Voted in local council election as well. For some reason voting in two wards so had four votes. Did a bit of LibDem Independent and Conservative. Didn't select any Labour simply to filter out those least likely to have formed their own opinions.
"Some of us are old enough to remember when the Tories didn't quite manage them as well too..."
Pmsl
Glad to have amused you fella. As someone who had to buy himself out of negative equity back in the day and facing interest rates of 15% I don't really find it that funny tbh be each to their own.
Yeah, it weren't just you either, but I weren't laughing at that as you well know. Cheers for twisting and adding to your point though
What I thought was funny was you bringing up something from yesteryear as an answer to what could be happening now.
Okay...firstly the point had been made by someone that the Tories had done well in controlling interest rates (ignoring the fact that we've had a coalition btw) to which I responded that they also have a history of rates rocketing on their watch, causing real hardship, the break up of families and homelessness in some cases. This effected me personally and after all took place only a few years before the last election the Tories managed to win. I think I'm entitled to a view.
Secondly we've had a succession of posts, often made by posters with zero practical experience of living and working under a Tory administration btw, telling us how terrible things were under the 70's Labour and how great things were/will be under the Tories again despite the fact the last election they actually won was 23 years ago.
Now I don't see you digging them out for bringing stuff up from "yesteryear", why would that be I wonder?
"Some of us are old enough to remember when the Tories didn't quite manage them as well too..."
Pmsl
Glad to have amused you fella. As someone who had to buy himself out of negative equity back in the day and facing interest rates of 15% I don't really find it that funny tbh be each to their own.
Yeah, it weren't just you either, but I weren't laughing at that as you well know. Cheers for twisting and adding to your point though
What I thought was funny was you bringing up something from yesteryear as an answer to what could be happening now.
Okay...firstly the point had been made by someone that the Tories had done well in controlling interest rates (ignoring the fact that we've had a coalition btw) to which I responded that they also have a history of rates rocketing on their watch, causing real hardship, the break up of families and homelessness in some cases. This effected me personally and after all took place only a few years before the last election the Tories managed to win. I think I'm entitled to a view.
Secondly we've had a succession of posts, often made by posters with zero practical experience of living and working under a Tory administration btw, telling us how terrible things were under the 70's Labour and how great things were/will be under the Tories again despite the fact the last election they actually won was 23 years ago.
Now I don't see you digging them out for bringing stuff up from "yesteryear", why would that be I wonder?
This very nearly happened to me under a Labour scum term when I was signed off long term and weren't entitled to any help (as I've explained before). Because I had more than a certain amount of dough in my account over a certain period, I was a millionaire and could look after meself according to them. In fact, it didn't just nearly make me homeless, it nearly killed me. (I'm still paying for it now both financially and physically)..
BUT, none of that has had any effect on who I voted for today honestly. Ed the Daffy Duck Miliband ruled Labour out for me at the first hurdle
So, Thursday morning, read this. Obviously, don't slavishly follow it, because no-one should tell you whom to vote for. But read it anyway, before popping to the polling station.
I think that's one of the poorest pieces of "journalism" I've read this campaign and considering I've read an Owen Jones piece that's saying something.
Same old boring anti-Tory tropes that simply aren't true. We're on polling day and one of Britain's lefties papers can't even present an actual real reason to vote against the Tories. Considering Labour have sold out the true left in this country, I could forgive papers for being so desperate but it's frankly pathetic where the left-wing movement currently stands considering how influential it was for most of the 20th century. If we want a real opposition in this country to neo-liberalism, we need to stop supporting a left-wing stuck in the 1970s and look at the modern left in Europe who are able to deliver competent socially-aware policies without the economic vandalism that used to accompany 1970s socialism.
As someone has already pointed out that was an opinion by a commentator/columnist/commedien. It was the expression of an opinion, just like all the articles you link to and all the posts that you, myself and everybody else on here make.
So, Thursday morning, read this. Obviously, don't slavishly follow it, because no-one should tell you whom to vote for. But read it anyway, before popping to the polling station.
I think that's one of the poorest pieces of "journalism" I've read this campaign and considering I've read an Owen Jones piece that's saying something.
Same old boring anti-Tory tropes that simply aren't true. We're on polling day and one of Britain's lefties papers can't even present an actual real reason to vote against the Tories. Considering Labour have sold out the true left in this country, I could forgive papers for being so desperate but it's frankly pathetic where the left-wing movement currently stands considering how influential it was for most of the 20th century. If we want a real opposition in this country to neo-liberalism, we need to stop supporting a left-wing stuck in the 1970s and look at the modern left in Europe who are able to deliver competent socially-aware policies without the economic vandalism that used to accompany 1970s socialism.
