General Election 2010

@ tiswas; Offering free represention to individuals who got out of screwy financial advisors for bad advice / fraud / mismanagement? The casework volume was enormous, hence the behemoth Canary Wharf building.

TBH when he starts talking about it, I tend to glaze over and watch the parakeets in his garden. I imagine he would, like all ex employees say that it had good intentions etc. etc.

Can you ask your old man which the FSA's biggest successes were?

And how many banks collapsed and had to be nationalised under the previous system?

And how many banks collapsed and had to be nationalised under the previous system?

Pfft. Really? This is massive goal post shifting.

And don't tell me the deregulation was a socialist action, it's pure NL / Cons mini state. Are you honestly suggesting that Osbourne will put in more regulation?

I won't, and havent.
It was an incompetent idiot's action. No more, no less.

Pfft. Really? This is massive goal post shifting.

:-)

In all fairness, and out of respect to your pa, that level of regulation was never really the issue, and, to a certain extent, was already covered by the OFT and existing bodies.

It doesn't cover the big stuff, like capital adequacy, gearing, value at risk and the killer, due dilligence.

Hmm parakeets.

;-)

YouTube- Election 2010 Live Debate The Mandelson Experience featuring Gordon Brown "no bigoted women" edition

Shit, if I lived in Hackney South and Shoreditch I'd be able to vote for a real live Liberal Party candidate. None of this modern Lib Dem nonsense :-)

Sorry if it's been mentioned, but when should we expect to receive polling cards or is this old fashioned?
#clueless

You should have received them by now.

But you don't need them to vote - just turn up with proof of ID / Address.

Cheers matey, thought so.

I will say it is underhanded though - these are views of party members, but in an attempt to come off as electable, the more extreme aspects are silenced from within the party.

Like Ruth Kelly?

I refer you to this point I've already made (albeit, in pretty piss poor English, so I've cleaned it up):

Again, a labour member (or number of labour members) who has (have) a conservative edge to them proves neither that Labour is just as bad as the Conservatives, nor that the Conservative party is not conservative. It just shows Labour is fucked.

You will find more (and worse) Ruth Kellys in the Conservative party than Labour. This is not a statement of support for Labour.

Can you ask your old man which the FSA's biggest successes were?

They do pretty good drivetrain components, stems, wheels, etc.

You will find more (and worse) Ruth Kellys in the Conservative party than Labour.

That's because she's standing down ;^)

*To spend more time with God, I believe.

Because they want to be elected.

This is the implied 'secrecy' I mentioned.

Again, a labour member (or number of labour members) who has a conservative edge to them does neither proves that Labour is just as bad as the Conservatives, nor that the Conservative party is not conservative. It just shows Labour is fucked.

It's not entirely clear what you are saying here, at least to me (and I am currently sober).

I am not saying that a few New Labour members have a 'conservative edge'. I am saying New Labour are no less entangled with religion that the Conservatives, they have devoutly religious members, MPs, cabinet members, going all the way up to the longest serving PM in Labour history, a hungry promotion of sectarian schooling . . . etc (I am starting to sound like a broken record).

"It just shows Labour is fucked."

Again, not entirely sure what you are saying here, I suspect it's a bit of a 'No True Scotsman' argument. Things are just what they are, New Labour is New Labour, if they put great efforts into faith schools that is then something that defines them, you cannot hold them up against an idealised version of themselves and point out how much they might have deviated, the idealised version simply does not exist.

Hope that makes sense !!?

"I will say it is underhanded though - these are views of party members, but in an attempt to come off as electable, the more extreme aspects are silenced from within the party."

Like Ruth Kelly?

Yep, Ruth Kelly, The Muslim Council of Britain, numerous literalist Christian and Muslim MPs, Blair himself ('we don't do God' A.C.) . . . . and so on - all had their more extreme views silenced (or at least tempered) for much the same reasons.

No I didn't mean there would not be a global recession just not the mess we in Britain are in now. We're only voting for a British government after all. It look New Labour, and Brown in particular to leave** Britain in a worse economic state than any other industrialised country**, having mismanaged the economy to such an extent that while everyone else was saving money during the good times in order to have something to spend during the recession Brown was spending and wasting it left right and centre and instead leaving us with a trillion pound budget deficit about as great in GDP terms as that of Greece.

?

Tynan, I think Horatio's (and my) point is that social conservatism suits the religious particularly well, as they are, after all, socially conservative. For all its myriad faults, I don't think you can argue that Labour is as socially conservative as the Tories. The New Labour version of religion is almost painfully "young Anglican vicar" - as opposed to "young Evangelist vicar".

(Now I come to think of it, Private Eye got there first with the St Alban's Parish Newsletter.)

A recent piece by Chomsky on terrorism. Some of you will find it worthwhile I think

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-evil-scourge-of-terrorism-by-noam-chomsky

Can't get your link to work, Will. Is it this one?

http://hcvanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/chomsky-the-evil-scourge-of-terrorism-special-focus-on-nicaragua-and-cuba/

If it was that one, thanks - really enjoyed reading it.

Tynan, I think Horatio's (and my) point is that social conservatism suits the religious particularly well, as they are, after all, socially conservative. For all its myriad faults, I don't think you can argue that Labour is as socially conservative as the Tories.

I haven't argued that, so I won't defend it.

Horatio posted a link to a Tory who believes that intercessory prayer can cure various ills including exercising 'demons', saying that the Conservatives keep these kind of things secret, but that with a majority at a general election might 'show itself once they are in power.

I say to you (I learnt that off the politicians) - the suggestion that given a big enough majority that extreme superstition like this might 'show itself' (it's not entirely clear what Horatio means here) - is silly - and if this is put forward as a partisan issue New Labour is as steeped in this kind of cloying shit as any party.

Can't get your link to work, Will. Is it this one?

http://hcvanalysis.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/chomsky-the-evil-scourge-of-terrorism-special-focus-on-nicaragua-and-cuba/

Yes, that one. And don't you go blaming my link, it works perfectly well on my computer. Perhaps you need to ditch the Spectrum and* contemporise, man*.

I haven't argued that, so I won't defend it.

Horatio posted a link to a Tory who believes that intercessory prayer can cure various ills including exercising 'demons', saying that the Conservatives keep these kind of things secret, but that with a majority at a general election might 'show itself once they are in power.

I say to you (I learnt that off the politicians) - the suggestion that given a big enough majority that extreme superstition like this might 'show itself' (it's not entirely clear what Horatio means here) - is silly - and if this is put forward as a partisan issue New Labour is as steeped in this kind of cloying shit as any party.

Then we're agreeing to argue about different things? I'm confused*.

*Well, drunk.