Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Son of L8]

Canada is not a great comparison for the UK. You have an essentially two party system, one of which is the Canadian version of the Lib Dems, and the other of which is total batshit insanity, the likes of which cannot be found in the British mainstream.

 

As to why Clegg did it, the answer is obvious: this is the one chance in a generation to break the Tory/Labour duopoly, to get Lib Dem policies into law, to effect electoral reform and to change politics in this country forever.

 

That's not really true, mate, there are four significant parties in this country. Canadian politics is actually a very effective mirror of the UK if you take the Bloc Quebecois out of the equation. The Canadian Conservative party is fairly similar to the British one (or at least was; the progressive wing of the party has been marginalized in the last ten or so years after various fractures and reformations on the right), the Canadian Liberal Party is almost indistinguishable from New Labour, and the Canadian New Democratic Party, the third party, are a pretty fair mirror of the Lib Dems.

 

It works right down to the colour scheme - blue for the Tories, Red for the Liberals and yellow for the New Democrats. Blue and Red have been in government interchangeably for ever and ever, while Yellow was on the fringes acting as the progressive political conscience of the country without ever having any real say in the running of the country. (they've run provincial governments, similar enough to Lib Dems running local authorities, without ever having a crack at power.)

 

Over the last twenty years, Canadian and UK politics have almost perfectly mirrored each other. A strong Tory power base was brought down by a wave of support for a popular centre-left leader (Chretien-Liberal/Blair-Labour), who won successive majorities for his party while his finance minister (Paul Martin/Gordon Brown) lusted for power in the leader's shadow. When ChretienBlair eventually stepped aside, MartinBrown got his hands on the top job only to muck it up horribly and see his party deposed for the first time in a generation, letting an unconvincing and uncharismatic Conservative leader into power with his party the largest minority in Parliament.

 

The only difference is that when the LibDem/NewDems in Canada tried to work their way into government via coalition, they did it with the Labour/Liberals rather than with the Conservatives, and failed. This resulted in a minority Conservative government which has been unable to do its absolute worst to the country as they cant pass any legislation without the support of one of the other three parties in parliament, as the other poster said.

 

The parallels between Canada and the UK are actually really interesting. The New Democrats, Canada's Lib Dems, tried to ride a surge of support for a charismatic and popular leader (Jack Layton/Nick Clegg) to an increased presence in Parliament, but ultimately saw prospective voters desert them in marginal constituencies out of fear of a Conservative majority due to collapsing support for the Labour/Liberal Party. Both LDs/NDs campaign heavily for electoral reform, and perceive a sense of injustice that their level of popular support around the country isn't reflected in Parliament due to the advantage given to the two main parties by the first-past-the-post system.

 

I know this has little to do with the subject of the thread, so I will just add one thing in response to your second paragraph above: breaking the duopoly may have been the intent, but I sincerely doubt that will be the outcome. I always sympathized with the Lib Dems, ideologically at least, when I was still in the UK, and that was what gave the party its draw on the electorate. I don't see how they will be able to say, after five years backing a Conservative manifesto (which is how the average voter will see it), that "we are different from those two parties, vote for us". They're on the inside now, and even if everything you say (which I genuinely get that you believe) about softening and shaping the blow of what had to be done is true, how the hell are they going to explain the subtleties and complexities of that to an electorate whose perception of every question is distilled into soundbytes by the newspaper they read and the news show they watch?

 

I predict that the next election campaign by the Lib Dems will either be too simplified to distinguish themselves from the party in power, or too complicated for the average voter to take in, or some mess of the two which is even worse. Whichever way it falls out, I don't see the parties fortunes going anywhere but down as a result of the move into coalition.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Son of L8

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

No, really, sarcasm you say?

 

I didn't say everything was rosy, I said I wouldn't be slitting my wrists. I know you like to think we shit ourselves over results like this, but we all knew this coalition was a long game before we entered into it.

 

The government, and the Lib Dems, will not succeed or fail based on voters sitting on their hands in a 2011 by-election in which neither coalition partner had any chance anyway. It will come down to what economic state the country is in 2015.

 

It's not about me thinking you shit yourselves, it's not about projected success or failure, it's about you honestly thinking that this result was simply about 'voters sitting on their hands'. It's about dismissing results like this and polling figures. It's about seeing many tens of thousands in protests and dismissing them as 'a few middle-class thugs'. People hate your party.

