Cameron must be absolutely gutted

[saintfully]

Something like £80 billion goes to the Treasury from the banking sector in a good year

 

Its what happens in a bad year that worries me. If the banks fail again there is no more money in the pot to bail them out. What we used last time was borrowed against our future pensions in the form of bonds - the interest on which is currently being gambled by the city as it assess the likelihood of us going bust.

 

What would all those talented people in teh city be doing if they weren't in banking ? Maybe designing and creating solutions/things which solve real problems???

[John B]

Its what happens in a bad year that worries me. If the banks fail again there is no more money in the pot to bail them out. What we used last time was borrowed against our future pensions in the form of bonds - the interest on which is currently being gambled by the city as it assess the likelihood of us going bust.

 

What would all those talented people in teh city be doing if they weren't in banking ? Maybe designing and creating solutions/things which solve real problems???

 

Unfortunately the world needs banking and London is one of the major centres so there is no point really in losing it.

 

 

That said there needs to be global regulation of the banks as suggested by Obama and supported by the former Labour Government we cant do it alone as banks will move to countries where the regulation is less stringent because the Government will lose money and people will lose jobs

[saintfully]

I agree the world needs banking - what the world dosn't need is financial engineering for financial engineerings sake - with all the institutional risk carried by the state.

 

Banking contributes approx 7% to GDP - this is a relatively small contribution when the risk of it going wrong is that we turn into Iceland.

 

As an aside... I find it ironic that the same people who defend casino banking (and Im not saying thats what you're doing - I think the points you make are certainly worth raising and discussing) are often found saying that joining the Euro would be disasterous. The recent Greek bailout shows the benefit of strength in numbers (albeit a bit late in the day). In contrast, I would argue that the greatest risk to the pound lies in maintaining the uk as a global banking hub.

[GenevaSaint]

Unfortunately the world needs banking and London is one of the major centres so there is no point really in losing it.

 

If we lost the financial sector from London it would be a disaster for the UK economy. If the new government goes ahead unilaterally with a transaction tax I'd be very afraid for the financial services sector and the UK economy as a whole.

 

For every 1 financial services job in London how many tertiary jobs would be lost? Added to that lost taxes, NI. We all moan about the bankers bonuses, which to be fair are obscene, but the bonus tax bought in 2bn of taxes. And when these guys get the money everything they pay for gets taxed through VAT, Insurance Tax for the new Porsche, Stamp Duty etc.

[OldNick]

That's ok then, it does not affect you so why care about others who it does? You are a Tory after all.

You dont think the miners strike and the way the country was brought to its knees didn't effect me?

The workers were cynically used for political means.That is not what I believe unions were for.

I can't help every person in the country I'd love for everyone not to have hardship, but it is not possible, I work and pay my taxes and watch the government and others provide the help for those where needed. Nothing about an 'I'm all right Jack attitude.'

[BlakeySFC]

David Cameron must be gutted, i bet this wasn't in his script for election day, I actually feel a bit sorry for him. He must have dreamt about standing outside no 10 on Friday morning spouting ********, yet Gordon Brown is still in there. I'm not sure what the Liberals will do, morally they should help the Tories form a government but will they get the voting reform they want from them,this could be their last chance.

 

Eating humble pie now?

[ecuk268]

He hasn't done too bad.

 

A few months ago, he had a 20 point lead in the polls. Combine that with many millions of funding from a tax dodger in Belize, a massively biased print media, a tired-looking government that has been in power, for 13 years, a PM that insulted his electorate and a deep recession and he's landed us with an unelected Prime Minister.

 

You'd better pull this off, Dave, or your party will crucify you.

[Thedelldays]

He hasn't done too bad.

 

A few months ago, he had a 20 point lead in the polls. Combine that with many millions of funding from a tax dodger in Belize, a massively biased print media, a tired-looking government that has been in power, for 13 years, a PM that insulted his electorate and a deep recession and he's landed us with an unelected Prime Minister.

 

You'd better pull this off, Dave, or your party will crucify you.

Well. He is PM

[bridge too far]

Excellent and comprehensive coverage of the coalition, its detractors (Kennedy, Steele, Ashdown), 'what ifs' scenarios etc. etc. in the Observer today.

[Johnny Bognor]

Comprehensive coverage of the black holes and scortched earth policy of the outgoing Labour government.

 

I also see that it looks like there will be a Lord Prescott. This union stuff is very lucrative and socialism does benefit someone....usually the politicians and leaders at the top.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Eating humble pie now?

 

Not really, they weren't there on Friday with their smug grins and they didn't get a majority

[Thedelldays]

Not really, they weren't there on Friday with their smug grins and they didn't get a majority

they are in power with MOST of their policies coming into force..