Poorest pieces of journalism !!!!!!
You did see the front page of The Sun yesterday. Nothing could be more pathetic than that right wing piece of shit.
You are as usual myopic to the point of humour.
Is the Sun now right wing? I gave up reading it when it was supporting Blair!
Well it's supporting the Conservatives. That right wing enough for you ?
I thought that The Sun backed whoever it thought was gonna win
The Sun is (usually) the reason why people win. Their influence is huge but is being broken down this year through the advent of social media politics.
No way is that true, it's influence is down because it hurt innocent families who lost their children, meaning folks like me and many others like me refuse to acknowledge it's existence, it is banned in my lorries, it is banned in my vans, it is banned in my home, my office, my warehouse And I genuinely think I would tell anyone who bought it whilst working for me will face the chop if they do it again.
If you had the on Zero hours contracts you could just not give them anymore work!
Agree with your sentiment though. For that and what they said about the Hillsborough victims, make you realise that it is just not harmless fun.
I suppose what hey are doing to Miliband is similar nasty stuff.
Slightly bizarre sitting in cafe and big black cockney geezer going round the tables telling everyone to vote 'you clip' and send all the foreigners home.
He's also not sure when the voting is and how many days it lasts for.
Well at 7:20am I voted. As Winston Churchill once suggested “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
On the one hand when I vote I feel emotional as I think of all my YMCA friend ( I work for the charity) around the world who live and work in countries that do not have democracies and freedoms that we enjoy. Our friends and partners in the Belarus YMCA readily spring to mind , but there are many others.
Notwithstanding the above the three major parties should hang their heads in shame. It has been an appalling election campaign characterised by negativity, a distinct lack of any kind of vision ,and a sense that we are being asked to choose who is the best manager , not who has the best policies.There has been no party expressing a clear vision for the type of country we could be , should be. I have the distinct sense that we have a ruling class from all parties for whom clinging onto power remains the key objective.
Sad to say it , but our politicians are bringing democracy into disrepute.
Well on polling day I still struggle to determine any real difference between the offerings of the mainstream UK political parties, though to which minority agenda which party may be held hostage presents a twist on the usual debate.
SNP involvement in UK governance is constitutionally correct but has the real potential for a major conflict of interest. With the SNP stated agenda of breaking from the union none can be comfortable with prospect of them sitting on both respective legislative assemblies. It should be a matter of serious consideration for all voters.
I applaud the passion of the posters on this thread but for all of the wealth of detail (no matter its selectivity), theoretical debate, claim and counter claim, ultimately for me they all argue to the margins of the challenges facing society today. The actual political interchange, by comparison, has been passionless, lacking creativity, vision & conviction. The media fluff, (who seeks Brands' juvenile support?) upon which so much comment has been made, carries all the depth of "Loose Women" sound bite discussions.
If 63 million people futures depend on such elements we will all get the government we deserve. Once again people will simply vote not for what they do want but for what they do not want. Vote to get the Tories out is no argument at all unless you are convinced about what you are going to replace it with. When will we ever learn change for changes sake hardly ever ends well?
I have enjoyed the contributions though I am afraid the Muttley, Bournemouth and Seriously Red position on the global recession confuses me. Was there a global recession? Yes. Should it have caused the collapse of the UK banking system? No! The neglect by the FSA, a creation spawned from the Blair/ Brown bible of plausible deniability was criminal. Repeated B of E warnings on money supply were ignored. The FSA charged by Labour to exert a light touch to regulatory control failed to act. Sub prime "investments" were laughable.
Guided by Greenspan, the guru of "laissez faire" (nobody does less regulation) they put the decades old legitimate Reagan/ Thatcher global capital initiative into overdrive fuelling an unsustainable surge of money into the UK economy. It provided economic growth. Brown, with Balls in tow, beguiled by the exchequer revenue sat in their counting house as financial markets distorted to the level it broke the UK banking system.
In traditional terms it is still broken. I recognise the bail out rationale (it was a bail out - trading government securities is a mainstay of market liquidity, printing money to buy them back to enable banks to trade is not). Panic froze interbank trading, none had a clue of the level of "toxic paper" held by each bank. Even today interbank market trading I suspect relies on government taxpayer backed guarantees. Liquidity relies on quantitative easing. To those seeking to defend banks please don't. I spent years in Bank treasury.
