The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Bruce Wayne]

I guess that's why we're having a general election.

In regards to the grasping self servers bit - Hmmmm! On one hand I argue that the Tories only look out for themselves whilst the Left are more considerate of the needs of others. On the other I actually think that most politicians are in public office because they see it as a vocation. I will even give credit to the likes of Davey & Gideon, who will work some of the longest hours in the country, spend too much time away from their families (I think this is taking its toll on Cameron btw), have given up any chance of a quiet life until the end of time and who have to live with so many of the choices they make, knowing that they affect so many people the world over. Self serving they are not.

Haha, that's some quality popcorning

 

[Joey66]

To be honest, I couldn't bare to see Blair stood naked outside Westminster with just a bit of tarpaulin covering his bits. He can take the pension if it saves us from that.

I would like to see him, and George Bush junior at the Hague for war crimes!Weapons of mass destruction my backdside!

 

[Groucho]

 

[Joey66]

I hope people realise how nasty the Tories are - look after the rich end of!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

To be fair, they haven't been very complementary of any of the parties economic policies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32424739

 

[Lukaku'sLeftTesticle]

I guess that's why we're having a general election.

No, people dont want to have any party from the selection in. Its a faux democracy with very very little choice. If you live in a safe seat your voice / vote counts for sh it anyway whilst people from others area have far more influence on the outcome than others

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Given the plans to get more staff into the NHS, this might be of interest

 

[hullefc]

My understanding of this (which is limited - I'm happy to admit I'm no expert) is that there was an attempt to deflate the price of gold so that certain US banks, who were on the verge of collapse (ironic I know) could replenish their stocks. Was this a shady practice? Quite possibly. Was it required to stave off financial meltdown? Quite probably. The reason I think that it was, is because Brown announced in advance he was going to sell off a lot of the countries gold reserves. There was no secrecy about it.

Despite what a lot of people say, Gordon Brown was (and is) an exceptional world economist. I have heard this 1st hand from a family friend who was a founding member of the BOE Monetary Policy Committee and currently holds a significant position at the OBR. I know this sounds like a jarg transfer rumour type claim, I'm happy for you to take it or leave it, its your choice. Brown didn't just want to see a few extra pennies in the country's coffers. There was a reason for his actions. As the article I posted earlier suggested, the 'loss' to the country in the scheme of things was quite small. If he hadn't have sold the gold, things could've been a lot worse.

Sounds more like a Delboy spiv to me. He was prepared to sell gold at a knocked down price to bail out a US bank, and 'save' the US financial system. The very same financial system that has constantly pushed the US government to take financial trade war 'action' against UK financial institutes, so much so that the UK financial sector has fallen from top dog to 3rd. To be overtaken by Wall Street. Some 'exceptional economist' is that. The warning signs of global financial collapse was all too evident in 2002 and what did Brown do? Buried his head in the sands as long as money was flowing into the City.

Revealed: why Gordon Brown sold Britain's gold at a knock ...


"It seemed almost as if the Treasury was trying to achieve the lowest price possible for the public’s gold. It was.

One of the most popular trading plays of the late 1990s was the carry trade, particularly the gold carry trade.

In this a bank would borrow gold from another financial institution for a set period, and pay a token sum relative to the overall value of that gold for the privilege.

Once control of the gold had been passed over, the bank would then immediately sell it for its full market value. The proceeds would be invested in an alternative product which was predicted to generate a better return over the period than gold which was enduring a spell of relative price stability, even decline.

At the end of the allotted period, the bank would sell its investment and use the proceeds to buy back the amount of gold it had originally borrowed. This gold would be returned to the lender. The borrowing bank would trouser the difference between the two prices.

This plan worked brilliantly when gold fell and the other asset – for the bank at the heart of this case, yen-backed securities – rose. When the prices moved the other way, the banks were in trouble.

This is what had happened on an enormous scale by early 1999. One globally significant US bank in particular is understood to have been heavily short on two tonnes of gold, enough to call into question its solvency if redemption occurred at the prevailing price.

Goldman Sachs, which is not understood to have been significantly short on gold itself, is rumoured to have approached the Treasury to explain the situation through its then head of commodities Gavyn Davies, later chairman of the BBC and married to Sue Nye who ran Brown’s private office.

Faced with the prospect of a global collapse in the banking system, the Chancellor took the decision to bail out the banks by dumping Britain’s gold, forcing the price down and allowing the banks to buy back gold at a profit, thus meeting their borrowing obligations".

 

[Groucho]

To be fair, they haven't been very complementary of any of the parties economic policies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32424739

It's just a massive, glorified slanging match, isn't it?

 

[roydo]

It's just a massive, glorified slanging match, isn't it?

Yep.

I have been more inclined to fashion my views from this thread rather than what any politician has said in the last few weeks.

