[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Charlie Brooker is a tv reviewer ffs


he is not some oracle

He is THE Oracle

[NettoSuperstar!]

43. His speeches are crap, banging on about change but not actually saying what that change will be (ie/ none as he hasnt got any idea)

[NettoSuperstar!]

44

Youtube video

[ILoveTRW]

this thread infuriates me

[bananarama]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm not voting, which will count for a vote for labour. It's the lesser of the evils.

Understand why you might not want to vote......But how does not voting translate into a vote for Labour!!!!!!!!

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by ILoveDC

this thread infuriates me

Do elaborate...

[NettoSuperstar!]

45. What a Twonk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ough-look.html

[NettoSuperstar!]

46. It is very hard for the British people to make a serious choice in this election without talking about one factor above all others – class. This isn't about David Cameron's background; it's about his policies. It is a provable fact that he will redistribute wealth – substantially – but in a strange direction: from everyone in the big wide middle and bottom of British society, to the very top.

....Yes, the differences between New Labour and the Conservatives are far too small, on this as on all issues. There are myriad ways in which the current Government has also spoon-fed the super-rich. They cheer-led the economy-crashing deregulation of the banks; they turned Britain into a de facto tax haven for non-doms; when you add it all up, a tycoon still scandalously pays a lower proportion of his income in tax than his secretary.

But it is wrong to say, on this issue, there is no difference at all. The gap is real, and millions of people live in that gap. The Institute of Fiscal Studies just published a long-term study of how Labour's tax changes have affected different classes, compared to the last Tory government. It found that the richest 10 per cent have seen their incomes cut by 9 per cent, to pay for an increase in the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent. A rich man has lost on average £25,000 a year; a poor woman has gained on average £1,700 a year. I have seen these changes among my own family and friends: gaining £1,700 is the difference between struggling to pay the bills, or being able to give your kids a summer holiday. Yes, there should have been much more – but the cigarette paper between the parties is big enough to make a pretty fat roll-up. Cameron's policies make it pretty plain: this redistribution will be slammed into reverse by him, with state cash flowing in the opposite direction.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1939666.html

http://www.ifs.org.uk/

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4806

[DrunkerThanMoses]

Oh I love this thread

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by NettoSuperstar!

46. It is very hard for the British people to make a serious choice in this election without talking about one factor above all others – class. This isn't about David Cameron's background; it's about his policies. It is a provable fact that he will redistribute wealth – substantially – but in a strange direction: from everyone in the big wide middle and bottom of British society, to the very top.

....Yes, the differences between New Labour and the Conservatives are far too small, on this as on all issues. There are myriad ways in which the current Government has also spoon-fed the super-rich. They cheer-led the economy-crashing deregulation of the banks; they turned Britain into a de facto tax haven for non-doms; when you add it all up, a tycoon still scandalously pays a lower


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1939666.html

http://www.ifs.org.uk/

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4806

Yes and Labour have done wonders for poverty in the UK havent they?

This election briefing note finds strong evidence of an increase in the rate of severe poverty since 2004-05, mirroring a rise in the official poverty rate, although the rate of persistent poverty does seem to have fallen under Labour, at least until 2007.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4809
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4808

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by bananarama

Understand why you might not want to vote......But how does not voting translate into a vote for Labour!!!!!!!!

If you don't vote it automatically goes as a vote for the party currently in charge or something like that.

[cupid stunt]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

If you don't vote it automatically goes as a vote for the party currently in charge or something like that.

seriously? WELL THEN PEOPLE NEED TO VOTE FOR LIB DEM, BECAUSE THAT EVIL BAS GORDON BROWN IS GONNA SEND THIS COUNTRY TO HELL

[BB_Eye]

With Straw committing Labour to libel reform and the Liberal Democrats signed up, what of the Tories?

Liberal Tories tell the Eye the partyis as commited to relaxing the laws as its rivals. They believe David Cameron won't stop at libel but will order a comprehensive review of all restrictions of free speech New Labour as imposed. But if he does, he will face ferocious opposition from within his party (and not just top suer and secrecy champion Lord Ashcroft).

The campaign against libel reform kicked off with a debate in the Commons in December 2008. Although Michael Gove, the Tory education spokesman, vigourously supported changing the law, the status quo was defended enthusiastically by his fellow Tory MPs. Chief among them was Edward Garnier, who announced: "I am a member of the defamation Bar, and I have earned my living and paid my mortgage thanks to the claimants and media organisations."

