and the Tory lead is restored to 40% !

All is (soon to be) well in the world.

Goodbye Brown-Noser !

all will be well in the world under Cameron???

I am no fan of Brown by any means, but I can't for the life of me see how Cameron would be better...

Maybe Clegg will realise his ambition of being the key power broker in all of this. It is only right in a democracy for the third least-popular party to play such a pivotal role.

ITK, the only poll worth bothering about is the one on election day.

david wrote:
all will be well in the world under Cameron???


I didn't exactly say that David ... did I ?

At least we may have a PM who does not lie to the House of Commons (and at least Cameron WILL have been elected !).

Angel wrote:
ITK, the only poll worth bothering about is the one on election day.

Agreed ... so its even better news !

Most Lie-bour voters are turning away in droves, and the remainder will not be able to spell the "X" on the voting form !

david wrote:
but I can't for the life of me see how Cameron would be better...

David ... at least Cameron won't have caused the biggest financial disaster in recent history (whilest he was in charge of controlling the Banks / City / FSA) and then claim to be the Messiah and the only person capable of leading us out of the crisis !

When you are in a hole the first thing to do is to stop digging (and stop employing those who dug the hole in the first place !)

In The Know wrote:
david wrote:
but I can't for the life of me see how Cameron would be better...

David ... at least Cameron won't have caused the biggest financial disaster in recent history

much tho I dislike Brown, he can hardly be said to have 'caused' this financial disaster- this recession has stretched half way round the world. Or is Brown responsible for the recession which happened at the same time or earlier in the US, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, etc etc etc etc?

Blame him for excessive borrowing maybe, but to blame him for causing the recession is a big red herring.

And I repeat my prediction; Labour will scrape in with a hung Parliament.

Why is voting a party wirh no alternative policies a good thing ITK? Like most, i'm fed up with Brown and co. But just because the Tories haven't been in power for years isn't a good enough excuse to vote for them. I hope you're right JK. It can only be a good thing for the SNP and Scotland.

I only wish we could persuade Alex Salmond to drop his silly devolution and independence ideas and become Prime Minister of the UK - he's a genuinely decent guy.

david wrote:
much tho I dislike Brown, he can hardly be said to have 'caused' this financial disaster- this recession has stretched half way round the world. Or is Brown responsible for the recession which happened at the same time or earlier in the US, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, etc etc etc etc?

Blame him for excessive borrowing maybe, but to blame him for causing the recession is a big red herring.

As London is the financial capital of the world, and as Brown "loosened" the regulation of banks / financial institutions etc ... who else would we blame when it all collapses ?

Angel wrote:
Why is voting a party wirh no alternative policies a good thing ITK? Like most, i'm fed up with Brown and co. But just because the Tories haven't been in power for years isn't a good enough excuse to vote for them.

Who is this party with "no policies" ?

I remember that B-Lair would not reveal any plans prior to 1997 - in case they were stolen.

As we have seen this weekend (with more revelations of corruption by Lie-Bour politicians) they are sinking into the same Sleazeville that the Tories (under Major) did.

After 12/13 years ... everyone wants a change.

JK2006 wrote:
And I repeat my prediction; Labour will scrape in with a hung Parliament.

I don't understand your premise, JK.

If Lie-Bour "scrape in" - there will be no "hung parliament" (as they will have won - even if by only 1 seat).

What is more likely is that Conservatives will will most seats (and therefor have the moral authority to form a Government) but maybe not enough for an overall majority (ie not enough to outvote all other parties added together).

I mean Labour will have the most seats but not enough to govern with a majority and they will need the Lib Dems to rule which may well be the best conclusion of a lousy selection.

In The Know wrote:


As London is the financial capital of the world, and as Brown "loosened" the regulation of banks / financial institutions etc ... who else would we blame when it all collapses ?

Not sure I follow your logic there, ITK. Are you now saying Gordon Brown was responsible for the worldwide recession? That's not something I've heard before.

Didn't it all start in the US with massive defaults on subprime loans which had recklessly been granted to people who could clearly not pay them back? Add to that a huge shortfall in liquidity not only in the US financial markets but in the worldwide banking system as a whole?

david wrote:
In The Know wrote:


As London is the financial capital of the world, and as Brown "loosened" the regulation of banks / financial institutions etc ... who else would we blame when it all collapses ?

Not sure I follow your logic there, ITK. Are you now saying Gordon Brown was responsible for the worldwide recession? That's not something I've heard before.

Didn't it all start in the US with massive defaults on subprime loans which had recklessly been granted to people who could clearly not pay them back? Add to that a huge shortfall in liquidity not only in the US financial markets but in the worldwide banking system as a whole?

Yes ... but remember that many of these banks have their HQs in London (now the world financial capital following loosening of the regulations ... and other "perks", such as non-dom status ... by Brown & Co).

Sub-Prime loans were not only in the USA they were mainly developed over here (its just that the US, being bigger, had far more when they got on board !)

If Brown had regulated the industry properly then we would have been far better protected.

Brown does not regulate the US banking sector.

It matters not one bit where a bank's head office is, it has to abide by the local regulations in each country it operates in, so in the US they will have been working in accordance with US regulations. Nothing to do with London at all.

david wrote:
It matters not one bit where a bank's head office is, it has to abide by the local regulations in each country it operates in, so in the US they will have been working in accordance with US regulations. Nothing to do with London at all.

Banking is a global concern.

When Brown lowered the regulation / control in London he opened the floodgates (which the US had to follow, if they were to compete).

Brown was in charge of the UK economy for the entire decade BEFORE it imploded - he cannot now say it was nothing to do with him (although thats exactly what he is trying to say!)

But then ... what else would you expect from the spin-meisters ?

I agree and disagree with you, ITK.

Firstly, where I disagree is that I think you're giving way too much importance to the UK's role in global financial markets. I think we still haven't got used to the fact that we are no longer major league players in the world and pale into insignificance when compared to the likes of China and the US.

Where I do agree with you is on Gordon Brown's management of the UK economy over the past 13 years. But I would go farther back than Brown. I would say that it goes back to the era of Thatcher and Reagan and the 'loadsa money' culture they fostered, creating a generation or two of people who were/are in it for the quick buck and sod the long term consequences.

A friend of mine who is the owner of several companies in the UK, Canada, China and the US saw it coming and his rather convincing theory is this. Since the 80s we have become more and more obsessed with investing in things that don't actually exist. People trade on 'futures', i.e. things that don't actually exist yet, they engage in spread betting upon a massive scale. The effect of this in the long run is that people end up betting money they don't have on things that don't actually exist. It's absurd.

My friend likened the whole farce to a game of musical chairs. A big proportion of the money circulating in the world today is not real money, i.e. it does not exist physically. It is virtual money, and that is the danger. When the music stops, everyone goes dashing for the chairs, but there aren't enough chairs for everyone, just as there isn't as much money in the world economy as people think.

I found the following definition of spread betting:

A bet on the outcome of an event. The ‘spread’ is a range of outcomes, and the ‘bet’ is on whether the outcome of the event will be above or below the spread. The pay out is based on the accuracy of the bet.

Does this make sense?

Anyway,interesting thread, ITK. You've made me do some thinking.