State owned banks.

The latter. At least, that's the current plan. The idea is to wait until the market recovers and the value of the shares goes up, and which point the state shareholding will be sold off.

If sold today, the government would get more than it paid, as the share value has already risen past the break even point. So they don't actually

*need* to wait. My hunch is that they'll leave it until a couple of years before the end of the current parliament and then use the income to fund pre-election spending increases and tax cuts.

Mark

Surely dumping large numbers of shares at once is going to drive the prices down a lot?

Cynic ;-)

Not if the sale price is chosen well. The sell-off price will probably be slightly below the prevailing market value, so as to make the shares attractive to institutional investors.

I prefer the word "realist" :-)

Mark

In message , Mark Goodge writes

So do I, but spending increases are unlikely and after a couple of years it will be just a matter of giving back a tiny portion of what they have taken away. By then the damage will be irreversible in areas with large social demands. Sure - there'll be tax cuts for those who pay plenty, I just hope that those who trusted the Lib-Dems will have come to their senses.

And me too, hence the smiley.

Agreed.

I'm not sure where the tax cuts may be. The tories are really clobbering the "middle classes" at the moment. They can't (I hope) get away with just tax cuts for the rich. They'll have to bribe most of us to have a hope of winning the next election.

And do what exactly?

In message , Mark writes

Boo Vince Cable when he appears on Strictly Come Dancing, - that'll teach 'em. ;-)

Reactivate the Monster Raving Loony Party and vote for them?

They're still around.

I hope that we get the AV voting system which should enable us to vote for "no candidate".

AV does not allow you to vote for "no candidate", unless there's something about it I've misunderstood. Can you explain how you think it would?

Ronald Raygun gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

In exactly the same way as you can vote for "no candidate" now.

I don't see any details in the current proposals. However, whenever I have voted under an AV system, there has always been a "no candidate" option. You can vote for this as if it were a real candidate. i.e. If you'd rather no-one got elected than some or all of the candidates then you rank no candidate above them.

I'm sure many would rank "no candidate" at the top of the list ;-)

Agreed, since you can't do that either.

The best (or worst, depending) you could do now is to tick no box or to tick more than one, thus "spoiling" your vote. That isn't "voting for no candidate", it's "not voting".

You can't vote for "no candidate" now.

If such a choice were possible, then if more voters ticked the "no candidate" box than for any other single candidate, then no candidate would be elected and that constituency would have no representation in Parliament.

That is not possible under the existing or proposed electoral systems. All you can do is either not vote at all or spoil your ballot paper. In either case those "votes" are disregarded and only votes for actual candidates are counted.

Chris

Spoiled votes are counted, are they not? Nobody voted for what we have now. We have a government with no mandate for what they are doing to this country, and they dare not hit the people who caused it, because the bankers provide more than half of Tory funds.

Spoiled ballots are counted, but are then disregarded. The actual numbers don't have any bearing on the result of the election.

You make a very good point. We're only fooling ourselves that we live in a really democratic society. The only time most politicians pay any attention at all to what people have to say is during the few weeks of the election campaign. Once the votes are inside the ballot box they go off and do whatever they want for the lifetime of that Parliament.

A true democracy would be an ongoing process where people continually had the opportunity to influence important decisions taken at all levels of government. The system we have now was inherited over the course of hundreds of years and is quite outdated for today's world. Modern technology and communications could offer so many opportunities for people to have a say in government, but you're not going to get it because the incumbent politicians wouldn't give up the existing system without a fight.

Chris

In message , Chris Blunt writes

They ought to be given more publicity, because they are really votes for "None of the above"

Too true! I expect that most of them will back off the idea of AV (if) and when the vote comes.

They're not. Most of them are simply c*ck-ups by people who can't read or follow instructions.

Mark