Pained by apparent Labour and Lib Dem criticism of Mr Justice Eady, Garnier added: "He is a friend of mine - we used to share a room in the chambers - and an extremely bright, careful and sensitive man."

Later, when Carter-Fuck (notoriously greedy law firm Carter-Ruck for those wondering) went to parliament to tell MPs that they, s lawyers, were right to defy centuries of parliamentary privilege and threaten to injunct the questions from Labour MP Paul Farrelly in the Trafigura affair, Garnier sat next to the Carter-Fuckers and could not have been chummier. This would matter less if he were not set to be attorney-general in a Cameron government.
- Private Eye

So much for "changing politics", eh Cameron?

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yes and Labour have done wonders for poverty in the UK havent they?


http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4809
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4808

Yeh bit of a mountain to climb after Thatcher eh! Labour havent done as much as they should I'll grant you but have tried! Its not just about tackling poverty, its about fairness and looking after the majority not the fat cats at the top. There is no chance of bridging the gap under a Tory govt.

"...the truth is that we are suffering the impact of the massive increases in income inequality under Thatcher, which Blair and Brown have since failed to reverse. In the 1980s the gulf between the top and bottom 20% widened by a full 60% – much the most dramatic widening of income differences on record. Since then there have been only minor fluctuations under Major, Blair and Brown. The result is that the gap between the top and bottom 20% in Britain is twice as big as among our more equal European partners.

Almost all of Gordon Brown's budgets did at least something to redistribute from rich to poor. But because the benefit was entirely offset by the unconstrained rise in top earnings, he can claim no more than having prevented a greater rise in inequality...."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ative-thatcher


"Income inequality
The latest data show that in 2007–08 income inequality was slightly higher than when Labour
came to power and higher than in any year since at least the 1950s. However, the rise in
income inequality under Labour is far smaller than the rise observed under the Conservatives
during the 1980s....Furthermore, Labour’s tax and benefit reforms have reduced income inequality compared
with the normal practice of the previous Conservative government of increasing all benefits and tax
credits broadly in line with prices. In other words, Labour’s tax and benefit reforms seem to have
prevented a larger rise in income inequality."

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn89.pdf

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

With Straw committing Labour to libel reform and the Liberal Democrats signed up, what of the Tories?

Liberal Tories tell the Eye the partyis as commited to relaxing the laws as its rivals. They believe David Cameron won't stop at libel but will order a comprehensive review of all restrictions of free speech New Labour as imposed. But if he does, he will face ferocious opposition from within his party (and not just top suer and secrecy champion Lord Ashcroft).

The campaign against libel reform kicked off with a debate in the Commons in December 2008. Although Michael Gove, the Tory education spokesman, vigourously supported changing the law, the status quo was defended enthusiastically by his fellow Tory MPs. Chief among them was Edward Garnier, who announced: "I am a member of the defamation Bar, and I have earned my living and paid my mortgage thanks to the claimants and media organisations."

Pained by apparent Labour and Lib Dem criticism of Mr Justice Eady, Garnier added: "He is a friend of mine - we used to share a room in the chambers - and an extremely bright, careful and sensitive man."

Later, when Carter-Fuck (notoriously greedy law firm Carter-Ruck for those wondering) went to parliament to tell MPs that they, s lawyers, were right to defy centuries of parliamentary privilege and threaten to injunct the questions from Labour MP Paul Farrelly in the Trafigura affair, Garnier sat next to the Carter-Fuckers and could not have been chummier. This would matter less if he were not set to be attorney-general in a Cameron government.
- Private Eye

So much for "changing politics", eh Cameron?

Stick a 47 on that my good man

[NettoSuperstar!]

48. Eddie Izzard says so and EeZer top geeZer!

Youtube video

http://www2.labour.org.uk/eddie-izza...election-film-

[Firewire]

I hate David Cameron.

If the torries get into power, they will tear Britain right down. Also, about 10 millionaires will be in the parliament. They are all for the rich.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Jonathan.

I hate David Cameron.

If the torries get into power, they will tear Britain right down. Also, about 10 millionaires will be in the parliament. They are all for the rich.

