It seems apt that this divisive political era - three major votes in two years! - would culminate in one of the most viciously fought elections in memory.
Amid all of the political nastiness, we've also had to cope with the horrible events in Manchester and London. When June 8 comes and passes, it will be a welcome respite from the tumult.
But we've still got some ground to cover. Two days out from the polling booth, we're in for a bumpy landing. Despite contestations from the Lib Dems and the SNP, this election really is about Labour and the Tories (SNP will perform powerfully in Scotland, of course).
So what are we facing? The fork in our path is between PM Corbyn or PM May. You couldn't conjure up two more different (or polarising individuals). Corbyn inspires an incredible zeal in his supporters (many of them young). His critics, however, are just as passionate in their contempt of him.
May is an altogether more beguiling figure. She's not necessarily popular. Her awkwardness when dealing with the public is emblematic of her personality. If this was a personality contest, she'd most likely suffer a landslide loss to some of the other more likeable candidates.
But this isn't a personality contest, is it? And for a large swathe of the electorate, May's robust, steady administration of this country is exactly what we need as we head into our post-EU future.
For others, including many on the forums, both parties represent a profound dysfunction. 'I don't think either leader or party is inspiring. In fact, I think they both show how woeful UK politics is at present,' said The Accountancy Lab.
Fisicx wryly noted that he didn't watch the recent Paxman interviews of the candidates because 'I think all of them are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard'.
For the business owners of UKBF, the fundamental question is what will happen to the economy. Paul Norman put it bluntly: 'I am more interested in the creation of a more predictable, more stable, economic environment in which to operate.'
Given the two likely winners, we're presented with two competing economic programmes. Each with its own negatives. Corbyn, unsurprisingly, has been ferocious in his attacks on austerity economics.
If they win, Labour has promised to open the sluices. In the short term, as Scott-Copywriter points out: 'Corbyn's spending spree would have had the effect of increasing economic growth.
'But unfortunately he had to pair that with a huge increase in corporation tax and the aim of increasing the NMW to £10 per hour.' Corbyn's policy is predicated on the idea that increased taxes necessarily equals a greater tax intake. That's not always the case.
As Scott-Copywriter adds: the UK's corporation tax income increased from £44bn in 2010-11 to £56bn in 2016-17 despite the rate being slashed by 7%.
But then there are the lingering issues of the Tory policies, too. The Conservatives have repeatedly promised a surplus. This surplus has yet to appear. Despite their failure to reach surplus, they haven't yielded on their austerity economics.
The fact is some households - not all of them - have seen their disposable incomes dip. Female lone parents, for instance, have been one of the hardest hit. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) charity shows that by 2020, female lone parents are set to lose 26 percent of their disposable income on average.
Newchodge raised a similar concern: 'To my mind, one of the big issues that the Tories' austerity has caused is less spending. If people have barely enough to live on, they will not spend because they can't. If people have millions and millions in the offshore tax havens, they won't spend because there is nothing they need.'
It's not quite that simple, though (when is it ever?). Scott-Copywriter, who argues eloquently in favour of a centrist approach, admits 'with Labour in charge, GDP growth will be higher than what it currently is under the Tories'.
'That's to be expected,' he writes, 'more people will have more money to spend'.
'But the downside is that borrowing will go back up, the national debt will rise at a faster pace, and interest rates will go up faster (not great for mortgages or discouraging saving).'
There's a lot to consider. But as this debate deepens - Corbyn's Keynesian economics or May's neoliberal agenda - there are some who aren't convinced by either choice. It was UKBF's rabble rouser, The Byre, that represented this viewpoint.
'The trickle-down effect does not exist! (This is an old economist's chestnut of fallacies, rather like the lump of labour.) Rich people spending money does very, very little to improve the lot of the poor. However, there is a percolate-up effect, in which a more affluent general population raises the wealth of the whole nation including the rich.
'It is convenient for the right to believe in the trickle down effect, just as it is convenient for the left to believe that if we tax the rich, we automatically benefit the poor. Both assumptions are based on fallacies, but sadly, politicians are so stupid, that they base entire policies on nonsense like this.'
