UKIP is the party for people who know the difference between having German neighbours and having Romanian neighbours. The rest of us regard that as net curtain racism, but I expect they will find a substantial part of the electorate nevertheless.
Putting aside the small matter of Romanians and Germans being the same race, it's actually the difference between a family with half-German kids versus a group of Romanian men. Because a group of Romanian men in the UK are much, much more likely to be involved in criminality than half-German children.
‘This is not to say for a moment that all or even most Romanian people living in the UK are criminals.
‘But it is to say that any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door.’
"This is not to say for a moment that all or even most Romanian people living in the UK are criminals."
Surely it would have been more honest - not to mention truthful - to say that the vast majority of Romanians living in the UK have never committed or been accused of committing any kind of crime.
Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005. http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080
And it allows me to be the co-owner of a successful business and to lead a life that my grandparents could not have dreamed of living. I am all for it. What worries me is that the super-rich could bugger it all up for the rest of us if we are not careful. As I understand it, this is Piketty's point as well.
The French Revolution did not take place because peasants were starving. It took place because lawyers were starving.
Similarly, it's not the envy of the poor for the super-rich that threatens capitalism, but the envy of the rich for the super rich that threatens capitalism.
If that is a little dig Antifrank, I am afraid it is misplaced. I assume that you feel no envy to the super-rich, so why should anyone else who is well off? The French revolution is an ideal example of the super rich ignoring all signs and indications of a lifestyle being unsustainable and of paying the price. If it had just been about a few pissed off lawyers, it may not have had the violent and cataclysmic consequences it did. It wasn't nice middle class advocates who stormed the Bastille or dragged the French royal family out of Versailles.
Those who write about the super rich are almost exclusively the fairly affluent.
And what about those who read about them? And why does that imply that anyone is envious?
The problem most people seem to have with the super rich is that they have too much money. It is hard to find any other word for that than envy.
I guess if you lack any kind of imagination, foresight and/or live in a very cloistered world that might be the case. But if you don't, perhaps there is more to it than that. Presumably because I believe that it is no-one's interests for the super-rich to hoard money they do not need and cannot ever hope to spend that makes me envious. I'll have to have a think about that, but I am pretty sure it's not true.
I am a firm believer in listening to what people say especially what they say about themselves as on that subject they will usually be truthful and it gives a big clue as to how they will act.
Cameron said he was the real heir to Blair, and in office has, I think, behaved like it. Miliband on taking over the Labour leadership proclaimed himself a socialist. I am prepared to take him at his word.
Those who write about the super rich are almost exclusively the fairly affluent.
And what about those who read about them? And why does that imply that anyone is envious?
The problem most people seem to have with the super rich is that they have too much money. It is hard to find any other word for that than envy.
I guess if you lack any kind of imagination, foresight and/or live in a very cloistered world that might be the case. But if you don't, perhaps there is more to it than that. Presumably because I believe that it is no-one's interests for the super-rich to hoard money they do not need and cannot ever hope to spend that makes me envious. I'll have to have a think about that, but I am pretty sure it's not true.
It's another example of the agony of Business Class. Everyone in Business Class would prefer to be in First. They can rationalise arguments why they do not envy those in First, but they're only kidding themselves.
And North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic. People can call themselves what they like.
So Labour are lying about being socialists then? As are the huge
You're scraping the barrel here Southam. Sometimes you need to realise when you're wrong. Labour are a socialist party, the Guardian is a socialist newspaper, Nick Clegg is a lying weasel, and Mitt Romney isn't going to win the presidential election.
We will not agree, Socrates. My belief is that when you claim the Guardian is a socialist newspaper or Labour a socialist party you make yourself and your arguments look rather silly. And, yes, I think that anyone in Labour who describes it as a socialist party looks rather silly as well. But then I don't think that the German Democratic Republic was ever a democracy. So maybe it's just me.
From previous threads where I have suggested that the only people benefitting from the policies of the last 15 years are the well off, home owners and the buy to letters.
This points out exactly the problem as more and more of us get pushed off the property ladder by the spiralling house prices so loved by both new labour and the current "tories"
Congratulations to new labour and the conservatives you will have taken us back in time to the victorian era when the proles all had to rent of usorious landlords who held vast swathes of housing with your focus on keeping houses on an ever increasing price spiral
From previous threads where I have suggested that the only people benefitting from the policies of the last 15 years are the well off, home owners and the buy to letters.
This points out exactly the problem as more and more of us get pushed off the property ladder by the spiralling house prices so loved by both new labour and the current "tories"
Congratulations to new labour and the conservatives you will have taken us back in time to the victorian era when the proles all had to rent of usorious landlords who held vast swathes of housing with your focus on keeping houses on an ever increasing price spiral
In this, at least, I am in total agreement with you.
Another Richard Lehmans was not bailed out of course, but interestingly it was Labour which undertook the bank bailouts, UKIP have said they would certainly have at least let Northern Rock go bust. In the US, it was Bush and the GOP establishment and a majority of Democrats who backed the bailout, it is the Tea Party which is strongly opposed, and indeed a majority of Republican representatives in the House voted down the bailout
Those who write about the super rich are almost exclusively the fairly affluent.
And what about those who read about them? And why does that imply that anyone is envious?
The problem most people seem to have with the super rich is that they have too much money. It is hard to find any other word for that than envy.
I guess if you lack any kind of imagination, foresight and/or live in a very cloistered world that might be the case. But if you don't, perhaps there is more to it than that. Presumably because I believe that it is no-one's interests for the super-rich to hoard money they do not need and cannot ever hope to spend that makes me envious. I'll have to have a think about that, but I am pretty sure it's not true.
It's another example of the agony of Business Class. Everyone in Business Class would prefer to be in First. They can rationalise arguments why they do not envy those in First, but they're only kidding themselves.
Got it - you are on a wind-up. I should have realised sooner. You are, after all, an intelligent man.
From previous threads where I have suggested that the only people benefitting from the policies of the last 15 years are the well off, home owners and the buy to letters.
