[Jaspersharpe]

Depends which way you look at it but the total cost of the bailout has been estimated as £850bn and tax take from "the city" was only £32.5bn for the Y/e 31st March 2009. This was a lot lower than usual cos of the banks losses but still doesn't look too great against the bailout cost especially when it was only 7.5% of total tax take.

However, a lot of that "cost" is in guaranteeing loans and assets, insurances and so forth so it's not a simple calculation. Statistics, bullshit, swings and roundabouts but unfortunately "The City" is a necessary evil. The bigger issue is how to police the fuckers properly.

[Sloper]

Regulation is of course the key, but regulation tends by its nature to be reactive as the regulatory framework needs necessarily to be general in nature and consequently innovation at the edges can stretch the capacity of the regulatory structures to breaking point.

A good example is the current bombshell on the balance sheets from 'amend and pretend' with regard to the asset values against which loans are secured; but since these are not intended to be liquidated at what point and how is the asset value determined and what are the consequences of say over valuing a non liquid asset and offsetting this value against highly risky practices  . . ...

The one thing we can say with certainty is that the regulatory structure created by Brown has failed on almost every meaningful measure.

[Jaspersharpe]

Yes of course much like the way that HMRC will always be one step behind the creators of tax loopholes. It's a given. However, that doesn't change the fact that the old idea that "the market knows best" has to be forgotten forever. The market doesn't know best if reported profits and assets don't actually exist and the touting of the line has prevented governments worldwide from policing these cunts properly. No lessons learned from Enron etc.

As I keep repeating, I'm no fan of Brown but to beat him with this stick seems unfair. How would your Tory chums have reacted to an attempt by Labour to impose stricter controls on the banks?

As I also keep repeating, the time for mudslinging and recrimination should be over. I'd prefer that something was actually done about it.

[Sloper]

My previous comment seems to have got lost in the ether so here's a precis.

Gordon Brown personallya nd for policy reasons set up the regulatory system that failed, for years he lauded the city and handed out knoghthoods like NED's, FFS the tribal left still bang on about Thatcher and the school milk which was nearly 40 years ago let alone the miner's strike.  Gordon Brown deserves all the mud slinging on this particular point.

Regulatory systems will always fail, they have done so since Babylonian times and will continue to fail; the question is how do you design a system to cope with the inevitable failure; there's no easy answer but the point is risk needs to be priced and accommodated for; something I think the Tories have grasped.

It is a tricky subject and highly emotive but the problem is that there's more heat and smoke than light, saying lessons must be learned and let's move on is the peon of New Labour and the excuse to avoid taking responsibility and it's time we saw the wood for the trees.

Do I think Boy George is the intellectual heavyweight who can deal with the city and regulation? do I fuck, but at least he's an unproven novice rather than a stuck in his ways proven loser.

[slackline]

Boy George?  Thought he got banged up for imprisoning someone, didn't realise he'd sidled up with the blues. 

[Jaspersharpe]

The "Independent" blatantly backs the Lib Dems.

[Jaspersharpe]

....and The Mash bashes the Tories.

[Duma]

 

[Jaspersharpe]

magpie posted this article on Twitter. I've asked her to put it on here but she's ignoring me so I'll do it myself.
 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7096786.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

[Jaspersharpe]

And so it begins....

Tories "break manifesto pledge" after two days.

[magpie]

I was, as predicted, off buying more make up.  It's a really good article though, isn't it?  Good on her for having her say.

[Sloper]

A totally impartial review of the debate.

Brown was shit, same old same old, the repition of figures, avoiding the question and very very rigid.

Clegg, had some real high points which given there were no real gaffes makes it a very good night out for him.

Cameron, missed some open goals, responded to the question and the questioner and made no gaffes, provided a positive but predictable perforamce without gaffes.

From the baseline of the campaign so far:

Clegg +5
Cameron +2
Brown -3.

I think if this pattern is repeated the lib dem / labour marginals will be a bloodbath.

[GraemeA]

A totally impartial review of the debate.

Ha ha, you are no more capable of giving an impartial review of a political debate than I am off being impartial about a Tyne-Wear derby.

I didn't see the debate as I was round Joe's drinking a 2002 and a 2006 Mersault Les Tessons Michel Bouzereau. The 2002 was really good, the 2006 will be good in a few years 

[Bubba]

Ha ha, you are no more capable of giving an impartial review of a political debate than I am off being impartial about a Tyne-Wear derby.

[Sloper]

A totally impartial review of the debate.

Ha ha, you are no more capable of giving an impartial review of a political debate than I am off being impartial about a Tyne-Wear derby.

I didn't see the debate as I was round Joe's drinking a 2002 and a 2006 Mersault Les Tessons Michel Bouzereau. The 2002 was really good, the 2006 will be good in a few years 

Sorry that's just bollox, I'm more than happy to criticise the Tories when it's proper to do so; for example over their plans on immigration which are just silly.