 

You know what they say about a week being a long time in politics; come back to me in four fucking years, and then maybe what you or anyone else has to say will be timely and relevant. Right now you're eating raw eggs and telling me the chef can't cook an omelette.

 

You're like somebody at the beginning of the Thatcher strikes saying 'you'll love her in the end'. We won't, SD. If this coalition lasts 'til 2015, I'll eat my cock in a sandwich with mustard. And oh boy, don't I just hate mustard.

[TheBitch]

 

Oh, really, what do you suppose someone like me should do? Maybe I can pick up the phone and give Nick a call. "Hey Cleggy baby, you know that £1 trillion debt which grows by £120 million a day? Maybe we should just forget the fuck about that and leave the next mugs to clear it up."

 

The only people who have no credibility is the Labour Party. Their planned cuts were nine tenths as severe as what the coalition is enacting, but nobody knows what they would have been because they won't tell us. I don't blame them - far better to see other people becoming unpopular clearing up your mess than getting your hands dirty yourself. No wonder so many of their senior figures actively obstructed a coalition deal with the Lib Dems.

 

The day I support ANYTHING just because it's the populist option is the day I give up politics and move to Outer Mongolia.

 

SD I don't wanna get on your case, as everybody else seems to want to, and I was gonna leave it, but I posted on the 2nd March and wondered what your thoughts were. I'm assuming you missed it and didn't ignore it.

[Rafa's Peggy's]

Oh, really, what do you suppose someone like me should do? Maybe I can pick up the phone and give Nick a call. "Hey Cleggy baby, you know that £1 trillion debt which grows by £120 million a day? Maybe we should just forget the fuck about that and leave the next mugs to clear it up."

 

The only people who have no credibility is the Labour Party. Their planned cuts were nine tenths as severe as what the coalition is enacting, but nobody knows what they would have been because they won't tell us. I don't blame them - far better to see other people becoming unpopular clearing up your mess than getting your hands dirty yourself. No wonder so many of their senior figures actively obstructed a coalition deal with the Lib Dems.

 

The day I support ANYTHING just because it's the populist option is the day I give up politics and move to Outer Mongolia.

 

The first paragraph of your reply is churlish. As a party member and activist, I assume there are some mechanisms for getting together and making your feelings known to the people steering the ship. Otherwise, what's the point in paying a membership fee and being part of the movement?

 

Where did I suggest that nothing should be done about the deficit? I agree that a strategy for dealing with it is neccessary, I just don't agree that a strategy which involves cutting 500,000 jobs in the public sector and costing another 500,000 in the private sector is the way to go. On top of that, when people are put out of a job, you cutting the support they have whilst they look for a new one, through cuts in the value of benefits and cuts in the DWP which will damage the physical support they are able to receive.

 

Meanwhile, your party is sponsoring corporation tax cuts and tax breaks, meaning the rich continue to get richer off the back of the misery that is being imposed on what you have previously described as the 'beleagured citizens of this nation.'

 

There are alternatives for dealing with this. Collecting the £120 bn in uncollected evaded or avoided tax from big business and the rich would be a start. As would a Financial Transaction tax like the one which is soon to be debated by MEP's.

 

All the above would mean upsetting the Tory's paymasters though so they won't do it. However, your party is supposed to stand for social justice. Will your members and activists call for an alternative to be considered in the face of such misery for ordinary people?

 

As for the Labour party, I agree with you. They are doing nothing to provide a voice to people, which is after all their job as HM Opposition. Your attack on them is slightly two faced though seeing as neither of the parties in Government gave the electorate details of how they would deal with the economy prior to the election. In fact both parties have been guilty of out and out lies.

 

The people are finding their own voice though, and the heat will get cranked up in a big way on 26th March when hundreds of thousands take to the streets of London to call for the Alternative.

 

As for your closing statement, the whole idea of democracy is adhering to populist opinion. Are you saying that if the Lib Dems won power in their own right you wouldn't support them anymore?

 

If you do go to Outer Mongolia, take Clegg and Co. with you because I think I speak for most of us when I say we are fucking sick of them.

[VladimirIlyich]

There is currently a lot of criticism of Ed Milliband and the Labour Party for not getting angry at the cuts being put in place by the ConDems and thats fair comment but 2 by election victories for the party and the current administration lurking from one disaster to the next,there's probably not more Labour can do than the Government are doing to themselves at the moment.

 

I'd like to think that they have a campaign strategy that can be unleashed at a moments notice though when the opportunity arises.