This points out exactly the problem as more and more of us get pushed off the property ladder by the spiralling house prices so loved by both new labour and the current "tories"
Congratulations to new labour and the conservatives you will have taken us back in time to the victorian era when the proles all had to rent of usorious landlords who held vast swathes of housing with your focus on keeping houses on an ever increasing price spiral
Owning a property isnt a human right. You have to work hard and earn it.
Those who write about the super rich are almost exclusively the fairly affluent.
And what about those who read about them? And why does that imply that anyone is envious?
The problem most people seem to have with the super rich is that they have too much money. It is hard to find any other word for that than envy.
I guess if you lack any kind of imagination, foresight and/or live in a very cloistered world that might be the case. But if you don't, perhaps there is more to it than that. Presumably because I believe that it is no-one's interests for the super-rich to hoard money they do not need and cannot ever hope to spend that makes me envious. I'll have to have a think about that, but I am pretty sure it's not true.
It's another example of the agony of Business Class. Everyone in Business Class would prefer to be in First. They can rationalise arguments why they do not envy those in First, but they're only kidding themselves.
Got it - you are on a wind-up. I should have realised sooner. You are, after all, an intelligent man.
George Michael sang:
"The rich declare themselves poor And most of us are not sure if we have too much, but God's not keeping score."
When George Michael is complaining about the rich, I think we can see the real problem.
Another Richard Lehmans was not bailed out of course, but interestingly it was Labour which undertook the bank bailouts, UKIP have said they would certainly have at least let Northern Rock go bust. In the US, it was Bush and the GOP establishment and a majority of Democrats who backed the bailout, it is the Tea Party which is strongly opposed, and indeed a majority of Republican representatives in the House voted down the bailout
I hadn't realised that about UKIP and Northern Rock. What provision would they have made for all the working class savers affected by its collapse. Have they said?
Clegg smearing Farage as a nasty racist on Marr. I've lost all respect for Clegg at this point. He went from being an honest debater that would try to be far to lying and smearing all over the place because it's EU membership in question.
Expressing an opinion is not a smear.
Nick Clegg believes that Farage is a nasty BNP type as much as he believes three million jobs are actually dependent on the EU. I used to respect him more than the other two big leaders, but not any more. Farage genuinely is the only one who isn't the same. The fact he sat through that abusive interview the other day, giving his honest views to every question just brings him more credit.
Your opinion is certainly as valid as Clegg's. But opinion is all that it is. How do you know that Clegg does not believe that Farage is a racist or that three million jobs will not be lost if the UK leaves the EU? Isn't it more the case that he sees the world in a very different way to you and to other UKIP supporters? What you think is OK to say, he sees as racist; what you believe about the EU, he does not. He may be wrong. But that is altogether different.
Clegg is a proven liar, and morally contemptible. He has spent his entire life lying to the British people about Europe, and much else. I'd far rather vote for Farage than him.
I don't think you would ever have contemplated a Clegg v Farage comparison.
Cameron v Farage is more like your dilemma. Flip- flop - flip - flop. Is BNP lite in the ascendancy now ?
Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.
The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.
Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text.
If that's true, my contempt for the Conservative party has reached new lows.
Why? It's a low form of politics, but (pre-leak) quite clever: UKIP gets attacked, the source appears on the left, and the BBC is more likely to run with it. It also frees up the Tories to fight on issues and principles
Those who write about the super rich are almost exclusively the fairly affluent.
And what about those who read about them? And why does that imply that anyone is envious?
The problem most people seem to have with the super rich is that they have too much money. It is hard to find any other word for that than envy.
I guess if you lack any kind of imagination, foresight and/or live in a very cloistered world that might be the case. But if you don't, perhaps there is more to it than that. Presumably because I believe that it is no-one's interests for the super-rich to hoard money they do not need and cannot ever hope to spend that makes me envious. I'll have to have a think about that, but I am pretty sure it's not true.
It's another example of the agony of Business Class. Everyone in Business Class would prefer to be in First. They can rationalise arguments why they do not envy those in First, but they're only kidding themselves.
Got it - you are on a wind-up. I should have realised sooner. You are, after all, an intelligent man.
George Michael sang:
"The rich declare themselves poor And most of us are not sure if we have too much, but God's not keeping score."
When George Michael is complaining about the rich, I think we can see the real problem.
Indeed. Wise words. And here's more envy from another wannabe:
Another Richard Lehmans was not bailed out of course, but interestingly it was Labour which undertook the bank bailouts, UKIP have said they would certainly have at least let Northern Rock go bust. In the US, it was Bush and the GOP establishment and a majority of Democrats who backed the bailout, it is the Tea Party which is strongly opposed, and indeed a majority of Republican representatives in the House voted down the bailout
I hadn't realised that about UKIP and Northern Rock. What provision would they have made for all the working class savers affected by its collapse. Have they said?
There was still an assurance for savers of 30k or so - so only those with big deposits would have lost out. Might have been more - now 80-90k.
Would prefer it if Garage differentiated between gypsies and Romanians, even more differentiation between the Romany than there is with the Germans. Bizarre how stubborn Lysenkoism has remained the orthodoxy of the left establishment, almost as if the scientific advances of the past thirty years have never happened. Of course almost all advances undermine lefty social policy hence the persecution of dissidents.
SeanT, re wealth inequality, doesn't capitalism have a Darwinian safety valve in the form of philanthropy? When the pot gets too full there's an overflow and they pour the money back into whatever they value in society.
I'm thinking of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and the work they do to eliminate malaria. Or Lord Ashcroft supporting Crimestoppers and military. Do these people have a self-awareness gene that Louis XVI lacked?
"Owning a property isnt a human right. You have to work hard and earn it"
Not necessarily, in fact, most of those getting on the "property ladder" these days do so using their parents hard work. There are exceptions such as "union bashing" doctors, vets, lawyers, etc who rather stunningly don't realise that their various governing bodies are in fact exactly the same thing. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
And it never ceases to amaze me that not 100% of people in the UK accept that we are all, in this country, "the rich". Vs the many millions if not a billion or so who live on the fabled and extraordinary $2/day we are rich beyond dreams.
None of this relative poverty latest iPhone (or trainers 30 years ago) bollocks.
When people rail against the "1%" they of course, globally, are railing against themselves. Not that they have the self-awareness to understand that.
