Joensuu

aint, sorry, but I disagree. Holepuncture doesn't say whether he thinks rape is or isn't a pakistani problem, he is instead singling out a race for criticism on flimsy evidence. In fact he has gone much further than Jack Straw did, claiming that it is 'children' that are being targetted. This has nothing to do with being politically correct, and everything to do with comon decency. Why single out any racial group? Especially when the overwhelming number of rapists in this country are white not asian. If you want, let's discuss this 'problem' 'out in the open and discuss it rationally', without the banding around terms such as 'PC' which are not useful to the debate. So I ask again, why single out Pakistanis if the intentions weren't racist?

So, Jack Straw said something inappropriate, and that means you can cite it as a fact? His illjudged statement has been roundly rebuked. The reason Straw said what he said is that he is that it will appeal to the voters of his constituency, where racial intergration has failed because of lack of community cohesion. Rape most definately isn't a Pakistani problem, it is a problem in every country, and community. BTW, the judge and the conviction of individuals are irrelevant, unless you want us to counter individual cases with the overwhelming number of examples of non-Pakistani rape convictions in the UK. If there is a higher correlation between a racial group and a conviction I would suggest the real correlation might actually be between income/poverty and the conviction (and nothing to do with race). So returning to your OP, I feel sad that so many Brits feel this way. The stat that 48% would consider voting for an authoritrian party is especially worrying, and something everyone (left, right or centre) should be very concerned about.

Distinctively Boris. Illogical, dotty, and always sounding half-cut. Brown did indeed try to save his ass with AV. It wasn't suggessful. Thankfully, the current move towards AV has nothing to do with Brown. I'm sure there are few people who actually want AV: people are divided between wanting a fair system (PR), vs those who put self-interest before democracy, and want to skew the number of votes cast in favour of bigger parties (FPTP). AV is a compromise which nobody is campaigning for, but it's a compromise that's better than the current mess. Brown's cynical attempts to cling to power, and Boris's eccentric waffling are irrelevant.

Remember crossing that aquaduct as a school kid. One of the other kids on the trip had their hand dangling over the side, and got it trapped between the barge and the concrete... thankfully he got away with it - just.

Perhap a solution would be to tax non-domiciled companies a higher rate of tax? Of course that would probably annoy our trade partners. So how about charge non-domiciled companies the difference in tax between the rate they pay in their registered state, and the UK corporate tax rate (i.e. make offshoring of no benefit to companies wanting to trade in the UK)?

I recognised the 'underbelly' behind your post, and responded to that... not the post itself. There are plenty of reasons why the loopholes haven't been filled. The one you are implying (to keep the company sweet) might indeed be one of them, but I'd argue that political lobbying, possible 'incentives' and 'sweeteners' to dissuade legislation, the general inadequacies of our large political parties (e.g. promotion only for those who toe the whip etc), and of course the legal minefield that has been left by years of legislation and counter legislation (without housekeeping), should all also be factored in. In answer to your genuine question: If the company isn't corrupt, the same rate that everyone else pays. Would Barclays flee the country if they (and their rivals) were forced to pay the tax, very doubtful - I have £5 billion reasons why even in a bad year a company might be tempted to stay: there is still money to make. Even if they did cut off their nose to offshore, the market would still be there, and presumably a competitor would fill the void, (and in so doing employ similar staff numbers to make similar profit).

Trousers, you do know your comment is absurd don't you? Do you honestly think that either of the following statements are true? The government are happy to receive only 1% tax from any company. Barclay's would relocate if they had to pay the same tax rates other companies do? I wish some of you would drop the politics for a second and approach these topics with an open mind. There is no way that 1% tax is acceptable for any profitable company. It's neither fair to the taxpayer, nor fair to other companies (who pay much higher rates). Sure, if they were currently paying 25%, and we were discussing whether they would relocate if we charged them 30% you might have a point, but quite simply we aren't, as such the 'relocating' argument isn't slightly relevant to the Barclay's situation. The fact is Barclay's are tacking the ****, out of us, the government and other companies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7878250.stm Yup £6bn of the £11bn in 2009 was indeed the sale of BGI, and yes I do recognise that some divisions made a profit, and others made losses, but it's the total figure that counts. Sure £5bn is a hefty drop in profits, but it is a substantial profit nontheless. Do correct me if I'm wrong, I thought you were suggesting the 2009 tax bill was small because of a 'horrendous losses'. I don't see a single loss (there is a massive difference between reduced profit, and making a loss).