Amid all of the political nastiness, we've also had to cope with the horrible events in Manchester and London. When June 8 comes and passes, it will be a welcome respite from the tumult.
But we've still got some ground to cover. Two days out from the polling booth, we're in for a bumpy landing. Despite contestations from the Lib Dems and the SNP, this election really is about Labour and the Tories (SNP will perform powerfully in Scotland, of course).
So what are we facing? The fork in our path is between PM Corbyn or PM May. You couldn't conjure up two more different (or polarising individuals). Corbyn inspires an incredible zeal in his supporters (many of them young). His critics, however, are just as passionate in their contempt of him.
May is an altogether more beguiling figure. She's not necessarily popular. Her awkwardness when dealing with the public is emblematic of her personality. If this was a personality contest, she'd most likely suffer a landslide loss to some of the other more likeable candidates.
But this isn't a personality contest, is it? And for a large swathe of the electorate, May's robust, steady administration of this country is exactly what we need as we head into our post-EU future.
For others, including many on the forums, both parties represent a profound dysfunction. 'I don't think either leader or party is inspiring. In fact, I think they both show how woeful UK politics is at present,' said The Accountancy Lab.
Fisicx wryly noted that he didn't watch the recent Paxman interviews of the candidates because 'I think all of them are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard'.
A choice of economic doctrine
No matter what we think of these men and women, we know one thing for certain: one of them will lead our new ruling party.For the business owners of UKBF, the fundamental question is what will happen to the economy. Paul Norman put it bluntly: 'I am more interested in the creation of a more predictable, more stable, economic environment in which to operate.'
Given the two likely winners, we're presented with two competing economic programmes. Each with its own negatives. Corbyn, unsurprisingly, has been ferocious in his attacks on austerity economics.
If they win, Labour has promised to open the sluices. In the short term, as Scott-Copywriter points out: 'Corbyn's spending spree would have had the effect of increasing economic growth.
'But unfortunately he had to pair that with a huge increase in corporation tax and the aim of increasing the NMW to £10 per hour.' Corbyn's policy is predicated on the idea that increased taxes necessarily equals a greater tax intake. That's not always the case.
As Scott-Copywriter adds: the UK's corporation tax income increased from £44bn in 2010-11 to £56bn in 2016-17 despite the rate being slashed by 7%.
But then there are the lingering issues of the Tory policies, too. The Conservatives have repeatedly promised a surplus. This surplus has yet to appear. Despite their failure to reach surplus, they haven't yielded on their austerity economics.
The fact is some households - not all of them - have seen their disposable incomes dip. Female lone parents, for instance, have been one of the hardest hit. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) charity shows that by 2020, female lone parents are set to lose 26 percent of their disposable income on average.
Newchodge raised a similar concern: 'To my mind, one of the big issues that the Tories' austerity has caused is less spending. If people have barely enough to live on, they will not spend because they can't. If people have millions and millions in the offshore tax havens, they won't spend because there is nothing they need.'
It's not quite that simple, though (when is it ever?). Scott-Copywriter, who argues eloquently in favour of a centrist approach, admits 'with Labour in charge, GDP growth will be higher than what it currently is under the Tories'.
'That's to be expected,' he writes, 'more people will have more money to spend'.
'But the downside is that borrowing will go back up, the national debt will rise at a faster pace, and interest rates will go up faster (not great for mortgages or discouraging saving).'
There's a lot to consider. But as this debate deepens - Corbyn's Keynesian economics or May's neoliberal agenda - there are some who aren't convinced by either choice. It was UKBF's rabble rouser, The Byre, that represented this viewpoint.
'The trickle-down effect does not exist! (This is an old economist's chestnut of fallacies, rather like the lump of labour.) Rich people spending money does very, very little to improve the lot of the poor. However, there is a percolate-up effect, in which a more affluent general population raises the wealth of the whole nation including the rich.
'It is convenient for the right to believe in the trickle down effect, just as it is convenient for the left to believe that if we tax the rich, we automatically benefit the poor. Both assumptions are based on fallacies, but sadly, politicians are so stupid, that they base entire policies on nonsense like this.'