Those who write about the super rich are almost exclusively the fairly affluent.
And what about those who read about them? And why does that imply that anyone is envious?
The problem most people seem to have with the super rich is that they have too much money. It is hard to find any other word for that than envy.
I guess if you lack any kind of imagination, foresight and/or live in a very cloistered world that might be the case. But if you don't, perhaps there is more to it than that. Presumably because I believe that it is no-one's interests for the super-rich to hoard money they do not need and cannot ever hope to spend that makes me envious. I'll have to have a think about that, but I am pretty sure it's not true.
It's another example of the agony of Business Class. Everyone in Business Class would prefer to be in First. They can rationalise arguments why they do not envy those in First, but they're only kidding themselves.
Got it - you are on a wind-up. I should have realised sooner. You are, after all, an intelligent man.
George Michael sang:
"The rich declare themselves poor And most of us are not sure if we have too much, but God's not keeping score."
When George Michael is complaining about the rich, I think we can see the real problem.
Indeed. Wise words. And here's more envy from another wannabe:
If this isn't a result of economic improvement (I believe it is, partly, but I am open to other ideas) what else might be driving it?
I wonder if it is sheer exhaustion. The campaign is going on too long, far too long, and almost everything that can be said has now been said, and we are left with rancour and vitriol.
And the thing is, the Nats dish out more rancour and vitriol. So maybe that is putting off Scots people, especially women, as they recoil from the nastiness and the divisiveness.
Just an idea.
If it is happening, maybe it's more to do with the self-evident contradiction at the heart of the SNP's argument. Under their best case scenario - a currency union - independence will mean Westminster having a veto over Scottish economic and fiscal policy. In other words, independence will mean less control than Scotland has now. So where does all the increased spending to make a land of milk and honey come from except via major hikes in taxation?
I am a firm believer in listening to what people say especially what they say about themselves as on that subject they will usually be truthful and it gives a big clue as to how they will act.
Cameron said he was the real heir to Blair, and in office has, I think, behaved like it. Miliband on taking over the Labour leadership proclaimed himself a socialist. I am prepared to take him at his word.
They're hyphenated socialists. That is they have elements of socialism to them, but also large chunks of other stuff so are far from what might be termed pure/true socialism as it were.
Those who write about the super rich are almost exclusively the fairly affluent.
And what about those who read about them? And why does that imply that anyone is envious?
The problem most people seem to have with the super rich is that they have too much money. It is hard to find any other word for that than envy.
I guess if you lack any kind of imagination, foresight and/or live in a very cloistered world that might be the case. But if you don't, perhaps there is more to it than that. Presumably because I believe that it is no-one's interests for the super-rich to hoard money they do not need and cannot ever hope to spend that makes me envious. I'll have to have a think about that, but I am pretty sure it's not true.
It's another example of the agony of Business Class. Everyone in Business Class would prefer to be in First. They can rationalise arguments why they do not envy those in First, but they're only kidding themselves.
Got it - you are on a wind-up. I should have realised sooner. You are, after all, an intelligent man.
George Michael sang:
"The rich declare themselves poor And most of us are not sure if we have too much, but God's not keeping score."
When George Michael is complaining about the rich, I think we can see the real problem.
Indeed. Wise words. And here's more envy from another wannabe:
Which part of the tax rates cited do you think have any relevance for the UK?
And what has that got to do with anything? Or is it your case that only people writing and talking about the super rich in the UK are envious. Elsewhere it's different?
If this isn't a result of economic improvement (I believe it is, partly, but I am open to other ideas) what else might be driving it?
I think the Nats have misread the improving economy. Their working assumption was better economy => better for chance of Tory Govt in Westminster => better for Nats.
Another view is that the English teat is back making lots of creamy milk for Scots to suckle on.
There may also be a slow dawning that the SNP is talking bollocks about just how many times you can slice and dice the oil revenue to create their economic Nirvana....
Another Richard Lehmans was not bailed out of course, but interestingly it was Labour which undertook the bank bailouts, UKIP have said they would certainly have at least let Northern Rock go bust. In the US, it was Bush and the GOP establishment and a majority of Democrats who backed the bailout, it is the Tea Party which is strongly opposed, and indeed a majority of Republican representatives in the House voted down the bailout
I hadn't realised that about UKIP and Northern Rock. What provision would they have made for all the working class savers affected by its collapse. Have they said?
Farage said at the time that he would have acted under the existing arrangements which meant that anyone with up to £50K in savings was protected by the FSCS.
Those who write about the super rich are almost exclusively the fairly affluent.
And what about those who read about them? And why does that imply that anyone is envious?
The problem most people seem to have with the super rich is that they have too much money. It is hard to find any other word for that than envy.
I guess if you lack any kind of imagination, foresight and/or live in a very cloistered world that might be the case. But if you don't, perhaps there is more to it than that. Presumably because I believe that it is no-one's interests for the super-rich to hoard money they do not need and cannot ever hope to spend that makes me envious. I'll have to have a think about that, but I am pretty sure it's not true.
It's another example of the agony of Business Class. Everyone in Business Class would prefer to be in First. They can rationalise arguments why they do not envy those in First, but they're only kidding themselves.
Got it - you are on a wind-up. I should have realised sooner. You are, after all, an intelligent man.
George Michael sang:
"The rich declare themselves poor And most of us are not sure if we have too much, but God's not keeping score."
When George Michael is complaining about the rich, I think we can see the real problem.
Indeed. Wise words. And here's more envy from another wannabe:
Which part of the tax rates cited do you think have any relevance for the UK?
And what has that got to do with anything? Or is it your case that only people writing and talking about the super rich in the UK are envious. Elsewhere it's different?
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates reckon that the rate of tax on the US super rich was too low. I didn't see anything about the super rich being unacceptable. Far from it. They aren't self-hating.
So you seem to be lacking a wider point than US tax rates.
I don't think that's true. They spend far too much time fighting over the 'centre ground' and so use the same vague, bland language to do so, but as much as simplification is necessary, saying they are the same or have the same views is a little too much simplification, a fiction designed to make one's party of choice more the outsider and the other than perhaps they are.
