...except for the ones who had pensions funds tied up in banks as "shareholders and bondholders". Which would be most of them, guy.

A system where people can not work for 3 months, but sleep in a tent and communicate with the world through $1,000 technology would, I'd suggest, show some signs of it 'working'.

In a capitalist system, bad banks would have been allowed to fail, their profitable operations bought by more efficient competitors. Shareholders, bondholders and some depositors would have lost money, but taxpayers would not have contributed a penny

Which bit of that, other than the avaiblility of an iPhone and a tent for purchase with money, is due to capitalism?

I rather think Plissken's point may have been that we didn't have capitalism in 1066, as such.

The capitalist society that we live in, which has clearly empowered people to take 3 months off and live in a tent with $1,000 communications equipment that has existed since 1776?

Again, in what way has "capitalism" "empowered" them to take 3 months off? Especially if they're all tramps on the dole as the Mail says.

I'm also not sure where 1776 came from.

Would that have happened though? Or would we have had a run on all banks, a general collapse of the entire banking industry and everyone being screwed totally? If we had had a true, free-market, laissez faire, non-interventionist system I think we'd have been really bodged.

'Cos otherwise they'd be dead due to not eating and shit like that.

1776 - Adam Smith's the 'Wealth of Nations' was published.

And the repeated call for a flat tax and the "rich paying 40% of the tax" canard fucks me off as well.

Even if it could be demonstrably proven to increase the overall revenue achieved from taxation, particularly at the highest levels?

I'm a moron.

The Tories being evil is an objective fact, though.

Intellectually you know that all political views are subjective so if you are genuinely trying to say the Tories are inarguably evil, that's just.... silly.

He's just a slightly less swivel eyed version of Nigel Farage. Yes, he can be eloquent, but that doesn't stop him being flat wrong about things and demonstrating that he can't think things through. He's a moron.

Actually I disagree. He isn't a moron, he's much more dangerous than that because he can debate and he is very eloquent. He'll steal your money and persuade you he is right to do so.

Fox love him because Americans love a well spoken British guy even if he is doing evil. See Alan Rickman.

There is a reason he is in Europe and not Westminster - and that is to keep his extremist views as hidden away as possible.

EFFECTS of the policies that flow from those views are not.

I agree he's eloquent, but he's still flat wrong on stuff, and has such way off-base views that I can only assume that he's, at heart, a fucking moron.

He's not a moron, he's just drunk the kool-ade. All these wingers love to believe in their true "pure" free market, fairness for all, and doing away with strong government, but where's it ever been or going to be tested? It's just a fantasy.

And they're TEH EVILZ.

live in a tent with $1,000 communications equipment that has existed since 1776?

Yeah, but I think people are starting to remember why they hate the Tories, and are near to coming to the conclusion that anyone would be better than them. Even the adenoidal Millitede is a better bet.

Leaving any party politics aside our parliament really is a completely embarrassing spectacle at times isn't it? I mean it's just plain weird how they conduct themselves whilst discussing important matters. I guess it's just an illustration of how little it actually means to them, they might as well be back at school in a fucking debating group. Wankers.

On the contrary, I quite like the idea of running a country through a slightly drunk boy's club.

Good job that's exactly what's happened since, ooooh, the council of Barons in 1258.

Effects are entirely arguable, however. 'Blahblahblah the cuts are making me poor' vs 'Long term econominic stability for UK, we'll all be better off in the long run'. Both of which could be true to varying degrees. People are merely predisposed towards thinking about only themselves in the very short term, so an angry reaction to the cuts is understandable, but short-sighted.

I'm sure I've said it before but had it not been for Thatcher, matey, you'd currently have euros in your wallet. Her refusal to agree a timetable for joining it was ultimately what got her kicked. The momentum of that sentiment remains to this day. I don't know about you, but I'm bloody glad for it.

On the contrary, I quite like the idea of running a country through a slightly drunk boy's club.

Quaint, quirky and a relic of the olden days just about sums it up and everything that's wrong with it. I guess it doesn't help that tradition apparently dictates that they all behave like a bunch of sycophantic tosspots, braying loudly at every witless aside that their leaders dribble out. Honestly when the camera pans round for a reaction I just want to slap them all.

Ironically though, debates in the EU chambers of power are typically of the sober, polite, non-grandstanding model.

Well, quite.

And given the tendency for people to vote against their own interests, shouldn't we just do away with democracy? It's too good for us, and we clearly don't understand how it works.

This is a quality thread. Brought to you by Mr Chris, folks. Whatever happened to him.

He decided that space was passe.