So there was a loophole from 2009 and a year later when Osbourne was in charge of the budget, he couldn't even see that a tax loophole was about to cost the country 5 billion. FIVE BILLION. I can understand a couple of million here and there but FIVE BILLION and he still didn't notice the missing money when it was actually gone 4 years later.

Did he not do his due diligence or did he have no intention of closing it until caught and chose instead to place punitive measures on the poor? What else could it be?

You've become evasive and are calling me Paxman just for wanting some answers that apparently, an hour ago you were happy to give but are no longer happy too.

Wrong type of question or is that just like Cameron and Osbourne, you can't actually defend their record either?

You clearly have not read the explanation about a little-known loophole.Once can argue about whether it should have been realised earlier but lets not criticise the Conservatives as being "Friends of bankers" and all that hogwash when a succession of bank taxes have already been levied - I believe 8 in total of during this Parliament.

As for the Paxman jibe it was pure ribaldry on my part so the "Wrong type of question" remark is not applicable.

Finally I am sure Messrs Cameron and Osborne can defend the Government's record far better than I can and they will be proud to do so during the election campaign.Mr Miliband can try and defend his scare stories of a "Triple dip recession" which have lasted 5 years and have grown as threadbare as Steptoe's cardigan.

Edited by Willo (31 Mar 2015 5.08pm)

Deregulation of the banks was backed wholeheartedly by Dave and Gideon. It's completely disengenous to blame Ed Balls for a policy that the Conservatives backed and actually wanted to go further

Gideon also announced that there would be no rise in VAT and it rose the minute he came into power so do we take what he says seriously? I mean, he was on TV telling the rich how to avoid paying tax don't forget.

If what you say is true, he could have raised 5.3 billion quid from his mates already but instead chose to attack the most vulnerable in our society and only acted once he and his mates were caught out.

Edited by EricYoung'sSweatBand (30 Mar 2015 2.23pm)

I'd say thats too Emotive.

The bankers were operating in 'loosely' regulated conditions that, even then, the Labout Gov (and previous Govs) fully endorsed as the money was flooding into the treasury. So 'loose' were the regulations as they could almost be read as encouragement to 'keep on doing what you're doing'. Only when it all went tits-up did anyone start to cry 'greedy bankers'. Those greedy bankers helped pay for alot of stuff that the then Government still feel immensely proud about. I can certainly remember Brown doing his 'Labour loves the city and business' speech during the good times.

And the banks were only doing (albeit, on an industrial scale) what the rest of the country was doing - going nuts on cheap money and cheap borrowing. Hell, I was doing it on my credit card. Took me ages to work that one off.

Blaming 'the banks' retrospectively is all too easy a scapegoat. To my mind they were at the sharp end of the then collective 'zeitgeist' greed of 'money at all costs'.

Banks are regulated under act of parliament - so politicians don't have much opportunity to influence any funnels.

Do people really think that all those Scottish people voting SNP will achieve nothing?

At the very worst, Labour will lose the election so will have to try and win those voters back and at the very best they will be in Government with Labour and will have a real say in their destinity.

To say a vote means nothing is idiotic.