[Jaspersharpe]

Here's a selection of views just to be truly "impartial".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7099159.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/15/leaders-debate-nick-clegg-tv?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7596178/TV-election-debate-Nick-Cleggs-star-rises-in-great-showdown.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/world/europe/16britain.html

It wasn't even close. Brown and Cameron were made to look like the stuck in the past, no proper policy, posturing, lying wankers that they are. Well done Nick Clegg.

"Cameron +2" Seriously Sloper, take off the rose blue tinted glasses for once. He came across as a patronising Eton cunt (unsurprisingly) and was soundly smacked down on several occasions.

[Sloper]

The Guardian and Telegraphn independent?  Are you on drugs?  The Times is only independent when Murdoch forgets to tell them how to think.

Cameron ennunciated some policy areas and responded well on a personal level and stuck to the subject, he made no gaffes or resorted to below the belt comments when it would have been so easy to.  Hence the plus 2

Brown however made a number of points that are factually untrue, made some snide below the belt comments, repeated meaningless stats and often ducked the question, hence -5.

As I said Clegg won by a margin which is good as it will cost Labour 50 seats.

[galpinos]

Sloper, do you really think Cameron was five "sloper points ^TM" better than Brown?

Clegg clearly came out the best. He started in the best position, of the man with nothing to lose, and used it to his advantage. Whether it'll work as well in the next two.... He showed genuine exasperation over the Tories and Labour trying to jump on the electoral/parliamentary reform bangwagon that he's been pushing, he made clear points backed up by stats and numbers and wasn't too smarmy.

I thought Gordon did ok actually. I can stand the man but expectations were low and he exceeded them in my opinion. The problem is most of his points/policies sound hollow as if they were going to do them, why haven't they, they've had 13 years!

Cameron and the Tories always had most too lose. Unlike Tony, who when in the lead in the polls repeated refused to the debate, at least they stuck to their word and turned up. Cameron unfortunately came across as quite smarmy (and I'm a posh boy) and seemed to have policies that without the facts/stats to back them up seemed a bit pie in the sky. As Sloper pointed out, immigration was a bit of a disaster for him on the night!

The whole thing was a bit staid but it seems the format might be changed for the next two. A bit of crowd interaction/heckling wouldn't go a miss!

[cofe]

Cameron struggled under the pressure. Clearly not prime minister material. Finally given an equal platform, Clegg embarrassed the other two, despite Brown trying to align himself with the Lib Dems.

[tomtom]

I thought Clegg came across well - and was clearly the best performer.
Cameron seemed to have liitle substance aside from personal anecdotes 
Brown did well for himself I thought.

Next one will be interesting. Since cleggs success will the other two try and gang up on him (as brown tried to get clegg to on cameron) or try and suck up to him...

I agree with the pundits who say the brown cameron performances will re-inforce people existing oppinions of them. I agree - I thought brown did well and cameron was shallow and appeared flustered at times - and I'm a Labour man at heart.. But Clegg has really done well. I wonder (and part of me hopes because it will be a change) whether Clegg will be able to gain enough momentum from this to mount a real challenge.... its possible?
Interesting how Clegg seems to represent the Tory mantra of change more than the others. clever....

[galpinos]

, despite Brown trying to align himself with the Lib Dems.

That got a bit embarrassing. "I think Nick agrees with me" etc. It didn't look like Nick did!

[galpinos]

Interesting how Clegg seems to represent the Tory mantra of change more than the others. clever....

The missus said exactly the same thing.

(Not that that should undermine your point..... )

[cofe]

, despite Brown trying to align himself with the Lib Dems.

That got a bit embarrassing. "I think Nick agrees with me" etc. It didn't look like Nick did!

Cameron did exactly the same with Brown, clearly after the fence-sitting voter. "not all or what labour has done has been bad etc etc etc" blah blah

[dave]

The whole thing was a bit staid but it seems the format might be changed for the next two.

Hopefully they will all come on stage to a slightly misjudged combination of dry ice, strobes and theme music like darts players. Who do you recon will go for PJ&Duncan's "Lets Get Ready To Rhumble"?

[Sloper]

My pointsbased system explained:

Answering the questions directly +1
Engaging with the questioner +1
Putting forward policy +1
Explaining why the policy is a good idea +1
Rebutting allegations +1

General impression +1/-1

Snide comments and ad hominem attacks etc -1
Repeating statistics -1
Repeated refering to previous events -1
Avoiding the questions -1

I personally dislike the Tory approach to immigration but recognise it will sadly strike a chord with the proles and is therefore a necessary ill.

Brown doesn't seem to understand basic economics and repeatedly stating that not following through with a tax rise would take money out of the economy is not only preposterous but after the third time not only failed to answer the quesiton but turned people off.

As has been pointed out Brown trying to wear both the lib dem cloak and the tory hat was demeaning and suggested that you might as well vote for them!

Hence the scores.

dave love the suggestion, how about

For Gordon Brown, Simply Red 'if you don't know me by now'
Cameron AC/DC 'back in [the] black'
Clegg, Donovan 'mellow yellow'