It also needs to swing back to the left quite severely to win back a lot of its supporters.

[Strontium]

That's not really true, mate, there are four significant parties in this country. Canadian politics is actually a very effective mirror of the UK if you take the Bloc Quebecois out of the equation. The Canadian Conservative party is fairly similar to the British one (or at least was; the progressive wing of the party has been marginalized in the last ten or so years after various fractures and reformations on the right), the Canadian Liberal Party is almost indistinguishable from New Labour, and the Canadian New Democratic Party, the third party, are a pretty fair mirror of the Lib Dems.

 

 

That's a bit ass-backward isn't it? The NDP are Labour's sister party, the Liberals are a sister party of the Lib Dems. In fact, here is Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg with his Canadian counterpart (one of the great liberal intellectuals of his generation) Michael Ignatieff:

 

 

Maybe the NDP are more of a force than I give them credit for, so you're right to pull me up there. Maybe Canada just seems more like a 2 party state because it's always being compared to the US, which is one.

 

People hate your party.

 

 

They hated Labour 12 months ago. They'll get over it.

 

If this coalition lasts 'til 2015, I'll eat my cock in a sandwich with mustard.

 

 

Hot dog bun or bap? ;)

 

SD I don't wanna get on your case, as everybody else seems to want to, and I was gonna leave it, but I posted on the 2nd March and wondered what your thoughts were. I'm assuming you missed it and didn't ignore it.

 

 

I read it, but have had to snatch a few minutes Internet access here and there over the past few days and for the next day at least. I didn't really have time to digest or respond.

[Son of L8]

That's a bit ass-backward isn't it? The NDP are Labour's sister party, the Liberals are a sister party of the Lib Dems. In fact, here is Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg with his Canadian counterpart (one of the great liberal intellectuals of his generation) Michael Ignatieff:

 

 

Maybe the NDP are more of a force than I give them credit for, so you're right to pull me up there. Maybe Canada just seems more like a 2 party state because it's always being compared to the US, which is one.

 

Thats interesting that. I wasn't aware there was any sort of formal arrangement between UK and Canadian parties, which I assume is what you mean. I was just thinking about their policies, structure, ideology and funding generally to make the comparison. Just based on my observations of what the politicians actually say and do.

 

The "big tent" party concept that saw Labour into power, drawing in the centre-right with neo-liberal economic and to some extent social policies, is the exact same model that saw the Liberal Party govern unopposed during the Chretien years. They also have a very spotty record on civil liberties that would make any true liberal blush to his eartips, are very cosy with the financial and corporate establishment, and while they're credited with certain advancements on social issues there's often been a larger story attached. Like same-sex marriage, which was enacted under a Liberal government but only when forced by the courts and fiercely resisted by a strong socially-conservative lobby within the party. Prior to that, the Liberal leadership (past and present) had publicly and actively opposed the legislation of gay rights. Even after the marriage act was passed, prominent Liberals still publicly opposed it and campaigned alongside Conservatives to have it overturned.

 

The Liberal Party might campaign slightly to the left when it suits them, but amongst progressive thinkers in this country I've spoken to there's a perception that in recent memory they've governed on fairly conservative business-first principles. That, coupled with the party's funding coming almost exclusively through large corporate and union donations and their tendency to get involved in controversy for mis-spending vast sums of public money on useless projects that benefit their friends in the corporate world makes me associate them with New Labour.

 

There are some areas where they might be closer to the Lib Dems than New Labour, like immigration policy for one definite example, but I can't think of many.

 

Also funny that you should mention Ignatieff. Its strange hearing the perception of him from outside the country, because most of the leftists and progressives I talk to here in Canada find him a two-faced, hypocritical opportunist with extremely questionable liberal credentials. (Although I'm sure some people on this thread would say, hey, sounds just like Clegg!)

 

As for the two-party point, I think most Canadians would resent being equated with the American political system. In fact, most Canadian political leaders base their campaign strategy around telling the country how un-American they're going to be in office.

 

But you might be interested in this: between them, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democrats (the third and fourth parties in Parliament, both of whom are genuinely liberal-progressive in their ideology) hold almost 28% of the total House. Compare that to the 13% of the UK Parliament not controlled by the two main parties, of which 8(ish?)% is held by the Lib Dems, and I think Canada's doing rather a better job of plurality than the UK is at the moment.