Banking is supposed to boring. Stick to the basic cannons and all will be well. It is not difficult. The abject neglect by the banks, authorities & government was criminal. Why? Because banks play a key role in fuelling trade. So bad was the damage that even post bail out banks failed to fulfil their responsibilities to the society they serve, as the chorus of business complaints, desperate to secure funding to build trade, grew ever louder. It is no surprise growth & deficit reductions targets have not been met.
Blair to maintain power sold the soul of the Labour Party so forgive my amusement at the concept Labour continues to represent the less privileged in our society. Under Labour who benefitted most from the - glut of cheap credit flowing into the UK - the haves or have nots? - "buy to rent" schemes fuelled by such credit - the haves or have nots? - bank bails outs - the haves or have nots?
Who now enjoy the benefits of substantial property price values with record low mortgage rates, which drives record low savings rates, while young families struggle to pay rents spending up to 65% of disposable income to put an adequate roof over their head - the haves or have nots?
Who shattered the property market link between housing costs and earnings to the point I doubt it can be recovered without a redesign of the entire market? Who benefits the haves or have nots?
Who brokered the bank bail out deals allowing effectively insolvent companies to still pay obscene bonuses?
Who channelled young people to a university education to the detriment of all others with no sustainable plan to finance that education resulting in a dramatic funding need creating a tortuous student loan market - Who benefits most - the have or have nots?
Who failed to recognise and then respond to the influx of low paid immigrants into the UK without addressing the provision of adequate additional resources to meet the increased demands on the countrys' infrastructure?
Who took the country into an illegal Iraq war to the financial cost of all of us and the ultimate cost for far too many young people who chose to serve our country?
Against this background I would suggest the coalition has done OK, nothing more. I have no affinity with the Conservatives (after Majors betrayal of the working middle class) or the Lib Dems though to be fair they have added a touch of humanity to the austerity. It crucially has maintained a financial credibility in a hostile global market, made a modest impact on the countries P&L and has more people in work than ever before.
The cuts have hurt many of the vulnerable in society but where do we find the funding to pay for the increases in spending on the very valuable public services people we all need. A government only has 3 sources, the sale of assets, the commercial or personal taxpayer or more borrowing. Ultimately it is you, me or our children? Can/ Will you pay more? By what level of arrogance do we suppose future generations will have the capacity to meet the debts we incur today? Sadly for some the sense of entitlement still shines brightly. That is all well and good but who pays for that entitlement. The government has no money - it is the taxpayers' (again you and me) money.
I love Seriously Reds' government debt model. He must be part French, Italian, Portugese, Spanish or Greek. They would love him. Government debt? Pfft! means nothing. Sadly it really does as I suspect the Greeks will soon discover. The assertion mirrors the Klugman fiscal panic theory.
Klugman is an eminent analyst/ theorist but, a brief period in the Reagan White House apart, where has he dirtied his hands "at the coal face"? Is he not just a "theatre critic who cannot act"? His theories seem to do little more than perpetually kick any problem down the road. Much of his comment is inconsistent, selective & opportunistic, paradoxically critical of Greenspans' ideology he endorsed Brown who embraced such ideology.
The comment on PIGS borrowing costs are a case in point. We will see more scrambling in the Eurozone. There will be another recession yet I see little in any of the manifestos which comes even close to addressing such probability. It is delusional. Even today I doubt anyone has a true understanding of the actual & borderline toxic debt sitting on Pan European Governmental and bank balance sheets. We have a global economy propped up by printing money.
Where does all that leave this electorate? With precious choice. Where is the vision? The creativity? The conviction? The inclusive roadmap for the next 5 & 10yrs?
Society faces huge challenges over the coming decade in housing, health, education, transport and energy and yes the wealth creation to pay for them - on the basis of the current offerings most people seem to voting on the basis of who they do not want to rearrange their deck chairs.
Well on polling day I still struggle to determine any real difference between the offerings of the mainstream UK political parties, though to which minority agenda which party may be held hostage presents a twist on the usual debate.
SNP involvement in UK governance is constitutionally correct but has the real potential for a major conflict of interest. With the SNP stated agenda of breaking from the union none can be comfortable with prospect of them sitting on both respective legislative assemblies. It should be a matter of serious consideration for all voters.
