When the bubble burst in 2008 there should have been an example made and it should have been 'day zero'. Instead the bubble was patched up and re-inflated to carry on with this ponzi scheme circus of an economy.

You mentioned specifically the Euro rate rather than, say, the dollar rate. The stuff we buy from Europe can be substituted e.g. German cars for British made ones, fancy food and wines from other places, etc. So no specific need to impact on inflation, other than via business supply chains, which again could generally be substituted over time.

Have you not seen the value of the £ against the $.
1.43 last Jan to 1.24 today, a 17/18% drop ??

Although suppliers can close their eyes in the short term, these changes have a direct effect on the cost of goods that we all buy on the high street.
On the flip side, a weak currency certainly helps exports.
If only we had a strong manufacturing sector in the UK.................

I'll be voting Labour 100%

The Tories "hammer the young/poor/low paid/disabled + tax breaks for the rich" policies don't sit well with me at all.

Where as Corbyn has his faults, but he's a man of principle who is struggling to adapt to the phoney world of front bench politics. The policies are pretty good and I feel investment in the North is much better safeguarded by a Labour Government.

How could you vote for anything other than 100%? Put a single line instead of a cross in the box?

When you say Corbyn is a man of principle, shouldn't that translate to accepting that his MPs can and should vote against him on the basis of conscience? That's the flag he hid behind when doing so umpteen times. I'd also argue that if he was genuinely principled, his aim should be to get his party into power. If he can't he should quit and let someone else have a go. Otherwise he's actually letting down all Labour supporters, except for the mindless few who think running the Labour party is more important than running the country.

The problem is his naivety - what does he actually think he going to do about the 'tax dodgers' these are companies/individuals using legitimate tax avoidance methods to reduce the amounts of tax they pay. Does he honestly think he is going to get the likes of Green and Ashley to pay more? If he changes the rules you will end up with less tax take. Putting CT back to 30% isn't going to increase the tax take it will probably have the opposite effect.

Next its Southern Rail - so he wants to re-nationalise the railways. So commuters see the impact unions have on a business that is trying to run more efficiently can you imagine what it would be like if the railway was in public ownership!! If Labour got in you would see a huge swing in power to the unions and we have seen this week in Unite what happens when you expose their true practises and challenge the status quo.

Next there is going to be a cap on what companies can pay their top performers - that should be fun in the PL!! Its naive rhetoric from bunch of idealists who haven't had a job outside of politics and have no connection to ordinary working people.

No I mean i'm 100% decided.

I think he can and does accept his MP's voting against him, just not when its deliberately done to sabotage the party and having Blairs old crew trying to derail him at every opportunity.

He's also obviously trying to get Labour in, it's a long shot according to the polls but stranger things have happened recently.

Of course he can get Ashley and Co to pay more, minimum wage increase, ban on exploitative 0hrs contracts etc. We will see a return of power to Unions, but thats not a bad thing - they are decimated at the minute so there's a happy medium to be found between now and what when on previously. Don't think there's much dodgy with whats gone on with Coyne, McCluskey will win by a country mile - there's no threat from Coyne so why stitch him up?

The cap is something like CEO can only make 25x more than the cleaner. So pay the cleaner 20k - boss gets 500k. I don't think that sounds unreasonable. Obviously dispensation would have to be made for some industries.

If Coyne isn't a threat why suspend him - appears like McClusky running scared whether he is or not who knows. It does no harm to expose the way the leadership of the union use the funds provided by the members - cosy expensive accomodation in London, final salary schemes etc. This is unions all over - what can the membership do for them not what they can do for the membership. McClusky is only interested in his influence on main stream left wing politics and he needs the union's funds to do that via its donation to Labour. As Ineos showed when his back is against the wall McClusky simply ran back to his cosy office with his tail between his legs. If that is the kind of guy you want having a massive influence in how the country is run good luck to you

Minimum wages are already on a path to higher levels so not sure what Labour are going to do make the minimum wage £15/hr all that happens is prices rise do you think Ashley is going to earn less? The business will be potentially less profitable and we all know what happens then - headcount gets reduced. You can't stop 0 hours contracts it does actually suit a big chunk of those on it. The one person who can ride it out is Ashley not sure those made redundant will find it so easy.

The problem is the very best talent costs a lot more than £500k - so to take your view cleaners at any of the big supermarkets would have to be on £120k a year!! You will not get the appropriate quality of CEO to run a BP for instance for £500k its a bonkers proposal completely unworkable. I take it this will proposal will only apply to public quoted companies or all LTD companies. Its typical of the idealistic approach that is so far adrift of a practical working solution it would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

Retail sales in the last quater suffer their biggest drop in 7 years.
Economically, this country is on its backside if we don't keep some form of access to the single market. Our economy is built on financial services, and being in the single market makes those services operate more easily, it also makes our currency stronger, which helps paper over the cracks of our unsustainable current account deficit which nobody seems to be doing anything about. We simply do not have the manufacturing base to fill the void leaving the European union is going to leave. In other words, the only thing making us an attractive place for companies to invest in is our financial services, so if that sector shrinks, or moves abroad, what do we have that can fill that void?

I'm not a fan of Corbyn, but the Tories record is just about indefensible, They've had 7 years, and we're in a worse state in areas like education, health, manufacturing, public safety, international relations, living standards, life expectancy, and the environment than we've been in years, and now we're faced with the prospect of falling off a economic cliff if the Tories Brexit plan goes through.

We have a strong services sector which exports.

Two points: name one public company that has the "best talent" running it. People will work for what the market rate is. If £500,000 was the maximum on offer they'd be queuing up for the jobs. To think otherwise is naïve.

If we had no access to the single market we would buy less from the EU (too expensive) and the current account deficit would improve. Supply chains would adjust as UK based manufacturing became more cost effective. Whilst there will be a short-term shock in leaving the single market in several years time it may prove to have been the catalyst for rebalancing our economy. There could be an upside to Brexit as well as down side you know.

So what you are saying is, if Brexit costs lots of people their jobs and homes, its ok because it may get better for the country in 7 years time?

I wonder if you would be advocating this if you lost your home and job because of it.