On the EU they certainly are very similar, and there is not a great range on some other policy areas, but that is not the same as having the same view.
It's all the narcissism of small differences, like Cantabrigians and Oxonians arguing about the boat race.
I can accept there is truth in that. Also, I never knew Cantabrigian refers to things/people pertaining to Cambridge. Also good to learn something new, interesting term.
It come from the fact that Cambridge historically reported to ++Cantabury (hence "Cantab" or "Tab") in the same was as Eton reports to +Lincoln and Oxford has its own foundation (+Oxford)
Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.
The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.
Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text.
If that's true, my contempt for the Conservative party has reached new lows.
Why? It's a low form of politics, but (pre-leak) quite clever: UKIP gets attacked, the source appears on the left, and the BBC is more likely to run with it. It also frees up the Tories to fight on issues and principles
Probably why the Tories have been a major political force for centuries - deep down these people are street fighters who take no prisoners. The frightful strop UKIP supporters have gotten into over their party's mauling at the hands of the 'liberal establishment media' is a bit disappointing. Their appeal was their apparent immunity from and indifference to the usual shenanigans of mainstream politics. That they can be as fragile and vain as anyone else is a let-down. Some of the magic has now gone.
Apparently that photo above is "contorted into a provocative, mocking sneer" and English people living in Scotland are now the problem (tbf also according to the ST).
They've excluded non-resident Scots. They've done the English. They've done the "anti-Scottish" Scots who don't agree with the SNP. They are now doing the English living in Scotland.
I think we've passed Peak Scapegoat.
Aha. Polling error margins have become very important.
:-o
Only people wittering on about it are English. Seems a bit odd that it is not a concern in Scotland, but the glee from down south on a very small subsample is risable.
My quote is from Wings Over Scotland. Obviously it is a highly successful English infiltration simulation-of-xenophobia, which raised whatever-it-was from gullible Gnats.
Lol.
Wings was talking about it from the sinister viewpoint given London newspapers trying to introduce "anti English feelings" into the debate when there are none. It is not an issue , is a small subsample from a poll and given the polling companies have no clue how to weight in this case just another "look a squirrel".
From previous threads where I have suggested that the only people benefitting from the policies of the last 15 years are the well off, home owners and the buy to letters.
This points out exactly the problem as more and more of us get pushed off the property ladder by the spiralling house prices so loved by both new labour and the current "tories"
Congratulations to new labour and the conservatives you will have taken us back in time to the victorian era when the proles all had to rent of usorious landlords who held vast swathes of housing with your focus on keeping houses on an ever increasing price spiral
Owning a property isnt a human right. You have to work hard and earn it.
Care to point out where I claimed it was a human right? Thats right you can't.
My complaint is simple, successive governments of all colours have worked to keep the house prices rising over and above both price inflation and wage inflation. This in turn has meant that the bottom rung of that property ladder has been pulled out of the reach of the majority and this is still being done.
Of course you have to work to afford a home but lets face it nowadays the prospect of owning a home is non existent for a huge proportion of the electorate down to the policies of restricting house building and low interest rates.
The reason people can't afford to buy therefore has absolutely nothing to do with them not be willing to work hard it is merely that no matter how hard they work that initial step is beyond their capability. This is why during the laxer years people were lying outrageously on self certification. It was the only way they could get a mortgage. If interest rates go up as they will have to sooner or later these people will be dropping like flies and the properties will be snapped up to swell the burgeoning property empires of the buy to letters.
Governments are supposed to govern in the best interests of ALL the country not merely that part that runs business's or can afford to buy a house and that is what new labour and camerons lot are doing and continue to do
I get the impression that many on the Left would happily go to Heathrow to wave goodbye to the richest 1,000 in this country. And the richest 10,000 after that. And the richest 100,000 after that.
I carry no torch for the super rich. But they do pay for the NHS.
I would happily welcome another 100,000 into the country if it meant we had world-beating healthcare, free at the point of use. Every time they bought a yacht or a Bentley or a Mayfair pad, I would have a sly grin at the VAT or the Stamp Duty they were paying into our coffers.
SeanT, re wealth inequality, doesn't capitalism have a Darwinian safety valve in the form of philanthropy? When the pot gets too full there's an overflow and they pour the money back into whatever they value in society.
I'm thinking of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and the work they do to eliminate malaria. Or Lord Ashcroft supporting Crimestoppers and military. Do these people have a self-awareness gene that Louis XVI lacked?
The French had noblesse oblige. Louis XVI still got guillotined.
I think ostentation is a characteristic of boom times. Maybe Louis & Co. weren't circumspect enough about hiding their wealth. I once saw Abramovich walking down the King's Road. Old jeans, pair of trainers. Keeping a low profile. I expect those Thai kids will do the same one day. Or maybe they'll buy a football club and ingratiate themselves with the masses.
If this isn't a result of economic improvement (I believe it is, partly, but I am open to other ideas) what else might be driving it?
I wonder if it is sheer exhaustion. The campaign is going on too long, far too long, and almost everything that can be said has now been said, and we are left with rancour and vitriol.
And the thing is, the Nats dish out more rancour and vitriol. So maybe that is putting off Scots people, especially women, as they recoil from the nastiness and the divisiveness.
Just an idea.
What else? George Osborne? Gordon Brown? But how about Vladimir Putin? Is it possible the Russian/Ukrainian stramash has made nationalism just a wee bit scarier?
Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005. http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080
And it allows me to be the co-owner of a successful business and to lead a life that my grandparents could not have dreamed of living. I am all for it. What worries me is that the super-rich could bugger it all up for the rest of us if we are not careful. As I understand it, this is Piketty's point as well.
The French Revolution did not take place because peasants were starving. It took place because lawyers were starving.
Similarly, it's not the envy of the poor for the super-rich that threatens capitalism, but the envy of the rich for the super rich that threatens capitalism.
If that is a little dig Antifrank, I am afraid it is misplaced. I assume that you feel no envy to the super-rich, so why should anyone else who is well off? The French revolution is an ideal example of the super rich ignoring all signs and indications of a lifestyle being unsustainable and of paying the price. If it had just been about a few pissed off lawyers, it may not have had the violent and cataclysmic consequences it did. It wasn't nice middle class advocates who stormed the Bastille or dragged the French royal family out of Versailles.