But I would love to see Sturgeon put under some sort of proper examination. Everyone else had. Even Farage, who, lets face it, is likely to have less seats than the Northern Irish parties.

But someone who;

1. Is not even standing, but,

2. Could, by proxy, hold the balance of power has had a totally free run so far.

It is a disgrace imo.

 

[daylightrobber]

Sounds more like a Delboy spiv to me. He was prepared to sell gold at a knocked down price to bail out a US bank, and 'save' the US financial system. The very same financial system that has constantly pushed the US government to take financial trade war 'action' against UK financial institutes, so much so that the UK financial sector has fallen from top dog to 3rd. To be overtaken by Wall Street. Some 'exceptional economist' is that. The warning signs of global financial collapse was all too evident in 2002 and what did Brown do? Buried his head in the sands as long as money was flowing into the City.

Revealed: why Gordon Brown sold Britain's gold at a knock ...


"It seemed almost as if the Treasury was trying to achieve the lowest price possible for the public’s gold. It was.

One of the most popular trading plays of the late 1990s was the carry trade, particularly the gold carry trade.

In this a bank would borrow gold from another financial institution for a set period, and pay a token sum relative to the overall value of that gold for the privilege.

Once control of the gold had been passed over, the bank would then immediately sell it for its full market value. The proceeds would be invested in an alternative product which was predicted to generate a better return over the period than gold which was enduring a spell of relative price stability, even decline.

At the end of the allotted period, the bank would sell its investment and use the proceeds to buy back the amount of gold it had originally borrowed. This gold would be returned to the lender. The borrowing bank would trouser the difference between the two prices.

This plan worked brilliantly when gold fell and the other asset – for the bank at the heart of this case, yen-backed securities – rose. When the prices moved the other way, the banks were in trouble.

This is what had happened on an enormous scale by early 1999. One globally significant US bank in particular is understood to have been heavily short on two tonnes of gold, enough to call into question its solvency if redemption occurred at the prevailing price.

Goldman Sachs, which is not understood to have been significantly short on gold itself, is rumoured to have approached the Treasury to explain the situation through its then head of commodities Gavyn Davies, later chairman of the BBC and married to Sue Nye who ran Brown’s private office.

Faced with the prospect of a global collapse in the banking system, the Chancellor took the decision to bail out the banks by dumping Britain’s gold, forcing the price down and allowing the banks to buy back gold at a profit, thus meeting their borrowing obligations".

Hang fire whilst I find a left wing publication's argument to counter your right wing one. I'll obviously need to find one that suggests he didn't sell it deliberately low for the sake of it or to help out the husband of a colleague. I might be a while.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Owen Jones - A Cruel Society is Being Built, Voting Labour Begins the Fightback.

It’s a moment many of us who oppose this government have had: something that powerfully crystallises just what is at stake. For me, it was on 17 July 2014. Sue Jones tweeted me: her disabled daughter had died; thus she had a spare room; thus she had to pay the bedroom tax. “It’s been an epic nightmare,” she wrote. “Shameful and cruel.”

It had been “like dealing with robots”, she later told me. “No room for discussion. Their answer was, pay or move.”.....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/21/cruel-society-vote-labour-rights-tory

 

[roydo]

Owen Jones - A Cruel Society is Being Built, Voting Labour Begins the Fightback.

It’s a moment many of us who oppose this government have had: something that powerfully crystallises just what is at stake. For me, it was on 17 July 2014. Sue Jones tweeted me: her disabled daughter had died; thus she had a spare room; thus she had to pay the bedroom tax. “It’s been an epic nightmare,” she wrote. “Shameful and cruel.”

It had been “like dealing with robots”, she later told me. “No room for discussion. Their answer was, pay or move.”.....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/21/cruel-society-vote-labour-rights-tory

I have said it numerous times. That policy, be it The Spare Room Subsidy or Bedroom Tax, depending on your view, was just a stupid, needless one by the Coalition/Tories.

I would guess the cash saved has been minimal in the scheme of things, but it has given the opposition parties a stick to beat them with for 3 years or so.

 

[Deggo]

No, people dont want to have any party from the selection in. Its a faux democracy with very very little choice. If you live in a safe seat your voice / vote counts for sh it anyway whilst people from others area have far more influence on the outcome than others

I'm glad I'm in a labour safe seat,I've always voted labour and always will and believe my vote counts for just as much as anyone else's

If Milliband is prime minister come May 8th I can tell myself 'I put you there'

 

[roydo]

I'm glad I'm in a labour safe seat,I've always voted labour and always will and believe my vote counts for just as much as anyone else's

If Milliband is prime minister come May 8th I can tell myself 'I put you there'

Yeah, but if Cameron is, you can say "there was nothing I could do to stop it"