 

I'll stop talking about Canadian politics in here though, this thread is for Lib-Dem bashing after all.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

 

They hated Labour 12 months ago. They'll get over it.

 

There's been some pretty significant changes to the Labour party in that time. If, in the next twelve months, the Liberal Democrats lose power, change party leader and there's a government installed that's far worse than expected, which then immediately goes back on pledges and props up a party who have halted the financial recovery, implement a set of regressive 'slash and burn' cuts to the public sector and threaten a million more job lossess, than I reckon you could bounce back too.

[lifetime fan]

A decent Lib coming up with a decent proposal.

 

Well I never.

 

Maybe he could have a word with his prick of a colleague Steve Webb.

 

Pity the other fake libs have sold out to their tory mates.

 

BBC News - Lib Dem urges RBS and Lloyds shares giveaway

 

Lib Dem urges RBS and Lloyds shares giveaway.

 

Senior Liberal Democrats want the government to give away billions of pounds of its shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group to the general public.

 

The radical idea would see most of its stake in the banks shared between 46 million adults on the electoral roll.

 

A floor would be set so the shares could not be sold until they had passed the price paid by the government.

 

Individuals would only keep any gains made above that floor price.

 

The government spent £65.8bn buying shares in the banking giants.

 

It owns 83% of RBS and 41% of Lloyds.

 

The idea is set out by Stephen Williams, Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West, in a pamphlet for the think tank Centre Forum.

 

He said: "There is a danger that when the banks return to the private sector, it is business as usual. There is a general feeling in this country that we need to get something positive in return for the bail-out.

 

"This plan would recoup the public's investment and allow the taxpayer to get the benefit from any increased value in the banks."

 

Under the proposal, shares would be deposited in individual trading accounts.

 

Mr Williams told the BBC how he saw the plan working: "Every citizen would have the same rights as shareholders at the moment, so they'd have the rights to get the company annual report. They could turn up at the AGM.

 

"What might happen, for instance, is there could be shareholder associations set up of citizens who own these shares, who will put pressure on the banks to change their behaviour. Banks and all other companies are meant to be owned by their shareholders and to respond to their shareholders' wishes."

 

Popular appeal

 

At current prices, every adult would receive shares worth just under £1,000.

 

Continue reading the main story “

Start Quote

If everyone could profit in a tangible, personal sense from the recovery of the banks, perhaps there would be less of a general feeling around the place that banks and bankers are only in it for themselves”

End Quote

 

Robert Peston

 

Business editor, BBC News

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read Robert Peston's blog

Each account would be set up with a default option to sell the shares over two or three years, although individuals could opt to hold the shares for longer.

 

The idea may have popular appeal - but it was not conceived by politicians.

 

The city firm Portman Capital devised the model for the Liberal Democrats as a way round some of the problems the government could face in a traditional share sale.

 

Privatisations in the 1980s saw shares offered at a big discount.

 

That tempted institutional investors to buy in, but led to criticism the government was "selling the family silver" off too cheaply.

 

In 2008 and 2009 the government injected approximately £45.5bn into RBS by buying shares, and £20.3bn into Halifax Bank of Scotland, which was taken over by Lloyds.

 

Stagger

 

UK Financial Investments, which manages the public's stakes in the banks, is currently expected to sell them through conventional means.

 

 

Click to play

Lib Dem MP Stephen Williams explains bank share plan

That is likely to include placing the shares with pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, as well as offering them to retail investors.

 

UKFI is likely to have to stagger the sale of the shares over a number of years in order to get the best price so that the market has time to absorb the huge amount of shares on offer.

 

The shares are currently trading a few pence below the government's "break even price" of 51p for RBS shares, and 74p for Lloyds.

 

Toby Fenwick from Portman Capital says the shares suffer from an "overhang" - a situation where the market knows a lot of shares are likely to be sold and consequently depresses the share price.

 

"Under the current scenario there is one seller with a very big stake to unload and the market knows its break-even price," he said.

 

"A share distribution would create a new scenario with tens of millions of sellers each with a small stake and no incentive to sell below the 'floor'."

 

The idea is backed by Mr Williams and Lord Dick Newby, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman in the House of Lords.

 

It is not official Liberal Democrat policy, although the party's ministers are understood to be sympathetic to exploring whether the idea would work.

 

A source close to Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said: "No decision has been taken about how or when this issue is going to be dealt with. But this is a welcome contribution to the debate."