 

no euro

no more powers to EU

keeping Trident

6 Bn reductions this year

immigration cap

 

pretty much the core of their campaign is still there..

[bridge too far]

Having read the Observer this morning, and learnt of the discontent amongst senior Liberals, I got to wondering what would happen if a lot of the Liberal MPs decided to vote against the coalition.

 

Or are they not allowed to do that because of the 'agreement'? This isn't a wind-up question - I'm really curious to know just how binding the agreement is.

[OldNick]

a PM that insulted his electorate

.

shows how dim a lot of them are, after insulting one of their own they still voted the mp in. Lol

That shows how entrenched the support is in those regions.

I have to give it to Labours party political broadcast on the eve of the election. Having celebrities post their votes and then staring at the camera, and showing their disapproval of any thought of changing sides. Very clever and got into the soul of a lot of Labour voters who may have been thinking of voting a way their family would not have ever done in the past. The all had a look of dont you dare think about it.

[Thedelldays]

Having read the Observer this morning, and learnt of the discontent amongst senior Liberals, I got to wondering what would happen if a lot of the Liberal MPs decided to vote against the coalition.

 

Or are they not allowed to do that because of the 'agreement'? This isn't a wind-up question - I'm really curious to know just how binding the agreement is.

these liberals called for new politics, some sort of representation in government and a say in how the country is run

 

they got that....and still moan

[bridge too far]

these liberals called for new politics, some sort of representation in government and a say in how the country is run

 

they got that....and still moan

 

That's as may be. But it doesn't really answer the question, with all respect.

 

Given that the Libs and the Tories are going to both campaign in the forthcoming by-election, I do wonder just how binding the agreement is.

 

There's bound to come a time when DC wants to do something that goes against the Liberal grain. Will he lose the vote?

[Thedelldays]

That's as may be. But it doesn't really answer the question, with all respect.

 

Given that the Libs and the Tories are going to both campaign in the forthcoming by-election, I do wonder just how binding the agreement is.

 

There's bound to come a time when DC wants to do something that goes against the Liberal grain. Will he lose the vote?

well..that is a coalition goverment..apparently, they do this in germany...(so we were told before the election from peeps on here)

[Wes Tender]

Having read the Observer this morning, and learnt of the discontent amongst senior Liberals, I got to wondering what would happen if a lot of the Liberal MPs decided to vote against the coalition.

 

Or are they not allowed to do that because of the 'agreement'? This isn't a wind-up question - I'm really curious to know just how binding the agreement is.

 

When asked by a jounalist what might cause a Government to be blown of course, Harold Macmillan responded, "Events, dear boy, events"

 

Well, there is no harm done by these Lib/Dems in their Party expressing their views that they are not happy with the pact with the Conservatives. To balance that out, there are equally as many in the Conservative party who were unhappy with it, as were most of the Labour Party, who would have dearly loved to get shot of Brown and cosy up in bed with the Lib/Dems themselves if it meant that they could stay in power.

 

But all of the dissenters are faced with a fait accompli brought about by expediency. The Conservatives entered the pact because they have an excuse for it not working because of the Lib/Dems, but also are possibly content that they can be excused for not putting through the more controversial policies in their manifesto. The Lib/Dems entered the pact because they acquired a disproportionate amount of power for their votes and it is their first sniff of government in several generations.

 

If the Lib/Dems overturned this pact because their Party constitution allowed if to be revoked by a simple majority of grass root votes, or MPs votes against it, then the voting public would punish them at the next election. In short, they are over a barrel with the current arrangement but to compensate, the top people in the party must be quite happy to be given this massive boost to their own importance in British politics.

[bridge too far]

well..that is a coalition goverment..apparently, they do this in germany...(so we were told before the election from peeps on here)

 

 

Grrrrr I know this. And coalitions fail / fall. That is my point.

 

I guess, if the Libs don't like a proposed measure and vote against, in spite of the agreement, this will prompt a confidence vote and then, potentially, a vote to dissolve?

[bridge too far]

Thanks Wes. I'm thinking, for example, about the AV proposal. A lot of Tory and Labour MPs are against it, because they want FPTP and a lot of Liberals are against it because its not the PR they wanted.

 

These malcontents could combine to defeat the coalition.

[Thedelldays]

Grrrrr I know this. And coalitions fail / fall. That is my point.

 

I guess, if the Libs don't like a proposed measure and vote against, in spite of the agreement, this will prompt a confidence vote and then, potentially, a vote to dissolve?

if they do this...they will wave good bye to what they campaigned for so much - a bit of power

 

it will probably be another generation before they get there again..how on earth will they push for election reform in any meaningful way without being in the position they are now in..??