No but it wat lawyers who provided the leadership and whipped up the masses.
The reason why the UK was so stable throughout the 18th and 19th century when all about them were facing revolution after revolution was that they very effectively co-oped the middle classes ("the aspirational") into the ruling classes. After all, what was the Glorious Revolution but a state-sanctioned coup by the upper middle classes?
The problem that the world faces these days is that the super-rich are largely diivorced rom their national roots. Those who remain tied to country also tend to have a different - and more generous - worldview.
Louis and co should have sent their wealth to London, There are highly paid lawyers and accountants that specialize in the hiding of wealth.....sometimes even openly. Some on here even boast of their prowess.
If this isn't a result of economic improvement (I believe it is, partly, but I am open to other ideas) what else might be driving it?
I wonder if it is sheer exhaustion. The campaign is going on too long, far too long, and almost everything that can be said has now been said, and we are left with rancour and vitriol.
And the thing is, the Nats dish out more rancour and vitriol. So maybe that is putting off Scots people, especially women, as they recoil from the nastiness and the divisiveness.
Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.
The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.
Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text.
If that's true, my contempt for the Conservative party has reached new lows.
Why? It's a low form of politics, but (pre-leak) quite clever: UKIP gets attacked, the source appears on the left, and the BBC is more likely to run with it. It also frees up the Tories to fight on issues and principles
Probably why the Tories have been a major political force for centuries - deep down these people are street fighters who take no prisoners. The frightful strop UKIP supporters have gotten into over their party's mauling at the hands of the 'liberal establishment media' is a bit disappointing. Their appeal was their apparent immunity from and indifference to the usual shenanigans of mainstream politics. That they can be as fragile and vain as anyone else is a let-down. Some of the magic has now gone.
The danger for the Tories is that they further alienate the people whose votes they need to win.
Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005. http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080
And it allows me to be the co-owner of a successful business and to lead a life that my grandparents could not have dreamed of living. I am all for it. What worries me is that the super-rich could bugger it all up for the rest of us if we are not careful. As I understand it, this is Piketty's point as well.
The French Revolution did not take place because peasants were starving. It took place because lawyers were starving.
Similarly, it's not the envy of the poor for the super-rich that threatens capitalism, but the envy of the rich for the super rich that threatens capitalism.
If that is a little dig Antifrank, I am afraid it is misplaced. I assume that you feel no envy to the super-rich, so why should anyone else who is well off? The French revolution is an ideal example of the super rich ignoring all signs and indications of a lifestyle being unsustainable and of paying the price. If it had just been about a few pissed off lawyers, it may not have had the violent and cataclysmic consequences it did. It wasn't nice middle class advocates who stormed the Bastille or dragged the French royal family out of Versailles.
No but it wat lawyers who provided the leadership and whipped up the masses.
The reason why the UK was so stable throughout the 18th and 19th century when all about them were facing revolution after revolution was that they very effectively co-oped the middle classes ("the aspirational") into the ruling classes. After all, what was the Glorious Revolution but a state-sanctioned coup by the upper middle classes?
The problem that the world faces these days is that the super-rich are largely diivorced rom their national roots. Those who remain tied to country also tend to have a different - and more generous - worldview.
Revolutionary sentiment was whipped up by those who couldn't get ahead under the Ancien Regime, and were just outside the elite. Lesser nobility (eg Napoleon), mid-ranking lawyers, the new middle classes.
Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005. http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080
And it allows me to be the co-owner of a successful business and to lead a life that my grandparents could not have dreamed of living. I am all for it. What worries me is that the super-rich could bugger it all up for the rest of us if we are not careful. As I understand it, this is Piketty's point as well.
The French Revolution did not take place because peasants were starving. It took place because lawyers were starving.
Similarly, it's not the envy of the poor for the super-rich that threatens capitalism, but the envy of the rich for the super rich that threatens capitalism.
If that is a little dig Antifrank, I am afraid it is misplaced. I assume that you feel no envy to the super-rich, so why should anyone else who is well off? The French revolution is an ideal example of the super rich ignoring all signs and indications of a lifestyle being unsustainable and of paying the price. If it had just been about a few pissed off lawyers, it may not have had the violent and cataclysmic consequences it did. It wasn't nice middle class advocates who stormed the Bastille or dragged the French royal family out of Versailles.
No but it wat lawyers who provided the leadership and whipped up the masses.
The reason why the UK was so stable throughout the 18th and 19th century when all about them were facing revolution after revolution was that they very effectively co-oped the middle classes ("the aspirational") into the ruling classes. After all, what was the Glorious Revolution but a state-sanctioned coup by the upper middle classes?
The problem that the world faces these days is that the super-rich are largely diivorced rom their national roots. Those who remain tied to country also tend to have a different - and more generous - worldview.
There are safety mechanisms. One is that closed castes implode, as successive generations become lazy and feckless.
still 62% of bets on YES , obviously most people are not so concerned as the frothers on here are regarding the polls.
The passion of the nationalists may be creating an opportunity for those who are more data driven to make money. 5-1 for Yes to be 35-40% seems like a good bet opportunity as mentioned before.
@Antifrank - Who said anything about the super-rich being unacceptable? Certainly not me. I am all for the super rich. The richer people are the more they can give back. My issue is with the hoarding of money that can never be spent and would not be missed. In the end, it is going to harm the super rich themselves and will cause trouble for a lot of the rest of us as well by bringing an entire system - one that works better than anything else mankind has ever come up with - into disrepute.
Southam Observer Capitalism is not perfect, but in China, for example, before the Communist Party undertook reforms, in 1981 84% lived below $1.25 per day, by 2005 that had fallen to 16% and by some estimates by 2050 China will have the same GDP per capita as the wealthiest nations in the West. In Brazil, the poverty rate fell from 17% to 8% from 1981 to 2005. In India, the total fell from 60% in 1981 to 42% by 2005. http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-5080
And it allows me to be the co-owner of a successful business and to lead a life that my grandparents could not have dreamed of living. I am all for it. What worries me is that the super-rich could bugger it all up for the rest of us if we are not careful. As I understand it, this is Piketty's point as well.
