Has anyone noticed the recent lack of Labour bashing?

**tonymurphy1888** · December 14, 2009, 04:06 PM

I mean recently as in the last two days it seems the press and even the news have slightly layed off Brown and Labour I noticed it after reading this
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...n-warzone.html

Mabey I'm just being optimistic

.

**Darkhorse** · December 14, 2009, 04:08 PM

Might be because he's been in Afghanistan, which is a nice gesture. He's the first PM since Churchill to stay overnight in a warzone.

**Admiral Piett** · December 14, 2009, 04:54 PM

Do yall pay that close attention to your media? Any gap in anything must be a sign of some sort?

**Martin N** · December 15, 2009, 06:19 AM

Yeh probably because hes out of the country annoying your troops, hes not back at home so he cant do nothing wrong haha.

**Monarchist** · December 15, 2009, 06:25 AM

The U.K. Labour Party is evil.

There, I've done it. It feels nice to fill in the gaps, especially since the Tories are almost exactly the same. We need some reinforcement against the reds.

Poor Mr. Brown looks rather annoyed, as if he's just awoken after a night of heavy drinking to find himself tied to some ridiculous ballerina dress, and is missing his underpants.

**tonymurphy1888** · December 15, 2009, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Monarchist

The U.K. Labour Party is evil.

There, I've done it. It feels nice to fill in the gaps, especially since the Tories are almost exactly the same. We need some reinforcement against the reds.

Poor Mr. Brown looks rather annoyed, as if he's just awoken after a night of heavy drinking to find himself tied to some ridiculous ballerina dress, and is missing his underpants.

+ rep

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 15, 2009, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by tonymurphy88

I mean recently as in the last two days it seems the press and even the news have slightly layed off Brown and Labour I noticed it after reading this
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...n-warzone.html

Mabey I'm just being optimistic

.

It's because 40% of this country are too stupid to read a bus timetable and love the idea of punishing the most profitable employees of state owned banks making it harder for them to repay the money this country desperately needs.

**justicar5** · December 15, 2009, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Ferrets54

It's because 40% of this country are too stupid to read a bus timetable and love the idea of punishing the most profitable employees of state owned banks making it harder for them to repay the money this country desperately needs.

The ones who got us into this should suffer most from it. Or do consequences only apply to poor people?

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 15, 2009, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by justicar5

The ones who got us into this should suffer most from it. Or do consequences only apply to poor people?

Bankers profitable enough should not have their deserved bonuses taxed. Don't pretend you care a jot for punishing those responsible (you just want to punish the responsible, their familes, their colleagues, their cats, their hometowns and any toilet seat they've used in the past five years).

**~~Barry Ferguson~~** · December 16, 2009, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Ferrets54

Bankers profitable enough should not have their deserved bonuses taxed. Don't pretend you care a jot for punishing those responsible (you just want to punish the responsible, their familes, their colleagues, their cats, their hometowns and any toilet seat they've used in the past five years).

Bank bonuses were taxed before the crisis

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 16, 2009, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Barry Ferguson

Bank bonuses were taxed before the crisis

I don't believe that bankers were specifically targetted, however.

**Musthavename** · December 15, 2009, 02:10 PM

Thing I don't like too much about the 50% windfall tax is it's not addressing the problems that got us into this in the first place. Forcing bonuses to be taken in shares and then taxxing the sale of those shares relative to how long they're kept (e.g you sell them immediatly, 80-90% tax on them, sell them in 5 years, nothing), would stop the short term risk taking. Simply reducing their bonus changes nothing except as a publicity stunt.

But yeah, there's a lack of it. There's been nothing to bash over in about... oh a week. I'm sure Labour will think up something stupid that alienates more of the electorate soon enough.

**justicar5** · December 15, 2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Musthavename

Thing I don't like too much about the 50% windfall tax is it's not addressing the problems that got us into this in the first place. Forcing bonuses to be taken in shares and then taxxing the sale of those shares relative to how long they're kept (e.g you sell them immediatly, 80-90% tax on them, sell them in 5 years, nothing), would stop the short term risk taking. Simply reducing their bonus changes nothing except as a publicity stunt.

But yeah, there's a lack of it. There's been nothing to bash over in about... oh a week. I'm sure Labour will think up something stupid that alienates more of the electorate soon enough.

ok thats a better idea than mine.

**Martin N** · December 16, 2009, 10:46 AM

Profitable for state owned banks sure, but not profitable for the average person, there being paid for being irresponcible with there lending.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 16, 2009, 10:57 AM

JESUS WEEPING CHRIST

Explain to me how these banks will repay the money they owe said average person if you're going to punish them for being profitable?

**justicar5** · December 16, 2009, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Ferrets54

JESUS WEEPING CHRIST

Explain to me how these banks will repay the money they owe said average person if you're going to punish them for being profitable?

100% of profits goes to repaying the debt, until it is paid, selling shares forbidden until the debt is paid, all bonuses paid in shares a pre-crunch value.