Good job you're not built like Stu or Alps then.

Annual profit: 2006 - £7.14bn 2007 - £7.1bn 2008 - £6.08bn 2009 - £11.6bn (tax only £113m) 2010 - £6.07bn Sorry, but where are these 'horrendous losses'? (or do you really mean, 'reduced profit'? If so, how can a reduction in profit impact tax?)

Nice lake below the summit. Quite a walk for a geography field trip..

The capitalists on this thread make a good point. Taxing banks too much will drive them away. Anything over say 35% might cause them to upsticks. However, anyone who seriously believes 1% is too much is living on a different planet. 1% is tax avoidance, it involves loopholes and offshoring, it may (just) be within the law, but it certainly isn't within the spirit of the law. Barclays could (and should) be paying at least 20 times the amount of tax they did last year. This would not be anywhere near the level that would drive them away from London. Were Barclays (and other companies like Tescos) to be paying a fair amount of tax, the government's cuts would not need to be as harsh, and fledgling companies who are currently rendered uncompetitive by the unfair tax practicises of the big boys, would be able to stand on a level playing field and add to the economy. In reality, all captialists should be arguing that the big companies pay the same tax that smaller companies are forced to - without which it's hardly free market economics is it?

Knowing your love of history, I'm sure you'll check out some of the castles (Harlech, Caernarfon, Beaumaris) . There is also an alternative energy musuem just down the coast in Machynlleth, which I'm sure will be just up your street . Obviously Porthmerion if the weather is good. Bala (as already mentioned) has all the whitewater, and canyoning stuff, but also has a lake with all the boating/kayaking bits too. I'm sure there are some ex-mines you can visit near Blaenau Ffestiniog. And tearooms near the waterfall in Betws-y-Coed (I'm now picturing you with teapot and the blue rince brigade - disturbing). Oh, and make sure you have some good hike boots and an OS map (although you can buy private sector maps too, but I'm not sure they are either as cheap or as accurate).

So do I. Without any ITK knowledge to offer, his view seems to make the most sense.

Of course, but not the sort of person anyone sober would happy invite round their house.

I assume the line which suggests Skatesville is reminiscent of Serbia? Poor Serbia.

Yup. I do hope that people vote on the actual change, and not on the sound bites though. It worries me that the way that the change is explained can influence the outcome. In btf's link above, it seems that when people consider what the change actually means they are very much more in favour of it, whereas when it becomes clouded in sound bites and party politics people seem far from certain. I guess we just have to hope for fair impartial debate... Oh...

Absolutely, so someone like Dune would benefit from selecting only the parties he actually would like to see in power, in the order he would like to see them win the seat, without fear of wasting his vote, e.g. 1) BNP 2) UKIP 3) NF 4) Engish Democrats 5) Conservative, would allow Dune to ensure that he is voting for the party he agrees with most, but with the saftey net that if they are eliminated before receiving 50% his vote won't be wasted, and will carry over to another party who he would find acceptable. Eventually, if all of his first 4 choices are eliminated before the seat is won, his vote might tip the Conservatives past the 50% mark, and win them a seat. At no time is Dune forced to put a number against a party he can't stand - so, Dune won't need to put say a 6 against Labour, and a 7 against the Greens. NB, the order in which 'Dune' would vote in the scenario is entirely hypothetical.

