General Election June 8th

[shemnel]

Would you disagree?

(You won't often find me defending a Labour government, so make the most of it!)

disagree that it's a sad statement? or disagree about letting them crash/bailing out?

if the latter, it's probably only the principled-without-reason who would wholeheartedly claim that letting the banks fail was the right thing to do. I was extremely displeased with that situation (and had my rants about letting them go under, and fuck them etc etc.) but in reality it was an impossible situation.

Another side to this is the laws in place that allowed that to come about and the subsequent insurance markets that have arisen, creating more false wealth on top of what is already a pretty dodgy financial system. I dont think the government has learnt at all, and i dont think it wants to. Anyway, your original point, i think on balance the banks should have been bailed out.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

I know quite a few people, including my parents who would flat out refuse to vote labour because of Diane Abbott. I know that's anecdotal but she is an absolutely appalling human being and getting rid of her is only going to help, just don't know why they waited so long.

She's not been replaced he's just got someone to cover for the period of her "illness".

 

[stonerblue]

Holy crap, Diane Abbott has just been sacked

stepped aside due to ill health

 

[domalino]

She's not been replaced he's just got someone to cover for the period of her "illness".

Yes she's not been replaced permanently...yet.

That will come later.

 

[hilts]

A lot of casual racism in this thread over ms Abbott. Get well soon your country needs you.

 

[Chippy_boy]

reduction in support to the disabled, reduction the social care for the elderly, artificially reducing the money to those out of work by making it not viable to claim in many cases, increase in VAT which disproportionally affects the poor, tax credits not keeping pace with inflation, loss of housing benefits for the 18-25 year olds, the bedroom tax, etc etc etc

the less well off pay marginally less in direct taxes but have lost much more in indirect taxes and loss of benefits
And it is true the better off have been favoured.
I have and its wrong.

those earning even more than me (i suppose I am middle/middle class) have been favoured even more and thats wrong as well

I hear you mate, and I don't seek to defend absolutely everything. I've been very critical of May in particular as you will have seen.

But all the things you cite are government spending reductions. That's what they are. A government spending too much and receiving too little, needs to cut its spending and boost its income. It does that by raising taxes and by making cuts.

It is of course unavoidable that cuts you describe are felt more by people who receive such benefits. But you cannot cut *nothing*, so what would you have them cut? More police cuts? Deeper NHS cuts? Seriously what would you have them cut MORE, in order to maintain the benefits you describe.

On the other side of the coin, taxes have been increased with more and more people paying 40% on part of their incomes. The reduction in the top rate from 50% to 45% may sound unsavoury (it does) but it actually raises MORE tax and therefore helps. Perhaps the Tories should not have cut it simply because doing so looks bad, I accept that. But cutting it did raise more money.

 

[domalino]

A lot of casual racism in this thread over ms Abbott. Get well soon your country needs you.

Can you point out the casual racism?

 

[jonmcity]

Saving the banks was necessary, but so too was greater and more stringent regulation of what they did thenceforward.
Would be surprised if we're not discussing this again further down the line, alas.

OK but why have all the CEO's not been given 10 years in prison?

 

[hilts]

Can you point out the casual racism?

Anyone who posted negativity on the ability of ms Abbott

 

[Chippy_boy]

OK but why have all the CEO's not been given 10 years in prison?

Have they done anything illegal? I really don't know.

Surely you are not advocating inventing new laws and retrospectively punishing people for laws that did not exist at the time? Or perhaps just not bothering with laws at all, and simply sending people you don't like to prison?

I am sure that as a sensible person, you would suggest neither. If people broke the law, I am sure they will have been investigated and prosecuted.