I applaud the passion of the posters on this thread but for all of the wealth of detail (no matter its selectivity), theoretical debate, claim and counter claim, ultimately for me they all argue to the margins of the challenges facing society today. The actual political interchange, by comparison, has been passionless, lacking creativity, vision & conviction. The media fluff, (who seeks Brands' juvenile support?) upon which so much comment has been made, carries all the depth of "Loose Women" sound bite discussions.
If 63 million people futures depend on such elements we will all get the government we deserve. Once again people will simply vote not for what they do want but for what they do not want. Vote to get the Tories out is no argument at all unless you are convinced about what you are going to replace it with. When will we ever learn change for changes sake hardly ever ends well?
I have enjoyed the contributions though I am afraid the Muttley, Bournemouth and Seriously Red position on the global recession confuses me. Was there a global recession? Yes. Should it have caused the collapse of the UK banking system? No! The neglect by the FSA, a creation spawned from the Blair/ Brown bible of plausible deniability was criminal. Repeated B of E warnings on money supply were ignored. The FSA charged by Labour to exert a light touch to regulatory control failed to act. Sub prime "investments" were the decades old legitimate Reagan/ Thatcher global capital initiative into overdrive fuelling an unsustainable surge of money into the UK economy. It provided economic growth. Brown, with Balls in tow, beguiled by the exchequer revenue sat in their counting house as financial markets distorted to the level it broke the UK banking system.
In traditional terms it is still broken. I recognise the bail out rationale (it was a bail out - trading government securities is a mainstay of market liquidity, printing money to buy them back to enable banks to trade is not). Panic froze interbank trading, none had a clue of the level of "toxic paper" held by each bank. Even today interbank market trading I suspect relies on government taxpayer backed guarantees. Liquidity relies on quantitative easing. To those seeking to defend banks please don't. I spent years in Bank treasury.
Banking is supposed to boring. Stick to the basic cannons and all will be well. It is not difficult. The abject neglect by the banks, authorities & government was criminal. Why? Because banks play a key role in fuelling trade. So bad was the damage that even post bail out banks failed to fulfil their responsibilities to the society they serve, as the chorus of business complaints, desperate to secure funding to build trade, grew ever louder. It is no surprise growth & deficit reductions targets have not been met.
Blair to maintain power sold the soul of the Labour Party so forgive my amusement at the concept Labour continues to represent the less privileged in our society. Under Labour who benefitted most from the - glut of cheap credit flowing into the UK - the haves or have nots? - "buy to rent" schemes fuelled by such credit - the haves or have nots? - bank bails outs - the haves or have nots?
Who now enjoy the benefits of substantial property price values with record low mortgage rates, which drives record low savings rates, while young families struggle to pay rents spending up to 65% of disposable income to put an adequate roof over their head - the haves or have nots?
Who shattered the property market link between housing costs and earnings to the point I doubt it can be recovered without a redesign of the entire market? Who benefits the haves or have nots?
Who brokered the bank bail out deals allowing effectively insolvent companies to still pay obscene bonuses?
Who channelled young people to a university education to the detriment of all others with no sustainable plan to finance that education resulting in a dramatic funding need creating a tortuous student loan market - Who benefits most - the have or have nots?
Who failed to recognise and then respond to the influx of low paid immigrants into the UK without addressing the provision of adequate additional resources to meet the increased demands on the countrys' infrastructure?
Who took the country into an illegal Iraq war to the financial cost of all of us and the ultimate cost for far too many young people who chose to serve our country?
Against this background I would suggest the coalition has done OK, nothing more. I have no affinity with the Conservatives (after Majors betrayal of the working middle class) or the Lib Dems though to be fair they have added a touch of humanity to the austerity. It crucially has maintained a financial credibility in a hostile global market, made a modest impact on the countries P&L and has more people in work than ever before.
The cuts have hurt many of the vulnerable in society but where do we find the funding to pay for the increases in spending on the very valuable public services people we all need. A government only has 3 sources, the sale of assets, the commercial or personal taxpayer or more borrowing. Ultimately it is you, me or our children? Can/ Will you pay more? By what level of arrogance do we suppose future generations will have the capacity to meet the debts we incur today? Sadly for some the sense of entitlement still shines brightly. That is all well and good but who pays for that entitlement. The government has no money - it is the taxpayers' (again you and me) money.