[VladimirIlyich]

All that would happen is that most people would sell their shares at the first opportunity for even a small profit and the speculators would buy them all up again and hey ho,we are back to the 80's.

[dennis tooth]

Tis but a scratch.

[lifetime fan]

All that would happen is that most people would sell their shares at the first opportunity for even a small profit and the speculators would buy them all up again and hey ho,we are back to the 80's.

 

It isn't perfect, far from it.

 

It is at least a decent proposal from a decent MP. Something the libs used to be quite good at.

[Karl_b]

The Lib Dem conference this weekend is a stone's throw from my office window, any requests?

[lifetime fan]

The Lib Dem conference this weekend is a stone's throw from my office window, any requests?

 

A fucking big stone.

[Teflon Don]

From The Guardian's website today:

 

Police pay review: Four out of 10 officers may have pay cut

 

At least four out of 10 police officers are facing a pay cut under the most radical and wide-ranging review of pay and conditions in three decades.

 

In his report, the former rail regulator Tom Winsor said the maximum pay cut would be between £3,000 and £4,000 a year, while the maximum gain would be between £1,500 and £2,000.

 

The Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, accuses the government of bullying over pay because officers cannot strike.

 

It said officers faced "cataclysmic" cuts of up to 25% in their spending power as a result of the Winsor review, as well as the two-year pay freeze and a rise in pension contributions.

 

The chairman of the federation, Paul McKeever, said officers were feeling "very upset" at their "unfair treatment" and were exploring all options to challenge the cuts. McKeever said he could not rule out judicial action. "This is a major, major turning point for policing in this country," he said.

 

Although Winsor noted that police officers are "comparatively" well remunerated for their jobs, he said the current system needed to be reformed to recognise the "hardest jobs done in the most demanding circumstances".

 

He recommended that skilled police officers be paid up to £2,000 more than they are now, and said a new expertise and professional accreditation allowance of £1,200 would be introduced for most detectives, firearms, public order and neighbourhood policing teams. Those in middle and back-office roles, meanwhile, may lose up to £3,000 a year in allowances.

 

Other key recommendations included the suspension of bonuses for all chief officers and superintendents and the scrapping of both the £1,212 competence-related threshold payment and "discredited" special priority payments of up to £5,000.

 

The 323-page report claims that its suggestions will save £60m in the annual overtime budget, leading to a total saving of £485m over three years, and result in £635m being reinvested in frontline policing.

 

The review found that police pay was 10-15% higher than that of other emergency workers and the armed forces — and up to 60% higher than the average local earnings in regions such as Wales and the north-east.

 

Winsor also reported that only 57% of officers regularly work unsocial hours.

 

"In short, some skilled police officers working unsocial shifts in response roles will receive up to approximately £2,000 more in cash terms per year than at present, whereas those in what are sometimes called middle and back-office roles will not receive any additional pay and may experience a reduction of up to £3,000 in their allowances," said Winsor.

 

Those working between 8pm and 6am should get an extra 10% on their basic hourly pay, he said.

 

Winsor added: "These recommendations will allow the police to provide a more efficient, economical and effective service to the public while providing officers and staff with a fairer deal."

 

"People should be paid for what they do and how well they do it and the service needs modern management tools to operate with the greatest efficiency and economy in a time of considerable national financial pressure and restraint."

 

Winsor also found there was no need to introduce a power to bring in compulsory redundancy for police officers.

 

The chief constable, Peter Fahy, the lead on workforce development for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said the review would "lay lasting foundations for the police service".

 

He added: "There are hugely difficult decisions to be taken in forces across the country but the majority of the police service are realistic that sacrifices will have to be made."

 

The report came as the association claimed that 28,000 jobs will be lost in forces across England and Wales under the government's budget cuts.

 

Last week, the home secretary, Theresa May, warned that reductions in officers' take-home pay were "unavoidable" amid efforts to minimise frontline job losses.

 

The Acpo estimate of 28,000 job losses, made in a confidential memo for ministers and published in the Guardian, is fewer than the 40,000 officers' jobs the Police Federation originally feared would be at risk.

 

But the projection could change after the Winsor report and the review of public sector pensions on Thursday.

 

Around 244,000 people are employed by the 43 police forces across England and Wales, including 143,000 officers and 101,000 civilians.

 

The projected cuts represent a fall of about 12% in overall staff numbers over four years, an 8% cut in officer numbers with one in six civilian staff losing their jobs, Acpo said.

