64% of the UK did not want David Cameron as priminister

Did you protest when he was Labours' ally? Or when Labour introduced fees and then proceeded to triple them? You are crying crocodile tears, you are alarmed at the result, although if it was a Labour win, you wouldn't dare make such a stupid thread like this. You are fooling no-one.

You know what would also save a lot of money? Asking the filthy rich bankers that greatly influenced an economic crisis to cover the cost of their crimes and mistakes. Surely a more cost effective method than taking away young Brian's Disability Living Allowance.

You know what would also save a lot of money? Asking the filthy rich bankers that greatly influenced an economic crisis to cover the cost of their crimes and mistakes. Surely a more cost effective method than taking away young Brian's Disability Living Allowance.

'The bankers are the reason my life sucks' - butthurt lefties

so you're telling me that bankers should be taxed more because they have a good job, and earn money because of their hard work? i don't see the logic...

If you walked into a bar, and smashed it to smithereens, then demand everyone else that was in the bar demanded they payed the bill, then made deals with the landlord to sell the debt to everyone else in the bar, everyone else has a right to be a little bit upset you're asking them to pay the price for your crimes and/or mistakes (I don't know how drunk you were).

But you'd probably just ballerina out of there hopping and skipping about how the guy who smashed up the bar was amazing and was such a hard worker.

Still 36% should be a mandate to do whatever you want unchallanged.....

This situation is nothing new. The people rejected AV in the referendum a couple of years ago, remember?

If you walked into a bar, and smashed it to smithereens, then demand everyone else that was in the bar demanded they payed the bill, then made deals with the landlord to sell the debt to everyone else in the bar, everyone else has a right to be a little bit upset you're asking them to pay the price for your crimes and/or mistakes (I don't know how drunk you were).

But you'd probably just ballerina out of there hopping and skipping about how the guy who smashed up the bar was amazing and was such a hard worker.

If you walked into a bar, and smashed it to smithereens, then demand everyone else that was in the bar demanded they payed the bill, then made deals with the landlord to sell the debt to everyone else in the bar, everyone else has a right to be a little bit upset you're asking them to pay the price for your crimes and/or mistakes (I don't know how drunk you were).

But you'd probably just ballerina out of there hopping and skipping about how the guy who smashed up the bar was amazing and was such a hard worker.

I agree that the ultra wealthy should get taxed a little more. They don't need that extra Ferrari.

Labour won a majority in 2005 with 35.2% of the vote. Didn't hear any left wing hypocrites crying about how un-democratic it was then.

The ultra wealthy don't need your country either. As evidenced by the revenue freefall in France after top-rate tax hike.

Why commit mistakes that were literally committed .. a year ago? Why is it that the electorate has such a short memory and undeveloped economic understanding?

"tax the rich" or "print more money" is simply the dumbest cases for economic growth or recovery from a recession I've ever heard.

Rather than using such snotty language, why not give an example? I understand the rich could just leave. I am not talking heavy taxes as Labour want to impose.

I understand both sides of the spectrum. I am from a rather wealthy family, and I was educated at a public school. My family are Tory voters. However my mother has MS and a couple of years ago became completely unable to work. This she hates - and still goes out to volunteer twice a week. However now she is what the OP would consider "vulnerable" and now faces disability allowance cuts and pays bedroom tax, unable to downsize further than she already has because I would have nowhere to sleep when I come back to visit from university.

I don't know about you but I am sure the wealthier among us would be open to a very slight tax rise to protect the vulnerable and elderly.

The incidence of taxation is and always has been a bigger burden on the wealthiest than on the poorest. The problem here is the usage of emotion in economics. When you have a country which offers a 40% tax rate and a country which offers a 41% tax rate and you're a billionaire, it's very unlikely you'd choose the 41%. To you it may seem that 1% is a very minimal and socially just value, to someone who earns a billion per year, the $10m is not a pram toy.

The economy doesn't work when it is based on emotion. I'm putting a case forward that exemplifies the disincentive for the wealthiest to remain in a nation with high taxes. The concept of raising taxes ipso facto already signals to the rich of a possible tax hike in the future even higher. It's a momentum thing.

I understand. However you need to understand that the economy is not the only priority for the government. Both wealthy and non-wealthy people rely on the NHS and other public services. A balance must be struck.

That's the problem.

The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. — Thomas Sowell