Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I love the second year. One 2,2, five 2,1s and two Firsts = First.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Well a mate of mine was an extra in the third one and she's a thing that starts with a C and often does things which are as Frenchie alludes to.
    She is not a c***, a s*** yes but not a c***.

    Source: I was in a HP Film as an extra tbh a lot of people have been an extra in HP, if they had been to acting school, with an agent or just pay attention online.

    Shame that HP is finishing though :sad:

    (Emma Watson was born in Paris... she is French :eek: :sexface:).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14047901

    ^^ The Prime Minister will accept his catastrophic error of judgement over Andy Coulson if the Labour party accepts their catastrophic error of judgement on the economy :teehee:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's funny. Labour aren't really the ones who screwed the economy up and it's likely that both leaders knew dan well what was happening over in the press corps. Politicians are so bull****.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For those who are interested in this sort of thing:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14039199
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    For those who are interested in this sort of thing:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14039199
    That looks like a lovely village - I would love to live in a place like that.

    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    It's funny. Labour aren't really the ones who screwed the economy up and it's likely that both leaders knew dan well what was happening over in the press corps. Politicians are so bull****.
    Labour are to blame for a number of things namely the deficit getting out of control, over spending, failing to create a sufficient regulatory structure for the banks amongst other things.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Labour are to blame for a number of things namely the deficit getting out of control, over spending, failing to create a sufficient regulatory structure for the banks amongst other things.
    Eh. Sure. But a) the Tories were the same beforehand and said they liked what Labour was doing while times were good and b) the coalition is making things worse and c) they're still not to blame for the recession.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    \Looks like people will be arrested over the next few days over this hacking claim and the IPCC are going to open an investigation
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0

    ^^ This is just the most pathetically unfunny thing I have ever seen.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Labour are to blame for a number of things namely the deficit getting out of control, over spending, failing to create a sufficient regulatory structure for the banks amongst other things.
    The Tories were going to create less regulation for the banks...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Labour are to blame for a number of things namely the deficit getting out of control, over spending, failing to create a sufficient regulatory structure for the banks amongst other things.
    In truth, yes, we might argue that Labour are to blame for over-spending as a way of bringing the NHS and other public services up to scratch compared to decades of neglect by the Tories. Where I would join you in a chorus of disgust is at the belief in self-regulation: it failed with the banks, it has clearly failed with the media, and I'm sure there are plenty of other scandals waiting to be unearthed. Thus, we come back to the quandary presented when neo-liberalism first came to prominence in the 1970s: how do we square economic growth with the European model of regulation and oversight. Fact is we're better off with lower economic growth, better cohesion, and improved social justice than we are with higher economic growth, self-governance, and collapsing social justice. The mess we are in now should be the catalyst to a rediscovery of the European model of social democracy, it should not be about harping on at the restoration of the neo-liberal model which has completely and utterly failed us on every test.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Eh. Sure. But a) the Tories were the same beforehand and said they liked what Labour was doing while times were good and b) the coalition is making things worse and c) they're still not to blame for the recession.
    I have repeated said this. The Conservatives; under Cameron, were absolutely wrong, economically, to say that they will stick to Labour spending plans. Before 2005 Michael Howard was; if I recall correctly, warning of over spending.

    However, I can understand why the Conservatives pledged to match Labour funding - politics. If they didn't, Labour would have ran a populist political campaign against them which would have been very damaging.

    So although they are wrong economically, politically they couldn't have done anything else really.

    On the issue of the coalition, I am not a fan of it and if you try reading my earlier comments on this very thread I spoke of Powelite moves :cool:

    I don't blame them for recession - they were complete morons for suggesting that they had abolished boom and bust as that is impossible within a capitalist system; although it does show Labour's economic incompetence.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    The Tories were going to create less regulation for the banks...
    Less regulation is fine so long as the regulation is effective. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Labour destroyed the regulatory structure.

