geiginni wrote:I like to think that what is amusing him so much in this photograph is that he is poking her with his boner

MrFood wrote:A moment or two to discuss what we think each party leader is made from?Nick Clegg - digestive biscuitsDavid Cameron - semolinaGordon Brown - pigeons

I discovered today that I could vote for my local BNP candidate in.... the synagogue round the corner.I wonder if your average fascist would feel any qualms at all about voting fascist in a synagogue?

daniel robert chapman wrote:Worst. Kraftwerk gig. Ever.Brilliant

Labour are trying to say that the deficit isn t our biggest problem at the moment “ that we need it to ensure growth in the short term. But their message is clouded by their dithering.They seem to have a real problem in expressing what they actually want to do. It s almost like they don t want to be seen as being too different, so instead of saying spending cuts are not a priority they re saying that they will cut spending “ but do it later. So all party s are saying more or less the same thing, just there timelines are slightly different. Lib Dems “ Deep cuts need nowTory “ Cuts need in the short termLabour “ Some Cuts are needed at some point in the near futureLib Dems are in a good position “ they can pretty much shame the other parties by just being honest and clear in their message because they re looking to gain votes. They don t have a the problem of losing votes. Whereas Lab and Tory s are hoping that blandness won t lose them popularity “ if you don t actually say anything in particular, or be too specific you won t offend anyone.It s sad when both the traditional main parties are just trying to occupy as much of the middle ground as possible. And it s why we ve got this ridiculous beauty parade of an election. None of them wants to be seen as being driven by ideology, or too radical in their ideas.

Fucking hell. I'm loving that shooped background.

It looks like the LibDems have done well in both debates (Vince Cable obviously knows his stuff). Clegg can obviously diverge from the script, because he has much less to lose by talking freely. In the event of a hung parliament they could do quite well. Brown even smiled naturally at one point.Cameroon is perhaps the most acceptable face that the Tories can field. Yet, he still came across as a toff that feels awkward around ordinary people. He even looked stiff compared to Brown. Clegg was much more self assured. Part of the problem is that all of the parties are committed to cuts, and that's exactly what is not being debated (in fact, the LibDems want to cut even more than both the other parties, ameliorated by a progressive taxation policy). It's curious how the most important issues aren't being discussed. All the parties broadly agree on austerity.Some economists would say that a deficit is exactly what we need right now and we should in fact grow it. But no one wants to offer that point of view.

I think Labour don't want to scare Big Business too much, after all they spent an enormous amount of energy getting them onside. johnnyshape wrote:Cranius wrote:Some economists would say that a deficit is exactly what we need right now and we should in fact grow it. But no one wants to offer that point of view.This is interesting. Can you explain / link?I've read a few accounts of this. In line with general Keynesian arguments the best way to get out of a deep recession is to expand the State deficit and spend your way out of the hole. However, it is in the interest of corporations and big business that the deficit is reduced as soon as possible (hopefully, by making the working-class pay). The expansion of State debt at this point is the only thing that can counter-act the deflationary cycle. So you'd ideally act in a counter-cyclical fashion if the economy is taking a nose dive.The problem is that expanding the State deficit is counter to the ideals of neo-liberalism, so a very bitter ideological pill for any of the main parties to swallow. Labour are right in not wanting to reduce the deficit too soon, but they still want to slash budgets next year. Obviously, this is why a number of UK businesses have already come out in support of Cameron. They, along with the IMF and Central European Bank, are arguing that the electorate must bear the excessively heavy burden of the banking crisis. The LibDems on the otherhand want to please both masters. They want to keep business sweet with swingeing cuts to the public sector, whilst taxing the rich and protecting the working poor. The State in the last instance is the only entity that can create jobs out of thin air, so an expansion of the deficit would allow for huge public job creation programmes. Which is naturally an anathema to corporate interests. Yet, maybe the only solution capable of jump-starting the economy. At a certain point of the crisis every government, left or right, will come into conflict with business, as unemployment rises and unrest threatens the government. There is a danger in cutting the deficit, in that you can lose too many jobs and create the conditions of insufficient demand in the economy. I'll try and find a more rigourous account of this.

Paul Mason is discussing the main parties' stance on bank reform:[Of] three main UK-wide parties the Libdems are the only ones to issue a crystal clear pledge to break up the banks - not just to avoid complexity but to create, effectively, a Glass-Steagall style wall between savings and speculation...the Conservatives want a softer intervention, whereas Labour want to hold out for a global agreement.

Cranius wrote:Some economists would say that a deficit is exactly what we need right now and we should in fact grow it. But no one wants to offer that point of view.This is interesting. Can you explain / link?