I love Seriously Reds' government debt model. He must be part French, Italian, Portugese, Spanish or Greek. They would love him. Government debt? Pfft! means nothing. Sadly it really does as I suspect the Greeks will soon discover. The assertion mirrors the Klugman fiscal panic theory.
Klugman is an eminent analyst/ theorist but, a brief period in the Reagan White House apart, where has he dirtied his hands "at the coal face"? Is he not just a "theatre critic who cannot act"? His theories seem to do little more than perpetually kick any problem down the road. Much of his comment is inconsistent, selective & opportunistic, paradoxically critical of Greenspans' ideology he endorsed Brown who embraced such ideology.
The comment on PIGS borrowing costs are a case in point. We will see more scrambling in the Eurozone. There will be another recession yet I see little in any of the manifestos which comes even close to addressing such probability. It is delusional. Even today I doubt anyone has a true understanding of the actual & borderline toxic debt sitting on Pan European Governmental and bank balance sheets. We have a global economy propped up by printing money.
Where does all that leave this electorate? With precious choice. Where is the vision? The creativity? The conviction? The inclusive roadmap for the next 5 & 10yrs?
Society faces huge challenges over the coming decade in housing, health, education, transport and energy and yes the wealth creation to pay for them - on the basis of the current offerings most people seem to voting on the basis of who they do not want to rearrange their deck chairs.
Comments
I hope you get red and yellow blindness now!
Secondly we've had a succession of posts, often made by posters with zero practical experience of living and working under a Tory administration btw, telling us how terrible things were under the 70's Labour and how great things were/will be under the Tories again despite the fact the last election they actually won was 23 years ago.
Now I don't see you digging them out for bringing stuff up from "yesteryear", why would that be I wonder?
BUT, none of that has had any effect on who I voted for today honestly. Ed the Daffy Duck Miliband ruled Labour out for me at the first hurdle
The so called 'Leftie' Indepedent made its recommendation on Monday
Agree with your sentiment though. For that and what they said about the Hillsborough victims, make you realise that it is just not harmless fun.
I suppose what hey are doing to Miliband is similar nasty stuff.
He's also not sure when the voting is and how many days it lasts for.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
On the one hand when I vote I feel emotional as I think of all my YMCA friend ( I work for the charity) around the world who live and work in countries that do not have democracies and freedoms that we enjoy. Our friends and partners in the Belarus YMCA readily spring to mind , but there are many others.
Notwithstanding the above the three major parties should hang their heads in shame. It has been an appalling election campaign characterised by negativity, a distinct lack of any kind of vision ,and a sense that we are being asked to choose who is the best manager , not who has the best policies.There has been no party expressing a clear vision for the type of country we could be , should be. I have the distinct sense that we have a ruling class from all parties for whom clinging onto power remains the key objective.
Sad to say it , but our politicians are bringing democracy into disrepute.
Chester Bowles
SNP involvement in UK governance is constitutionally correct but has the real potential for a major conflict of interest. With the SNP stated agenda of breaking from the union none can be comfortable with prospect of them sitting on both respective legislative assemblies. It should be a matter of serious consideration for all voters.
I applaud the passion of the posters on this thread but for all of the wealth of detail (no matter its selectivity), theoretical debate, claim and counter claim, ultimately for me they all argue to the margins of the challenges facing society today. The actual political interchange, by comparison, has been passionless, lacking creativity, vision & conviction. The media fluff, (who seeks Brands' juvenile support?) upon which so much comment has been made, carries all the depth of "Loose Women" sound bite discussions.
If 63 million people futures depend on such elements we will all get the government we deserve. Once again people will simply vote not for what they do want but for what they do not want. Vote to get the Tories out is no argument at all unless you are convinced about what you are going to replace it with. When will we ever learn change for changes sake hardly ever ends well?
I have enjoyed the contributions though I am afraid the Muttley, Bournemouth and Seriously Red position on the global recession confuses me. Was there a global recession? Yes. Should it have caused the collapse of the UK banking system? No! The neglect by the FSA, a creation spawned from the Blair/ Brown bible of plausible deniability was criminal. Repeated B of E warnings on money supply were ignored. The FSA charged by Labour to exert a light touch to regulatory control failed to act. Sub prime "investments" were laughable.
Guided by Greenspan, the guru of "laissez faire" (nobody does less regulation) they put the decades old legitimate Reagan/ Thatcher global capital initiative into overdrive fuelling an unsustainable surge of money into the UK economy. It provided economic growth. Brown, with Balls in tow, beguiled by the exchequer revenue sat in their counting house as financial markets distorted to the level it broke the UK banking system.