Do you mean like Lord Mandelson, Sir Neil Kinnock (the man who would never wear ermine, as soon as the expenses etc in Europe started to be reduced he changed his mind), Sir Alan Sugar (Labour peer and donator) or perhaps Lord Salisbury?

David Cameron has 19 millionaires serving in his Shadow Cabinet.
There are 26 millionaire Labour MPs, and 3 Lib-Dem millionaire MPs. (Daily Telegraph)

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Do you mean like Lord Mandelson, Sir Neil Kinnock (the man who would never wear ermine, as soon as the expenses etc in Europe started to be reduced he changed his mind), Sir Alan Sugar (Labour peer and donator) or perhaps Lord Salisbury?

David Cameron has 19 millionaires serving in his Shadow Cabinet.
There are 26 millionaire Labour MPs, and 3 Lib-Dem millionaire MPs. (Daily Telegraph)

I'm not surprised. Whether the Tories or Labour are in power is completely immaterial to your average big business CEO. It is always the lower middle classes and even the working class that bear the brunt of the tax burden while the wealth gap widens further and further. The only difference is that we get a more volatile economy under Cameron as taxes and public spending are rolled back and more wasteful bureaucracy under Labour. Take your pick everyone.

[NettoSuperstar!]

49. The UK economy is forecast to outstrip its G7 peers in the second quarter of this year, says the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development....thanks to Gordons actions, dont let Cameron **** it all up!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8606499.stm

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by NettoSuperstar!

49. The UK economy is forecast to outstrip its G7 peers in the second quarter of this year, says the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development....thanks to Gordons actions, dont let Cameron **** it all up!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8606499.stm

Thats because of the ability of British Businesses to bounce back, and the Bank of England being freed from governmental interference, not because of any action Gordon undertook during the recession.

Oh I get you Gordons plan of action was to take no action, sort of suck it and see?

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Thats because of the ability of British Businesses to bounce back, and the Bank of England being freed from governmental interference, not because of any action Gordon undertook during the recession.

Oh I get you Gordons plan of action was to take no action, sort of suck it and see?

Nah that was Camerons plan!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by NettoSuperstar!

Nah that was Camerons plan!

A supposition born out of your pathological hatred of all things tory, (was that genetic or brought on environmentally do you think?), given that Cameron wasnt in power. So we will never really know what would have happened if he had of been.

Whereas the point I made was proven by Browns inaction and indeciveness.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by NettoSuperstar!

46. It is very hard for the British people to make a serious choice in this election without talking about one factor above all others – class. This isn't about David Cameron's background; it's about his policies. It is a provable fact that he will redistribute wealth – substantially – but in a strange direction: from everyone in the big wide middle and bottom of British society, to the very top.

....Yes, the differences between New Labour and the Conservatives are far too small, on this as on all issues. There are myriad ways in which the current Government has also spoon-fed the super-rich. They cheer-led the economy-crashing deregulation of the banks; they turned Britain into a de facto tax haven for non-doms; when you add it all up, a tycoon still scandalously pays a lower proportion of his income in tax than his secretary.

But it is wrong to say, on this issue, there is no difference at all. The gap is real, and millions of people live in that gap. The Institute of Fiscal Studies just published a long-term study of how Labour's tax changes have affected different classes, compared to the last Tory government. It found that the richest 10 per cent have seen their incomes cut by 9 per cent, to pay for an increase in the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent. A rich man has lost on average £25,000 a year; a poor woman has gained on average £1,700 a year. I have seen these changes among my own family and friends: gaining £1,700 is the difference between struggling to pay the bills, or being able to give your kids a summer holiday. Yes, there should have been much more – but the cigarette paper between the parties is big enough to make a pretty fat roll-up. Cameron's policies make it pretty plain: this redistribution will be slammed into reverse by him, with state cash flowing in the opposite direction.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-1939666.html

http://www.ifs.org.uk/

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4806

Well, perhaps if the Labour Party had controlled immigration which has now reached epic proportions, there would be a lot more wealth to distribute to those of us poor saps who work and pay taxes in this country, and are fed up to the back teeth seeing it being handed blithely over to all and sundry (and sometimes to a fair few who are here illegally!).

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Jonathan.

I hate David Cameron.

If the torries get into power, they will tear Britain right down. Also, about 10 millionaires will be in the parliament. They are all for the rich.

Oh dear, why is the vote given to people who have no idea what they are talking about?