The French Revolution did not take place because peasants were starving. It took place because lawyers were starving.
Similarly, it's not the envy of the poor for the super-rich that threatens capitalism, but the envy of the rich for the super rich that threatens capitalism.
If that is a little dig Antifrank, I am afraid it is misplaced. I assume that you feel no envy to the super-rich, so why should anyone else who is well off? The French revolution is an ideal example of the super rich ignoring all signs and indications of a lifestyle being unsustainable and of paying the price. If it had just been about a few pissed off lawyers, it may not have had the violent and cataclysmic consequences it did. It wasn't nice middle class advocates who stormed the Bastille or dragged the French royal family out of Versailles.
No but it wat lawyers who provided the leadership and whipped up the masses.
The reason why the UK was so stable throughout the 18th and 19th century when all about them were facing revolution after revolution was that they very effectively co-oped the middle classes ("the aspirational") into the ruling classes. After all, what was the Glorious Revolution but a state-sanctioned coup by the upper middle classes?
The problem that the world faces these days is that the super-rich are largely diivorced rom their national roots. Those who remain tied to country also tend to have a different - and more generous - worldview.
Revolutionary sentiment was whipped up by those who couldn't get ahead under the Ancien Regime, and were just outside the elite. Lesser nobility (eg Napoleon), mid-ranking lawyers, the new middle classes.
Whipped up? Are you saying that the destitute, diseased and hungry were basically happy with their lot?
still 62% of bets on YES , obviously most people are not so concerned as the frothers on here are regarding the polls.
The passion of the nationalists may be creating an opportunity for those who are more data driven to make money. 5-1 for Yes to be 35-40% seems like a good bet opportunity as mentioned before.
Possibly, but I cannot see it being that low, will be amazed if it is under 40%
Wrong - its the instant result of Cameron visiting Scotland this week!
another insane comment
Roflwmtita - both NP and I were being tongue in cheek unlike you with your's in another Salmond orifice:)
When you get your sense of humour back and take your pompous head out of your arse , come back. You are so stupid you think you are funny and everybody else is serious , complete Toss**
still 62% of bets on YES , obviously most people are not so concerned as the frothers on here are regarding the polls.
I strongly suspect these are Nat bets on YES - which are like English footie fans betting on England to win the World Cup. In the latter case there is always VALUE to be had betting against their emotionally driven misjudgements.
so you say polls of under 40% are accurate but ignore 62% of bets are YES. It tends to suggest it may be more emotionally driven than the polls suggest.
Surbiton/JackW For perspective the AV referendum was 67% Yes 32% No
For those feeling confident of a very convincing NO outcome in the Indy Referendum, those nice people at Ladbrokes ate offering 10/1 against the Yes vote being between 30% - 35% . While this looks like quite a stretch, it appears more likely, at least to me than the yes vote being between 50% - 55% for which their odds are less than half, i.e. 9/2.
Wrong - its the instant result of Cameron visiting Scotland this week!
another insane comment
Roflwmtita - both NP and I were being tongue in cheek unlike you with your's in another Salmond orifice:)
When you get your sense of humour back and take your pompous head out of your arse , come back. You are so stupid you think you are funny and everybody else is serious , complete Toss**
UKIP is the party for people who know the difference between having German neighbours and having Romanian neighbours.
I don;t think even farage himself believes that...all he is saying really is that when you grant a country free movement, especially one that's a good deal poorer than you are, it involves some risks to your own voters.
Risks that other parties would rather you didn't think about.
I'll say!
When Poland acceded to the EU and 500k+ Poles emigrated to the UK, the effect was to overwhelm: 1. Polish charities and churches. 2. Catholic charities and schools. 3. Maternity services in the NHS.
But, of course, that was news to the Labour Government of the time and to Cameroons.
The analogy I've been using is it's as if your relatives come over to stay; you're pleased to see them if <4, but when >10 it's a bit of a strain.
Vanilla playing up again, at least on my laptop - I've had to sign in 3 times this morning, the text is being clipped and the time is sometimes one hour awry.
Wrong - its the instant result of Cameron visiting Scotland this week!
another insane comment
Roflwmtita - both NP and I were being tongue in cheek unlike you with your's in another Salmond orifice:)
When you get your sense of humour back and take your pompous head out of your arse , come back. You are so stupid you think you are funny and everybody else is serious , complete Toss**
I wonder if post Sept what lessons the failed YES campaign will take for the next assault in 2045 ?
Obviously the currency debacle has to be addressed.
But the long campaign and the economic recovery was a bigger factor than the Queens games and the Ryder cup - esp when there are few Scottish medal prospects and no Scots in the Ryder cup team.
If Eck had gone for it in 2011/2012 the result would have been closer. Better to be nimble than rely on a dog and pony show.
On a serious note, a complementary theory would be that this is the way people react when their World View is challenged re:Europe, death penalty, immigration, Islam etc.
On a less serious note: LibLabCon=two cheeks of the same arse with the LibDems in the middle.
I wonder if post Sept what lessons the failed YES campaign will take for the next assault in 2045 ?
The longer the campaign goes on, and the YeSNP show no sign of having a coherent plan for separation or answers to the ever increasing numbers of practical questions, I am led to the conclusion that they honestly thought nobody would challenge any of their bluff and bluster.
I wonder if post Sept what lessons the failed YES campaign will take for the next assault in 2045 ?
The longer the campaign goes on, and the YeSNP show no sign of having a coherent plan for separation or answers to the ever increasing numbers of practical questions, I am led to the conclusion that they honestly thought nobody would challenge any of their bluff and bluster.
It's farcical.
The panelbase breakdown and wings over Zomerzet examination of the ethnicity of who votes which way is very sinister. Not even the BNP were polling on which way Romanians are voting.
...successive governments of all colours have worked to keep the house prices rising over and above both price inflation and wage inflation. This in turn has meant that the bottom rung of that property ladder has been pulled out of the reach of the majority and this is still being done...
...nowadays the prospect of owning a home is non existent for a huge proportion of the electorate down to the policies of restricting house building and low interest rates...