 

The estimate is based on the actual cuts decided by the majority of police authorities, along with projections to cover those who have not yet settled on a final figure.

 

Police budgets will be cut by 20% over the next four years, but the impact on each force will come down to how reliant they are on government money, with urban areas being hit the hardest.

[Anubis]

The Lib Dem conference this weekend is a stone's throw from my office window, any requests?

 

Wait till Clegg is 5 minutes into his speeh then hit the fire alarm.

[L19red]

The Lib Dem conference this weekend is a stone's throw from my office window, any requests?

send the office bike to chat-up vince cable for the gossip.

[dennis tooth]

It isn't perfect, far from it.

 

It is at least a decent proposal from a decent MP. Something the libs used to be quite good at.

 

Don't see how?

[lifetime fan]

Don't see how?

 

Members of the public who's taxes saved the banks would have the opportunity to financially benefit from the banks profits.

 

It isn't perfect but it's certainly a 'decent' proposal worth exploring and a far better idea than the banks just fucking over the public.

[dennis tooth]

Members of the public who's taxes saved the banks would have the opportunity to financially benefit from the banks profits.

 

It isn't perfect but it's certainly a 'decent' proposal worth exploring and a far better idea than the banks just fucking over the public.

 

They should be anyway, everyone's taxes were used. Why should people have to pay twice? What are all the public service cuts about then if we just simply have to wait until the banks are back in profit?

 

Next week there will be a raffle and prize draw for lifetimes free treatment on the NHS.

 

Secondly why further tie people's fortunes to those of unreformed banks who are destined to fail again as no changes have been made of any substance. Did they not break enough people last time? What makes you think this is a decent proposal exactly? It's a peicemeal bank pr proposal to fend off any real regulation and stop the public excercising their current share right to have actual control of the banks. Are they going to pay their tax bills or just keep using the cayman islands so meaning we have to cut our own services?

 

Please don't fall for this banker inspired PR shite mate.

[lifetime fan]

They should be anyway, everyone's taxes were used. Why should people have to pay twice? What are all the public service cuts about then if we just simply have to wait until the banks are back in profit?

 

Next week there will be a raffle and prize draw for lifetimes free treatment on the NHS.

 

Secondly why further tie people's fortunes to those of unreformed banks who are destined to fail again as no changes have been made of any substance. Did they not break enough people last time? What makes you think this is a decent proposal exactly? It's a peicemeal bank pr proposal to fend off any real regulation and stop the public excercising their current share right to have actual control of the banks. Are they going to pay their tax bills or just keep using the cayman islands so meaning we have to cut our own services?

 

Please don't fall for this banker inspired PR shite mate.

 

 

Did you read the article?

 

The government would giveaway the shares.

 

Of course there needs to be proper strict controls and regulations on banks. All monies earned by the banks based here should be taxed here as well of course.

 

This would allow those tax payers that saved the banks to financially gain from their profits.

 

What is the problem with that?

[dennis tooth]

Did you read the article?

 

The government would giveaway the shares.

 

Of course there needs to be proper strict controls and regulations on banks. All monies earned by the banks based here should be taxed here as well of course.

 

This would allow those tax payers that saved the banks to financially gain from their profits.

 

What is the problem with that?

 

How can you give away something to someone who has already paid for it?

[Ginny]

Has our way of life been changed then? I havent noticed a thing yet. I just want to see the serial dole head forced out to clean some streets.

[lifetime fan]

How can you give away something to someone who has already paid for it?

 

So the government don't give out shares to tax payers is that what you're saying?

 

I didn't say this was perfect, in fact I made sure in each post I said it wasn't.

 

It's the best proposal I've heard so far from all 3 major parties so yes, I would still say it's a 'decent' proposal.

[VladimirIlyich]

So the government don't give out shares to tax payers is that what you're saying?

 

I didn't say this was perfect, in fact I made sure in each post I said it wasn't.

 

It's the best proposal I've heard so far from all 3 major parties so yes, I would still say it's a 'decent' proposal.

 

The problem is mate is that if this is the best option we are in big shit.

 

Like I said its a Thatcher policy from the 80's reincarnated.

 

Here's a better one,how about we buy the bank out 100 per cent and the public decides on how it conducts its business and what kind of salary its employees are given?

And profits are either pumped back into the bank or put into funding public projects?

Low cost housing perhaps? I'm sure they already own thousands of repossessed properties too.