I agree pedg, we can never know how other options might have turned out. I voted lib dem - not that it counted, and I can see what Clegg thought he was doing, but I don't think he exacted anything tangible from Cameron. A deal with the Conservatives was always going to put liberal backs out of joint, and only a major concession would have made it acceptable. STV was the only thing I could see being acceptable - no referendums or unwhipped votes. As it is the Lib Dems are being associated with all of the cuts and mistakes of Cameron's government, without having achieved anything. For me it's not about voting for the winner, it's about having policies you feel will better the country being proposed an passed. The only condem policies I have agreed with entirely are the scrapping of some of Labour's more authoritarian measure - ID cards etc. Perhaps you are right, and Clegg sacrificed the Lib Dems for the good of the country, that would be a positive way of interpreting events. I can't shake the feeling that he did it for himself rather than his party though - bet when the Lib Dem share of the vote disapears in 2015, Clegg is ousted and quickly finds himself on a the after dinner speaker bandwagon with Blair, Major and Brown. Will the cash he will bring in soften his having undermined his party? Sure, by refusing to join either party, the government would have been weak - but the measures passed would have had cross-party concensus, and as such would have probably been in the best interest of the country, rather than in the political benefit of left or right. If this 'weak' government had fallen, another election would have probably brought in a majority.

And yet, they actually have no real say. What liberal concessions has Clegg exacted from Cameron? I can't see anything whatsoever that this coalition has implemented that would appeal to a liberal voter. Question is, where will the liberal votes go? Will they go to Labour? In some areas I guess so. Naturally, liberals are going to be far more inclinded to side with the Greens, so you might expect to start seeing a large increase in green voters perhaps?

Yes, but I'm sure the country will learn to get used to coalitions. Liberal voters are often forced to vote for other parties too, it's not just your mate in Poole who reluctantly has to vote tactically. AV should help this situation, and your friend will get a fairer deal. Clegg had a third option - which people seem to overlook. He couldn't sensibly go with Labour, there weren't enough seats. He would destroy his party if he went with Cameron. He could have instead opted to stay out of any coalitions. This would have allowed Cameron to try and form a minority government (which may or may not have worked). Irrespective, the Lib Dem voters would have then stayed with the party, and legislation that was passed would have required concensus from parties - meaning that often liberal views would have been represented (pretty much for the first time in 100 years). Clegg opted for personal prestige over the views of his electorate, and is suffering for it.

Not at all. Lib Dems would rather have their opinions reflected in government, than be associated with the policies of a party they didn't vote for. Clegg traded with Cameron, and settled for personal gain, and nothing tangible whatsoever to further the liberal cause. Do you really think liberal voters are satisfied with having a measure of power, without having any affect on policy? What we want is to improve the country, not just provide a vehicle for careerist politicians like Clegg, who put their own legacy before what they claim to believe in. The Lib Dems did indeed come third, some 3 million short of Labour - but still with 6 million votes. Over the last 100 years, what proportion of legislation has been liberal? Is it as high as 20%? If not, a large proportion of the population isn't being represented in our system. PS, nobody has 'their PR now'.

Trousers, what makes you think that the Lib Dems should have sold out their manifesto and beliefs to enter coalition - how would Labour or Tory voters have felt had those parties have entered into a coalition with one another. What you need to do is work with other parties to pass sensible legislation, not sell out all your beliefs simply to gain a chair in the cabinet.

Jamie, it's fairly obvious to most, that Clegg's decision to enter a coalition with the Conservatives without getting a guarantee of Tory whips forcing the party to vote through full STV, was going to alienate most of his voters. Apparently Paddy Ashdown wept when he heard that Clegg had decided to join into coalition with the tories. Liberal voters now feel massively let down by the party they voted for. Student's for example will not now vote for the Lib Dems, despite traditionally making up a core of the party's electorate. I am a liberal voter, and I can't bring myself to vote for the Lib Dems while Clegg is still in charge. If you need further evidence you only have to look at he polls - http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/, c. 50% of liberal voters appear to have abandoned the party following Clegg's decision. Sure the party isn't killed, but Clegg has done his best to undermine it. Oh, almost forgot to add a 'FFS' to the end of my post to demonstrate how 'stupid' another poster appears to be. Using FFS is childish, FFS.

Absolutely, but 'effectively not change' is better than 'no change'. I can't see STV being on the agenda for a long time now that Clegg has killed the Lib Dems, and the two big parties put self-interest before democracy. Voting 'no' because the change is too little, is self defeating.