

 

They'd still be shít. Similarly, anything these boys do will be similarly shít, even if it looks like a good idea on paper.

[Johnny Bognor]

Eastleigh wouldn't suddenly get to be Barcelona because they put a statement out saying that's what they'd do.

 

I guess that is like Labour promising an EU Referendum in their 2005 manifesto, to be subsequently challenged in court, only to find that in effect, the breaching of a manifesto commitment was political, not a legal requirement. It was a good job Blair didn't carve that pledge in stone.

[pap]

I guess that is like Labour promising an EU Referendum in their 2005 manifesto, to be subsequently challenged in court, only to find that in effect, the breaching of a manifesto commitment was political, not a legal requirement. It was a good job Blair didn't carve that pledge in stone.

 

Or the Tories, when they decided it was a big thing. Or the Lib Dems, when they were railing about how the Lisbon Treaty was effectively the EU Constitution in all but name.

 

I'd actually say fair play to Labour during this campaign for not using the EU as a political football.

 

That said, all the mainstream parties have tried to capitalise on it and have weaseled out when push came to shove.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Academics at British Election Leaflet Project at the University of Nottingham have analysed leaflets from the parties in this campaign. They looked at 1,300 pieces of election literature from nearly 300 constituencies.

 

It turns out that Ukip is the most positive party according to the project’s criteria – the issues covered, the types of images used, and whether the party talked about its opponents. Just 35 per cent of the party’s leaflets included an attack on another party. The Greens were negative in 40 per cent of their leaflets.

 

The most negative campaign leaflets were Labour on 82% & lib/dumbs on 81%. With the Tories some way behind on the negative campaign with 69%.

 

Perhaps if Ed's lefties were more positive in their message, they'd get in

[Johnny Bognor]

Academics at British Election Leaflet Project at the University of Nottingham have analysed leaflets from the parties in this campaign. They looked at 1,300 pieces of election literature from nearly 300 constituencies.

 

It turns out that Ukip is the most positive party according to the project’s criteria – the issues covered, the types of images used, and whether the party talked about its opponents. Just 35 per cent of the party’s leaflets included an attack on another party. The Greens were negative in 40 per cent of their leaflets.

 

The most negative campaign leaflets were Labour on 82% & lib/dumbs on 81%. With the Tories some way behind on the negative campaign with 69%.

 

Oh come on, don't let the facts get in the way of a good political rant. The tories are nasty wasty and labour are all lovey dovey

[Lord Duckhunter]

Oh come on, don't let the facts get in the way of a good political rant

 

 

 

Following on from the Daily Mirror being the most partisan paper as well.

[iansums]

Oh come on, don't let the facts get in the way of a good political rant. The tories are nasty wasty and labour are all lovey dovey

 

Have to say as a Tory voter and after reading this thread and also some of the Guardian comments on the election I do feel like a nasty, evil, sadistic b*stard. I'm not, honestly.

 

I think this will all end with a Labour led coalition of some sort which worries me. However, I would wish it well and hope they do a good job for the sake of the country. Would Labour supporters feel the same if the roles were reversed?

[View From The Top]

Academics at British Election Leaflet Project at the University of Nottingham have analysed leaflets from the parties in this campaign. They looked at 1,300 pieces of election literature from nearly 300 constituencies.

 

It turns out that Ukip is the most positive party according to the project’s criteria – the issues covered, the types of images used, and whether the party talked about its opponents. Just 35 per cent of the party’s leaflets included an attack on another party. The Greens were negative in 40 per cent of their leaflets.

 

The most negative campaign leaflets were Labour on 82% & lib/dumbs on 81%. With the Tories some way behind on the negative campaign with 69%.

 

Perhaps if Ed's lefties were more positive in their message, they'd get in

 

All the lit' we've had has been negative from all sides. Labour's have been about not trusting the tories with anything, tories about not trusting Labour with the economy, UKIP about foreigners taking local jobs & HS2 (big issue around here) and so on. Even the local hustings were like that.

 

Personally I've found the whole campaign to be very negative from everyone.

 

The only good thing is currently outside my local polling station all the candidates from the ward elections are sharing brollies and cups of tea and chatting amicably which was nice to see.

[View From The Top]

Have to say as a Tory voter and after reading this thread and also some of the Guardian comments on the election I do feel like a nasty, evil, sadistic b*stard. I'm not, honestly.

 

I think this will all end with a Labour led coalition of some sort which worries me. However, I would wish it well and hope they do a good job for the sake of the country. Would Labour supporters feel the same if the roles were reversed?

 

As long as it's not a right wing tory government I can live with it. At the last election I was all for a coalition of the able. We ended up with Ian Duncan Smith and Jeremy Hunt.

[Wade Garrett]

Academics at British Election Leaflet Project at the University of Nottingham have analysed leaflets from the parties in this campaign. They looked at 1,300 pieces of election literature from nearly 300 constituencies.

 

It turns out that Ukip is the most positive party according to the project’s criteria – the issues covered, the types of images used, and whether the party talked about its opponents. Just 35 per cent of the party’s leaflets included an attack on another party. The Greens were negative in 40 per cent of their leaflets.

 

The most negative campaign leaflets were Labour on 82% & lib/dumbs on 81%. With the Tories some way behind on the negative campaign with 69%.

 

Perhaps if Ed's lefties were more positive in their message, they'd get in

 

Personally, I would say the Tories have had the most negative campaign. Spent all their time saying what a disaster it would be for the Scots to exercise their democratic right, and very little about their policies.

[the saint in winchester]

So what's the score so far? Who's winning?