..The reason people can't afford to buy therefore has absolutely nothing to do with them not be willing to work hard it is merely that no matter how hard they work that initial step is beyond their capability...
...Governments are supposed to govern in the best interests of ALL the country not merely that part that runs business's or can afford to buy a house and that is what new labour and camerons lot are doing and continue to do...
There's an interesting piece in The Sunday Times which I'm having trouble re-locating, comparing "Shy No Voters" in the Indy Referendum with "Shy Tories" in UK General Elections.
From previous threads where I have suggested that the only people benefitting from the policies of the last 15 years are the well off, home owners and the buy to letters.
This points out exactly the problem as more and more of us get pushed off the property ladder by the spiralling house prices so loved by both new labour and the current "tories"
Congratulations to new labour and the conservatives you will have taken us back in time to the victorian era when the proles all had to rent of usorious landlords who held vast swathes of housing with your focus on keeping houses on an ever increasing price spiral
There's an interesting piece in The Sunday Times which I'm having trouble re-locating, comparing "Shy Yes Voters" in the Indy Referendum with "Shy Tories" in UK General Elections.
There's an interesting piece in The Sunday Times which I'm having trouble re-locating, comparing "Shy Yes Voters" in the Indy Referendum with "Shy Tories" in UK General Elections.
This it? It seems wrong, but I don't have access to most of it ...
From previous threads where I have suggested that the only people benefitting from the policies of the last 15 years are the well off, home owners and the buy to letters.
This points out exactly the problem as more and more of us get pushed off the property ladder by the spiralling house prices so loved by both new labour and the current "tories"
Congratulations to new labour and the conservatives you will have taken us back in time to the victorian era when the proles all had to rent of usorious landlords who held vast swathes of housing with your focus on keeping houses on an ever increasing price spiral
Owning a property isnt a human right. You have to work hard and earn it.
Care to point out where I claimed it was a human right? Thats right you can't.
My complaint is simple, successive governments of all colours have worked to keep the house prices rising over and above both price inflation and wage inflation. This in turn has meant that the bottom rung of that property ladder has been pulled out of the reach of the majority and this is still being done.
Of course you have to work to afford a home but lets face it nowadays the prospect of owning a home is non existent for a huge proportion of the electorate down to the policies of restricting house building and low interest rates.
The reason people can't afford to buy therefore has absolutely nothing to do with them not be willing to work hard it is merely that no matter how hard they work that initial step is beyond their capability. This is why during the laxer years people were lying outrageously on self certification. It was the only way they could get a mortgage. If interest rates go up as they will have to sooner or later these people will be dropping like flies and the properties will be snapped up to swell the burgeoning property empires of the buy to letters.
Governments are supposed to govern in the best interests of ALL the country not merely that part that runs business's or can afford to buy a house and that is what new labour and camerons lot are doing and continue to do
Building Land is a resource which has been made scarce by Nimbys, green campaigns and taxes.
Anyone who works hard can buy a house - perhaps not in Mayfair or Central Oxford but again depends how whiny and fussy you are.
Britain has gone soft on benefits and entitlements - as Fraser Nelson tweeted about the Sunday Times rich list, the majority at the top have built their own wealth from scratch rather than inherited it. All depends how much you want it - the days of it being served up on a plate are gone.
The panelbase breakdown and wings over Zomerzet examination of the ethnicity of who votes which way is very sinister. Not even the BNP were polling on which way Romanians are voting.
I wonder if post Sept what lessons the failed YES campaign will take for the next assault in 2045 ?
The longer the campaign goes on, and the YeSNP show no sign of having a coherent plan for separation or answers to the ever increasing numbers of practical questions, I am led to the conclusion that they honestly thought nobody would challenge any of their bluff and bluster.
It's farcical.
The panelbase breakdown and wings over Zomerzet examination of the ethnicity of who votes which way is very sinister. Not even the BNP were polling on which way Romanians are voting.
Er, if you read the WoS report, he is in fact being extremely critical of the approach taken - so in that sense he agrees with you (insofar as I can make out what you are complaining about).
And as I note downtthread, it's not at all clear to me that the statistic isn't simply measuring some other cross-correlated factor such as perceived identity or, I would now add, age of the person in question - a lot of English born people identifying themselves as such will be elderly retirees and so for that last reason alone more likely to vote No, as well as Tory (a well known demographic phenomenon in Dumfries and Galloway). Nothing to do with place of birth.
Edit: further to this it was the Sunday Times, presumably, which asked Panelbase to ask those questions. Not the SNP or whoever.
If this isn't a result of economic improvement (I believe it is, partly, but I am open to other ideas) what else might be driving it?
I wonder if it is sheer exhaustion. The campaign is going on too long, far too long, and almost everything that can be said has now been said, and we are left with rancour and vitriol.
And the thing is, the Nats dish out more rancour and vitriol. So maybe that is putting off Scots people, especially women, as they recoil from the nastiness and the divisiveness.
Just an idea.
Not a very good one.
Then it is the economic improvement (as I first said) which is widening the NO lead. Indeed Prof Curtice agrees with me:
"The fall in Yes support in today’s poll has occurred in tandem with a noticeable decline in optimism about the prospects for Scotland’s economy under independence. Last month 37% told ICM that independence would be good for Scotland’s economy, while 41% stated it would be bad. This month that four point gap has grown to 14 points, with just 32% saying independence would be good for the economy while 46% feeling it would be bad."
As the UK economy improves, the idea of taking a big risk with an independent Scotland, and its uncertain economic prospects, looks much less appealing.
As the UK economy is likely to continue improving through to September, this should depress and annoy you. Not that you ever seem to need a reason for depression and annoyance.
You sadsack, do not compare people with your sad inferiority complex. I am perfectly happy, you on the other hand need reassurance constantly to make you feel good.
The panelbase breakdown and wings over Zomerzet examination of the ethnicity of who votes which way is very sinister. Not even the BNP were polling on which way Romanians are voting.
Building Land is a resource which has been made scarce by Nimbys, green campaigns and taxes.
While I agree with this the blame for it still lies directly in the hands of government, they didn't have to appease the nimby's or the greens or put those taxes there. Governments have supported fast rising house prices in a cynical ploy to buy votes nothing more.
