This would be the city that grew and grew and grew under the previous Labour government?
Also the city that fucked this country up for a good while and still hasn't repaid us for it's mistakes?
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
Also the city that fucked this country up for a good while and still hasn't repaid us for it's mistakes?
What are you specifically talking about? Also, what start up miracle? London has thrived under both Conservative and Labour governments. Why you think that would suddenly end under this potential new Labour government is baffling, especially when it has no historical or factual relevance or precedence.
ShemhazaiX
Member
Do you honestly think that London would be the "Financial Capital of the World" if Labour hadn't bailed out the financial sector last time round? I'm pretty sure the only reason we even have a financial sector is because rather than letting the economy crater, Labour borrowed to revitalise the economy (in turn taking the blame for "Ruining the economy" which was bullshit).
http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/05/02/britain-for-the-love-of-god-please-stop-david-cameron/
For reference on how Labour didn't fuck anything up last time.
Marc
Member
Have to say, the media on all sides during this election has been shambolic. Especially the personal attacks, a complete waste of time and petty to say the least. I don't like certain politicians but would never make it personal unless they are criminally liable.
The one shining light to my mind has been Andrew Neil, always asking the awkward questions of every party and applying fair arguments. Also incredibly well-informed in every area, more-so than the politicians themselves on their own records.
The one shining light to my mind has been Andrew Neil, always asking the awkward questions of every party and applying fair arguments. Also incredibly well-informed in every area, more-so than the politicians themselves on their own records.
Psychotext
Member
Mine has never changed.
Chittagong
Gold Member
I think it's a tipping point of some sort. Both parties have had to take some pretty populist stances in the coalition-era, and while their approaches are different they are gradually eroding London's attractiveness to the point where it won't be a given for a hot investor to be in the City.
When I moved to UK in 2008 the City was The Shit. Even with Lehman Bros and the world economy collapsing. There was no question as to where you'd want to run your investments from. Fast forward seven years, and being in London has slipped from 'the option' to 'an option'.
NYC, Valley and Hong Kong have now the sex appeal City once enjoyed.
My personal interpretation only of course.
Jezbollah
Member
Could you actually be more specific? Why has London lost this appeal, and how is it any less investable than any of the other cities you mentioned? From a purely property investment perspective, it's thriving. Too much in fact, to the point where over investment in property here is driving prices to completely unsustainable levels, a part of that fuelled by foreign investors. That simply doesn't occur if the demand, interest and confidence in the city, not only from domestic investors and buyers, but foreign investors exists as well. In other words, I have no idea how you're coming to the conclusions you are.
Not that I care, London should never be 'the' only option that it has been allowed to be for so long, or that you describe it as. It's high time productivity and corporate allure spread further to other major cities in the UK. Too long has London been the only potential focal point and investable hub. The country is and should be far more than just London. In that sense, it's not necessarily a bad thing if more businesses think in kind.
It does?
ShemhazaiX
Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html
Well this seems to counter that.
Also, for reference from your article: "That said, it is worth noting that only days before Northern Rock went kaput, and City euphoria evaporated, George Osborne as shadow chancellor was pledging to match the Labour government's promises to continue increasing public expenditure."
So the Tories are a better choice right? Even though they wanted to do exactly the same thing as Labour?
edit: The more I read the article you linked, the less I feel it has to do with Labour at all and rather it's about how common knowledge about how to handle the situation was just wrong.
Cool. I guess I'll rock up to where I voted before and hope for the best. I can't help but wonder if this isn't just one effect of Barnet council's vast outsourcing.
The U.S. should worry about the Supreme Court and the UK about the NHS. Those are the nuclear problems with the right wings.
Trust me, you don't want either the US health system or unelected overpowered judges with no term limits who're unanswerable to anyone.
Trust me, you don't want either the US health system or unelected overpowered judges with no term limits who're unanswerable to anyone.
Jezbollah
Member
You seem to be caught up on the spending side of the argument. I dont disagree that the spending plans Osborne had coming in were similar to what Labour proposed back then.
My point is that Labour are accountable for the levels of regulation in the financial markets that brought about it a heightened amount of risk - and those levels are a major reason why this country got hit harder than others in the recession.