[Wade Garrett]

Have to say as a Tory voter and after reading this thread and also some of the Guardian comments on the election I do feel like a nasty, evil, sadistic b*stard. I'm not, honestly.

 

I think this will all end with a Labour led coalition of some sort which worries me. However, I would wish it well and hope they do a good job for the sake of the country. Would Labour supporters feel the same if the roles were reversed?

 

I can only speak for myself, and it was exactly how I felt 5 years ago.

[Torres]

THE most important question of the day - who are we all sitting in front of tonight? I normally go BBC but the Sky News setup looks quite impressive.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Academics at British Election Leaflet Project at the University of Nottingham have analysed leaflets from the parties in this campaign. They looked at 1,300 pieces of election literature from nearly 300 constituencies.

 

It turns out that Ukip is the most positive party according to the project’s criteria – the issues covered, the types of images used, and whether the party talked about its opponents. Just 35 per cent of the party’s leaflets included an attack on another party. The Greens were negative in 40 per cent of their leaflets.

 

The most negative campaign leaflets were Labour on 82% & lib/dumbs on 81%. With the Tories some way behind on the negative campaign with 69%.

 

Perhaps if Ed's lefties were more positive in their message, they'd get in

There's more negative things that need to be said about the tories [emoji3]

[pap]

Have to say as a Tory voter and after reading this thread and also some of the Guardian comments on the election I do feel like a nasty, evil, sadistic b*stard. I'm not, honestly.

 

I think this will all end with a Labour led coalition of some sort which worries me. However, I would wish it well and hope they do a good job for the sake of the country. Would Labour supporters feel the same if the roles were reversed?

 

Actually did feel the same last time out. Unfortunately, the whole "working for the good of the country" bit failed to materialise. Nasty arsed policy with Lib Dems as human shields more the order of the day.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

THE most important question of the day - who are we all sitting in front of tonight? I normally go BBC but the Sky News setup looks quite impressive.

 

Channel 4.

[Bearsy]

I Quite Like the idea that the Conservative bros get the most votes, but the other bros gang together and make a Prime Minister between them. I like that solution best, it makes a mockery of the whole thing. That is what I am hoping for

[Johnny Bognor]

THE most important question of the day - who are we all sitting in front of tonight? I normally go BBC but the Sky News setup looks quite impressive.

 

Babestation is looking like an option. Occasionlly flicking over to the BBC

[the saint in winchester]

Whichever one tells me the likely result earliest.

I'm looking for "based on the results in so far, we're headed for a Conservative/Labour/Con-Lib/Lab-SNP coalition* government" before midnight!

 

* delete as appropriate

Edited 7 May, 2015 by the saint in winchester

[trousers]

THE most important question of the day - who are we all sitting in front of tonight? I normally go BBC but the Sky News setup looks quite impressive.

 

I'm going to rely on this thread for balanced commentary on events throughout the night.

[iansums]

I'm going to rely on Trousers for updates.

[View From The Top]

[Whitey Grandad]

Quite well explained for you here:

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/05/02/britain-for-the-love-of-god-please-stop-david-cameron/

 

Not really. Massively leveraging up balance sheets, betting on synthetic derivatives, selling PPI to people who didnt need it, fixing LIBOR. Iceland has it about right. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/02/13/uk-iceland-bankers-idUKKBN0LH0OC20150213

 

Going after the bankers wouldn't have solved the problem but it would have at least introduced a modicum of feeling of equity to the poor taxpayers left cleaning up and still paying now.

 

The root of the problem was in the US as is the case with many things and goes back to Clinton's efforts to give loans to the poor so that they could buy property. The collapse of Fannie Mac and Freddy Mae set in motion a chain of events that coupled with peculiarities in the American banking system started the dominos falling.

 

http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis

[pap]

The root of the problem was in the US as is the case with many things and goes back to Clinton's efforts to give loans to the poor so that they could buy property. The collapse of Fannie Mac and Freddy Mae set in motion a chain of events that coupled with peculiarities in the American banking system started the dominos falling.

 

http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis

 

I thought it was all Labour's fault?

 

And you're now saying the global financial crisis was somehow caused by those in the financial sector? How's that done, then?

 

The idea of bankers causing a banking crisis won't compute for many.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Babestation is looking like an option. Occasionlly flicking over to the BBC

 

Big black ****?

[pap]

Big black ****?

 

You never go back, apparently.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

 

They're ****ing good. The last one, All for One, I Swear was also very good.

[Window Cleaner]

why don't all the parties just form one big coalition and save us all the bother?

 

Because then it becomes a government of national unity and not a coalition, trouble is it usually disunifies at the first sign

of something that someone doesn't care for, usually after about a week.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I thought it was all Labour's fault?

 

And you're now saying the global financial crisis was somehow caused by those in the financial sector? How's that done, then?

 

The idea of bankers causing a banking crisis won't compute for many.

 

Nah, wasn't caused by Labour, but the countries struggles were exacerbated by an irresponsible spending commitment by Labour.

[Bucks Saint]

Nah, wasn't caused by Labour, but the countries struggles were exacerbated by an irresponsible spending commitment by Labour.

 

Or translated for some Mirror readers: Labour loved the sunny holidays but forgot to save for the rainy days. And then it ****ed it down for ages.

[shurlock]

Nah, wasn't caused by Labour, but the countries struggles were exacerbated by an irresponsible spending commitment by Labour.

 

What like Ireland? Its debt to GDP ratio was a minimal 25% when it entered the crisis; yet today it tops 100%, the fourth highest in the EU. Exposure to the financial sector and property, not irresponsible spending commitments, was the main factor.