    (Original post by Adorno)
    In truth, yes, we might argue that Labour are to blame for over-spending as a way of bringing the NHS and other public services up to scratch compared to decades of neglect by the Tories.
    That's no justification. If they wanted to spend more they should have made a case to the public for higher taxation to pay for public services. They should have run an election on the premise that they will increase taxes to pay for it.
    Fact is we're better off with lower economic growth, better cohesion, and improved social justice than we are with higher economic growth, self-governance, and collapsing social justice.
    I am sure you will be shocked to hear this but I agree with you. High economic growth is worthless if it isn't raising the standard of living of ordinary folk. Unlike you, however, I don't believe suffocation of high regulation and taxes will do ordinary people any justice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    That's no justification. If they wanted to spend more they should have made a case to the public for higher taxation to pay for public services. They should have run an election on the premise that they will increase taxes to pay for it.
    Thing is, the rhetoric leading to the 1997 election was precisely that. But then Labour worried that if they were seen as a tax and spend party they would lose as they had done in 1992 so quickly said "we'll stick to Tory spending plans" for most of the first term in office. Most of the British public realise that if we want a hospital that works and a school that works we have to pay for it, unfortunately the people who control the strings in this country don't want to pay their taxes like the rest of us. I assure you, I have no love for the New Labour project.

    am sure you will be shocked to hear this but I agree with you. High economic growth is worthless if it isn't raising the standard of living of ordinary folk. Unlike you, however, I don't believe suffocation of high regulation and taxes will do ordinary people any justice.
    See, the high taxes and high regulation are imposed on those who create the most risk for the economy: bankers, media entrepreneurs, and so forth. Ordinary, working people like your parents and mine would benefit from progressive taxation which gives them the services they deserve without punishing them for being ordinary. Unfortunately the current system we have places all the blame on them and not the people who really cause it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Less regulation is fine so long as the regulation is effective. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Labour destroyed the regulatory structure.
    Would you mind explaining this?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    The Tories were going to create less regulation for the banks...
    And? if having less regulation is more effective and gets the job done then I see no problem with it.

    However this whole splitting up the banks into retail and investment instead of having one bank is ludicrous. It will just make banks leave to better financial centres with less regulations such as Hong Kong, Lichtenstein (which is often overlooked as a great place to be a bank ), Switzerland and the USA which too is also giving even less regulation to the banks.

    Give the banks what they want but keep tax up slightly higher but not too high or they will leave.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0

    ^^ This is just the most pathetically unfunny thing I have ever seen.
    I found it quite entertaining, but more because as soon as we have a Democrat President then everyone is moaning about how they tax everything :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Oh it's true, Labour did pretty badly. I just get mildly irritated by people who say the recession was their fault (or the fault of the Tories).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is truly beautiful outside
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Thing is, the rhetoric leading to the 1997 election was precisely that. But then Labour worried that if they were seen as a tax and spend party they would lose as they had done in 1992 so quickly said "we'll stick to Tory spending plans" for most of the first term in office
    Again Labour playing politics, surprise surprise. Following Tory budgets actually earned Gordon Brown the title of Iron Chancellor - he should have taken that as a hint to not increase proliferation in spending beyond the trends already established.

    Most of the British public realise that if we want a hospital that works and a school that works we have to pay for it, unfortunately the people who control the strings in this country don't want to pay their taxes like the rest of us. I assure you, I have no love for the New Labour project.
    Good - I can respect some old Labour types because they just come out and say "more tax for more spending". I don't agree with them, but they are open about what they believe. New Labour was deceitful and economically incompetent.

    See, the high taxes and high regulation are imposed on those who create the most risk for the economy: bankers, media entrepreneurs, and so forth. Ordinary, working people like your parents and mine would benefit from progressive taxation which gives them the services they deserve without punishing them for being ordinary. Unfortunately the current system we have places all the blame on them and not the people who really cause it
    Well everyone had a hand in the current financial problems - I won't go into it much as I have done so numerous times.

    Still, I don't think high taxes are necessary. If you take banks for example, ensure that they meet minimum requires for capital and ability to offset potential loses then ensure that they understand that the rest is on their head. The reason I oppose high taxes is because they are critically unfair and punish success.

    The problem with the way banking was handled was that it rewarded failure as well. That is unacceptable.

    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Would you mind explaining this?
    Triparte system devised by Brown was a failure; unable to respond to problems in the banking system; organisations didn't work together; no one had a clue.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.