Cameron and the Conservatives are wrong about a lot of what they say about "Labour's great recession" and implying they caused it (because the origins of it are traced to the US sub-prime crisis) - but Labour are not blameless in the amount of impact it had in this country.
Marc
Member
I think that is more due to the increased regulation, fines and such... companies are shit scared at the moment. Maybe rightly so, but because the guidelines change fairly quickly and there is a UK and EU level of regulation it becomes a bit of a crapshoot for the banks. They start to panic and think maybe tomorrow they'll get a billion pound fine for a new rule they weren't quite aware of. So not so much that there is regulation but that it seems to change and the enforcement of them is pretty wishy washy. The FCA as an example can decide to turn up one day and basically demand a full audit. Didn't dot an i and they basically set up camp in your office and you're creating a lot of work and uncertainty. That costs a lot of money and with the recession some companies are skating on ice despite their size.
The costs of moving is huge however so some of it is bluster, some of it is thinking they can make more money in the long run by moving. HSBC as an example are mostly based in asia anyway so it was always on the cards with them.
In any case, the idea that borrowing huge amounts during a golden period assuming it will go on forever like Labour did is just ridiculous. Tories at the time believed it too, but their natural instincts are to save and cut so a lot of their comments are I think a case of "me too" while Labour were in power.
nib95 - You're getting what you wanted for the same problem you mention, London is too costly so a lot of financial business is moving elsewhere. The likes of Birmingham for example. It would help if some of those cities had an airport the likes of heathrow I think, often international business has to come to London first and then travel by train (which are shit) or car (with crowded roads). Catch 22 though, you can build it in the hope it creates that growth but might not happen... yet can't happen without that expansion.
When saying the country should be more than London I assume you mean financial services, in which case what other areas do you think Britain can compete on the world stage?
ShemhazaiX
Member
My point was never about the regulation. I was talking to someone purely about the financial sector and how he seemed to think that without the Tories, the financial sector is going to crumble and London will lose its dominance. I was pointing out to him that it wouldn't even exist if not for Labour, so we're having two different arguments here. Sorry about that.
Yes they should have been regulated better, but it's not like Tories would have regulated them more than Labour did, in fact it's likely that if Tories were in power then there would have been less regulation than there was, considering that's kind of what they do.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
This is an old picture but says so much:
Jezbollah
Member
Cheers - to be fair I phrased it wrongly by saying the link I posted "countered" your article, so my apologies. I do agree with you that the Tories are really are bordering on the obnoxious about their "recovery" - Even though I lean towards them politically, strangely enough - their recovery would have easily been Labour's recovery if they were in power now, just as Labour's "recession" would have been theirs if they were in power back then. Both the crisis in the late 00s and subsequent "pull-through" would have happened regardless - the former being something that was decades in the making.
And yes, Milkman. Very depressing.
This is an old picture but says so much:
Also an incorrect picture. Those bottom photos clearly aren't from any debate - there are people standing in the middle of the chamber so it's clearly a ceremony.
It would be yeah, if it wasn't such a massive lie:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...memes-how-pictures-can-paint-a-thousand-lies/
ShemhazaiX
Member
Cheers - to be fair I phrased it wrongly by saying the link I posted "countered" your article, so my apologies. I do agree with you that the Tories are really are bordering on the obnoxious about their "recovery" - Even though I lean towards them politically, strangely enough - their recovery would have easily been Labour's recovery if they were in power now, just as Labour's "recession" would have been theirs if they were in power back then. Both the crisis in the late 00s and subsequent "pull-through" would have happened regardless - the former being something that was decades in the making.
And yes, Milkman. Very depressing.
Yeah, it's partly my fault though for not specifying that I was mostly just using the figures and data from what I linked rather than the actual message of the writer.
I'm more labour leaning, but I'm from a working class family with a single mother that relies on tax credits and some benefits to be able to support her, me and my sister, especially now that I'm out of education and having issues in the job market. There really isn't anyone else for me to vote for other than labour. Also got to take into account that Worcester is basically one of THE swing constituencies between Labour and Conservatives, so if people don't vote Labour here then Tories will take it easily. Think there was something like 3% difference last general election.
Right, that gives me 20 hours sleep. Thanks!
Fake edit: I'm a 20-something year old english student in Scotland... anything to say to me before I vote? Just in case Ive missed something that might directly affect me.