 

people like this and those who say "i cant ever vote tory because of..."

represent "old politics"..these people are well balanced - chips on each shoulder

[bridge too far]

if they do this...they will wave good bye to what they campaigned for so much - a bit of power

 

it will probably be another generation before they get there again..how on earth will they push for election reform in any meaningful way without being in the position they are now in..??

 

people like this and those who say "i cant ever vote tory because of..."

represent "old politics"..these people are well balanced - chips on each shoulder

 

I hear what you say TDD. But I reckon there's more politicking done behind closed doors than we realise. What's to stop discontented Libs meeting up with Labour (once it's realigned itself yet again after its leadership election) and Labour saying 'look guys, we're different now - vote with us and we can force an election and take you on board because you're much closer to us ideologically than you are to them'?

 

Or am I being uber-cynical

[Thedelldays]

I hear what you say TDD. But I reckon there's more politicking done behind closed doors than we realise. What's to stop discontented Libs meeting up with Labour (once it's realigned itself yet again after its leadership election) and Labour saying 'look guys, we're different now - vote with us and we can force an election and take you on board because you're much closer to us ideologically than you are to them'?

 

Or am I being uber-cynical

well, they can feather their own nests as much as they like..

 

the country desperatly needs leadership...we have it, with two parties...

if the libdems bring this down I dont think the public will be too forgiving and punish them in the next election....

 

they are where they desperately wanted to be and claimed they should be...so what if it is with the tory party...?

 

it is just the tory party...not the nazi party or some military controlled faction...just the tory party

[Fuengirola Saint]

they are in power with MOST of their policies coming into force..

 

no euro - We were never going to join anyway

no more powers to EU- ok, whatever this means

keeping Trident - Labour would have kept Trident

6 Bn reductions this yea r- A drop in the ocean

immigration cap - Useless because it doesn't cover EU immigration

 

pretty much the core of their campaign is still there..

 

...

[bridge too far]

well, they can feather their own nests as much as they like..

 

the country desperatly needs leadership...we have it, with two parties...

if the libdems bring this down I dont think the public will be too forgiving and punish them in the next election....

 

they are where they desperately wanted to be and claimed they should be...so what if it is with the tory party...?

 

it is just the tory party...not the nazi party or some military controlled faction...just the tory party

 

It depends though on what they (the Tories) try to introduce. More people voted against DC than for him, so they might be inclined to forgive the Libs if the Libs joined with Labour against a particularly unpalatable piece of legislation or if we went back into recession.

[Thedelldays]

It depends though on what they (the Tories) try to introduce. More people voted against DC than for him, so they might be inclined to forgive the Libs if the Libs joined with Labour against a particularly unpalatable piece of legislation or if we went back into recession.

and even more voted against clegg...yet he is deputy PM..

 

this was the election where the libdems were deffo going to get 75 seats...it was on the cards

[scotty]

That's as may be. But it doesn't really answer the question, with all respect.

 

Given that the Libs and the Tories are going to both campaign in the forthcoming by-election, I do wonder just how binding the agreement is.

 

There's bound to come a time when DC wants to do something that goes against the Liberal grain. Will he lose the vote?

 

 

Well, thats where the checks and balances argument comes in; he knows he cant do anything too unpalatable to the libdems, therefore he wont try it. I wish thatcher and blair had been limited in a similar way, they both carried through what was a reasonable agenda at the beginning, but got power-crazed when it worked and thought they'd discovered the elixir of life and had to apply it to everything else forevermore. I'm feeling quite upbeat about this coalition and hope it works out; I'm sick and tired of political mudslinging and polarisation.

[Wes Tender]

It depends though on what they (the Tories) try to introduce. More people voted against DC than for him, so they might be inclined to forgive the Libs if the Libs joined with Labour against a particularly unpalatable piece of legislation or if we went back into recession.

 

I see I will have to repeat the admonishment I gave to some other poster for spouting this claptrap.

 

The electorate did not vote against a party leader unless they voted tactically. You cannot just add up the percentages of the votes of all the other parties and conclude that all of that percentage was a vote against Cameron. You have absolutely no idea what percentage voted primarily for or against a particular candidate in their constituency, or how many voted for a party regardless who leads it.

 

So whereas your assertion is flawed, what is clear and irrefutable is that the Conservative Party recorded a higher number of votes than any other party, although I am guessing that simple truth will be unpalateable to you.

[Wes Tender]

and even more voted against clegg...yet he is deputy PM..

 

this was the election where the libdems were deffo going to get 75 seats...it was on the cards

 

Which cards were these, DD? The Tarot cards?

 

PS. You fell into the same trap as BTF re the assumption that people voted against Clegg, when the reality is that only 24% voted for him.

[trousers]

Is this forum still going?

[scotty]

Is this forum still going?

 

thus far, it has lasted longer than the coalition.....