The Tories

[davek]

Lazy Tory apologists for Latvian SS | Peter Beaumont | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

How can anyone vote for this lot, chummying up to groups with a Nazi past in the European Parliament. They 'were only conscripts to the Waffen SS'. We're all in this together.


Bankrolled by the Lord Ashcroft billions, run by a load of nazi accomodating toffs. They'll turn this country into a concentration camp.

 

[Blue Ray]

Dunno much about politics. But I heard today the Tories are going to hike up the ale prices if they got in....

Not on my shift.

Bang out of order. Making us all pay for the unsocial problem no government has the balls to deal with. And now no pension till your 70 so they dont have to pay anyone and theres more of a chance we'll be dead before we can claim. Theyve never done nothing for us and neither have labour but whats the alternative? ****** limp wristed liberals?

 

[linglong]

I love Politics!

You were saying?

Bigger pair of tits than brown and cameroen

 

[neville]

I really dislike David Cameron.

There's something about him that I can't quite put my finger on.

At least with Brown, we know what we're getting (which isn't much admittedly)

Let me help

hes a ********

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

Am I wrong?

Too many people fought and died for you to have your vote for that question to even be considered a reality. It is your vote, do with it as you see fit, it is your responsibility.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

The question where education is concerned isn't what teachers want, it's what parents want. They're the customers in all this.

That is a touch loose, childless people pay as well. And all actual 'customers' get a choice to pay if they want the item/service.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

If 'free' education isn't helping the poor to succeed then what's the point of it?

That is bogus and I thought I had shown you a reason or two why. If education was an opt in 'tax to pay' what are the odds that the worse off in society either would not have the means to give their children a chance or simply would choose to spend the money on cigarettes and booze. By not giving the next generation a chance and a reason for ambition, we expect of them nothing, and we get nothing. (And that is a best scenario possibility).

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

The real lesson that should have been learned, and hasn't, is that the overcomplication of the banking system and financial tradeable products needed to be curtailed. Once money itself became a mathematical and statistical abstract to be played with and manipulated for pure profit, the system was onto a hiding, and it will happen again.

What needs to happen (sit down and brace yourself Bruce, I'm going to mention the R word) is a far more effective regulation and control of the banking system. If a financial institution wants to play fast and loose with investors cash, it needs to be branded as an Investment House and have no direct or indirect connection with a savings and loan bank. That way, S+L Banks can run with tighter regulation and those depositing their savings or using the credit facilities on offer can be safe in the knowledge that the bank will still be there tomorrow. Those who fancy taking a little more of a risk, they can go to an Investment House, where the staff can be as creative as they like and the customers know the risk and can afford the implications.

The necessity for playing 'fast and loose' needs addressing. The rewards were there, on a personal level, ''bring in the biggest profits and get the biggest rewards''. How many Ferraris do you have to listen to the guy in the cubicle next to you brag about before you fancy a bit of the same yourself? What happens when an exploit is found to invest S+L money into Investment House 'legitimately' so that the S+L customers get their agreed cut and the S+L bank makes extra?

 

[gordonjblair]

The necessity for playing 'fast and loose' needs addressing. The rewards were there, on a personal level, ''bring in the biggest profits and get the biggest rewards''. How many Ferraris do you have to listen to the guy in the cubicle next to you brag about before you fancy a bit of the same yourself? What happens when an exploit is found to invest S+L money into Investment House 'legitimately' so that the S+L customers get their agreed cut and the S+L bank makes extra?

Demonstrably and permanently discrete organisations. S+L companies would be, by constitution, open book to the regulator, and would have to demonstrate that their operating profit came from the L portion of their business (no side investments). It would be a high turnover, low % profit business model, but a sustainable one that would concievably attract preferential rates from the BoE etc.

Don't get me wrong, we'd be talking a full overhaul of the Financial Sector, and considerable legislative overhaul too, to allow the enforcement of these restrictive practices, but it would give the economy a proper, solid foundation.