Psychotext
Member
Yes, they'll smell that you're English before you've even got into the polling station and likely kill you on the spot. Best you stay away.
Box of Kittens
Banned
You're welcome. To update on the (lack of) quality of the UK election coverage in the US, there was a short bit on the radio this morning. It didn't really convey much information other than that this could be the closest UK election in a generation, but what I found particularly interesting was the reference to Labour leader "David" Miliband. I guess Ed and his brother are playing the 'ol switcheroo.
ShemhazaiX
Member
Übermatik;162976966 said:
No matter who you vote for, SNP will come ahead in the majority of Scotland and will probably end up propping up Labour come Friday no matter what Milibae says.
Does that effect you at all?
THE:MILKMAN
Member
Hands up, I didn't check it out for accuracy. My bad.
Box of Kittens
Banned
First past the post, basically. It doesn't matter how much of the vote you get, only how many constituencies you win. UKIP's support is much more inefficiently distributed than, say, the SNP's.
ShemhazaiX
Member
Because there aren't many constituencies where they can actually win a majority. They could have 49% of all votes in the UK and they could still have the least number of seats (though an unlikely situation).
electroshockwave
Member
Charlie Brooker's Election Wipe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05tr714/charlie-brookers-election-wipe
Not sure if it's been posted already.
Oh noes. We should do everything possible to appease the wondrous Corporation of the City of London!
Not sure if it's been posted already.
Oh noes. We should do everything possible to appease the wondrous Corporation of the City of London!
AHA-Lambda
Member
Labour and SNP?
.
Black Republican
Member
so if labour gets less seats than Con, whats gonna be their excuse to form a government?
N7Commander95
Member
Right, getting ready to go down to course vote! Wahoo party 💃
Because the UK electorate votes to elect a parliament, not a government. This article explains it in some depth.
Deciding what shirt to wear tomorrow, Liverpool, Everton ?
Or Harchester United
Voting Labour after work, tempted with the Green Party but they seem just too unrealistic with their left policies. Labour at least offer some balance.
anonymous_abc
Member
In the German press I am surprised how hostile everyone in the EU seems to be towards Cameron.
Everyone seems really fed up with the British and their constant need for special treatment.
I don't think many people are willing to offer Britain more opt outs in order to keep them in the club.
Everyone seems really fed up with the British and their constant need for special treatment.
I don't think many people are willing to offer Britain more opt outs in order to keep them in the club.
FortuneFaded
Member
Just voted. I was the first one there and seemingly used as a training excercise. I voted for the Green Party; that's the one with the tree right?
anonymous_abc
Member
Yes the greens are well known for their nationalism and belief in the union flag and connected symbolism.
Well done. 
brain_stew
Member
Final @guardian #GE2015 projection:
LAB 273 seats
CON 273
SNP 52
LD 27
Please end up like this.
A dead heat on the last day in one if the major polls. Amazing.
It would make a Tory government impossible.
Lib-Lab coalition with SNP/Green/Plaid passing a queen's speech. I think that's the only realistic scenario if that poll proves true. Labour really should just swallow their pride and go for a full three 3 way coalition but their pig headedness well stop them.
The Tories hopefully won't be in power soon and Lab aren't holding an in/out referendum so maybe we'll start getting points at Eurovision again.
Kotetsu534
Member
Yay, first person to vote in my polling box and one of the first (possibly the first, didn't see anyone else inside or around) at my polling station. The girl giving out the voting tickets was engrossed in conversation when I showed up before realising I needed served.
When we get electronic voting it should be possible to keep a record of how voting progressed over time - it'd be interesting to see if, say, the Tories start off better thanks to all the employed being up early, or if niche parties like the Greens keep up for a while before dying off after the early hours. I'm in Glasgow South, a Labour seat which is predicted, at roughly 90:10 odds according to the bookies, to go to the SNP. Voted for the incumbent.
When we get electronic voting it should be possible to keep a record of how voting progressed over time - it'd be interesting to see if, say, the Tories start off better thanks to all the employed being up early, or if niche parties like the Greens keep up for a while before dying off after the early hours. I'm in Glasgow South, a Labour seat which is predicted, at roughly 90:10 odds according to the bookies, to go to the SNP. Voted for the incumbent.
I guess I know who to blame for the impending Green-Tory coalition that I've been predicting.
- Status