In traditional terms it is still broken. I recognise the bail out rationale (it was a bail out - trading government securities is a mainstay of market liquidity, printing money to buy them back to enable banks to trade is not). Panic froze interbank trading, none had a clue of the level of "toxic paper" held by each bank. Even today interbank market trading I suspect relies on government taxpayer backed guarantees. Liquidity relies on quantitative easing. To those seeking to defend banks please don't. I spent years in Bank treasury.
Banking is supposed to boring. Stick to the basic cannons and all will be well. It is not difficult. The abject neglect by the banks, authorities & government was criminal. Why? Because banks play a key role in fuelling trade. So bad was the damage that even post bail out banks failed to fulfil their responsibilities to the society they serve, as the chorus of business complaints, desperate to secure funding to build trade, grew ever louder. It is no surprise growth & deficit reductions targets have not been met.
Blair to maintain power sold the soul of the Labour Party so forgive my amusement at the concept Labour continues to represent the less privileged in our society. Under Labour who benefitted most from the
- glut of cheap credit flowing into the UK - the haves or have nots?
- "buy to rent" schemes fuelled by such credit - the haves or have nots?
- bank bails outs - the haves or have nots?
Who now enjoy the benefits of substantial property price values with record low mortgage rates, which drives record low savings rates, while young families struggle to pay rents spending up to 65% of disposable income to put an adequate roof over their head - the haves or have nots?
Who shattered the property market link between housing costs and earnings to the point I doubt it can be recovered without a redesign of the entire market? Who benefits the haves or have nots?
Who brokered the bank bail out deals allowing effectively insolvent companies to still pay obscene bonuses?
Who channelled young people to a university education to the detriment of all others with no sustainable plan to finance that education resulting in a dramatic funding need creating a tortuous student loan market - Who benefits most - the have or have nots?
Who failed to recognise and then respond to the influx of low paid immigrants into the UK without addressing the provision of adequate additional resources to meet the increased demands on the countrys' infrastructure?
Who took the country into an illegal Iraq war to the financial cost of all of us and the ultimate cost for far too many young people who chose to serve our country?
Against this background I would suggest the coalition has done OK, nothing more. I have no affinity with the Conservatives (after Majors betrayal of the working middle class) or the Lib Dems though to be fair they have added a touch of humanity to the austerity. It crucially has maintained a financial credibility in a hostile global market, made a modest impact on the countries P&L and has more people in work than ever before.
The cuts have hurt many of the vulnerable in society but where do we find the funding to pay for the increases in spending on the very valuable public services people we all need. A government only has 3 sources, the sale of assets, the commercial or personal taxpayer or more borrowing. Ultimately it is you, me or our children? Can/ Will you pay more? By what level of arrogance do we suppose future generations will have the capacity to meet the debts we incur today? Sadly for some the sense of entitlement still shines brightly. That is all well and good but who pays for that entitlement. The government has no money - it is the taxpayers' (again you and me) money.
I love Seriously Reds' government debt model. He must be part French, Italian, Portugese, Spanish or Greek. They would love him. Government debt? Pfft! means nothing. Sadly it really does as I suspect the Greeks will soon discover. The assertion mirrors the Klugman fiscal panic theory.
Klugman is an eminent analyst/ theorist but, a brief period in the Reagan White House apart, where has he dirtied his hands "at the coal face"? Is he not just a "theatre critic who cannot act"? His theories seem to do little more than perpetually kick any problem down the road. Much of his comment is inconsistent, selective & opportunistic, paradoxically critical of Greenspans' ideology he endorsed Brown who embraced such ideology.
The comment on PIGS borrowing costs are a case in point. We will see more scrambling in the Eurozone. There will be another recession yet I see little in any of the manifestos which comes even close to addressing such probability. It is delusional. Even today I doubt anyone has a true understanding of the actual & borderline toxic debt sitting on Pan European Governmental and bank balance sheets. We have a global economy propped up by printing money.
Where does all that leave this electorate? With precious choice. Where is the vision? The creativity? The conviction? The inclusive roadmap for the next 5 & 10yrs?
Society faces huge challenges over the coming decade in housing, health, education, transport and energy and yes the wealth creation to pay for them - on the basis of the current offerings most people seem to voting on the basis of who they do not want to rearrange their deck chairs.
All hail democracy.
find your constituency, do the quiz, see how well you know your constituency