They have done this by keeping planning regulation tight and thus restricting new builds and importing huge increases in population to further increase housing pressure while loosening regulation on the buy to let side
Anyone who works hard can buy a house - perhaps not in Mayfair or Central Oxford but again depends how whiny and fussy you are.
Absolute and complete shadow chancellors. Sorry TGOHF this is complete bullshit and you know it, explain how a couple on average wage is ever going to afford a mortgage if you please. Or perhaps you are claiming they are not hard working? Not everyone can be earning 50k or more a year there is a limited number of jobs.
If 27k a year is the average wage that implies half the damn people in this country are earning less than that. As house prices rise there is going to be an ever increasing circle of people that cannot get a mortgage because no matter how hard they work they are never going to earn enough.
The house building regulations need to be loosened and the nimby's and the greens have to be told go take a hike. This problem arose purely because governments encouraged people to look on housing more and more as an investment and less and less as about having somewhere to live. A key part of this was allowing property to be part of pension investment portfolios.
I am very glad you feel able to make smug comments such as
It includes a text-to number to make a £5 donation. That strikes me as a very good idea, but I don't think I've come across that on a political leaflet before.
I wonder if post Sept what lessons the failed YES campaign will take for the next assault in 2045 ?
The longer the campaign goes on, and the YeSNP show no sign of having a coherent plan for separation or answers to the ever increasing numbers of practical questions, I am led to the conclusion that they honestly thought nobody would challenge any of their bluff and bluster.
It's farcical.
It's astonishing.
The SNP have been working towards this moment for decades. I honestly thought that,when the time came, they would pull out stacks of detailed, robust plans that they'd been working on in back rooms for years and years, thoroughly tested and able to withstand the toughest criticism. Instead, it's just been a bunch of back-of-the-fag-paper stuff that falls apart under the most cursory scrutiny.
What the hell have they been doing all these years?
If this isn't a result of economic improvement (I believe it is, partly, but I am open to other ideas) what else might be driving it?
I wonder if it is sheer exhaustion. The campaign is going on too long, far too long, and almost everything that can be said has now been said, and we are left with rancour and vitriol.
And the thing is, the Nats dish out more rancour and vitriol. So maybe that is putting off Scots people, especially women, as they recoil from the nastiness and the divisiveness.
Just an idea.
Not a very good one.
Then it is the economic improvement (as I first said) which is widening the NO lead. Indeed Prof Curtice agrees with me:
"The fall in Yes support in today’s poll has occurred in tandem with a noticeable decline in optimism about the prospects for Scotland’s economy under independence. Last month 37% told ICM that independence would be good for Scotland’s economy, while 41% stated it would be bad. This month that four point gap has grown to 14 points, with just 32% saying independence would be good for the economy while 46% feeling it would be bad."
As the UK economy improves, the idea of taking a big risk with an independent Scotland, and its uncertain economic prospects, looks much less appealing.
As the UK economy is likely to continue improving through to September, this should depress and annoy you. Not that you ever seem to need a reason for depression and annoyance.
You sadsack, do not compare people with your sad inferiority complex. I am perfectly happy, you on the other hand need reassurance constantly to make you feel good.
You are perfectly happy? What are you like in a *bad* mood?? Can human blood vessels dilate that far?
In other news, my undoubted need for reassurance is assuaged by the fact my UKIP blog now has 2000 shares.
And, yes, I think that anyone in Labour who describes it as a socialist party looks rather silly as well.
So you think the Labour party itself, and all those that voted for the wording of the new Clause 4, including all the Blairites, look silly. And of course Ed Miliband, who considers himself a socialist, and the Polly Toynbees of this world too.
No but it wat lawyers who provided the leadership and whipped up the masses.
The reason why the UK was so stable throughout the 18th and 19th century when all about them were facing revolution after revolution was that they very effectively co-oped the middle classes ("the aspirational") into the ruling classes. After all, what was the Glorious Revolution but a state-sanctioned coup by the upper middle classes?
The problem that the world faces these days is that the super-rich are largely diivorced rom their national roots. Those who remain tied to country also tend to have a different - and more generous - worldview.
I'm pretty sure the Kock brothers are very proud Americans. They're still doing everything they can to prevent poor people voting and to stack the tax system in favour of their own class.
And, yes, I think that anyone in Labour who describes it as a socialist party looks rather silly as well.
So you think the Labour party itself, and all those that voted for the wording of the new Clause 4, including all the Blairites, look silly. And of course Ed Miliband, who considers himself a socialist, and the Polly Toynbees of this world too.
Yup. Labour is not a socialist political party. This is a socialist political party:
Building Land is a resource which has been made scarce by Nimbys, green campaigns and taxes.
While I agree with this the blame for it still lies directly in the hands of government, they didn't have to appease the nimby's or the greens or put those taxes there. Governments have supported fast rising house prices in a cynical ploy to buy votes nothing more.
They have done this by keeping planning regulation tight and thus restricting new builds and importing huge increases in population to further increase housing pressure while loosening regulation on the buy to let side
Anyone who works hard can buy a house - perhaps not in Mayfair or Central Oxford but again depends how whiny and fussy you are.
Absolute and complete shadow chancellors. Sorry TGOHF this is complete bullshit and you know it, explain how a couple on average wage is ever going to afford a mortgage if you please. Or perhaps you are claiming they are not hard working? Not everyone can be earning 50k or more a year there is a limited number of jobs.
If 27k a year is the average wage that implies half the damn people in this country are earning less than that. As house prices rise there is going to be an ever increasing circle of people that cannot get a mortgage because no matter how hard they work they are never going to earn enough.
The house building regulations need to be loosened and the nimby's and the greens have to be told go take a hike. This problem arose purely because governments encouraged people to look on housing more and more as an investment and less and less as about having somewhere to live. A key part of this was allowing property to be part of pension investment portfolios.
I am very glad you feel able to make smug comments such as
Anyone who works hard can buy a house - perhaps not in Mayfair or Central Oxford but again depends how whiny and fussy you are.
but that just tells me you are another Marie Antoinette
Average wage ? Save hard and work hard. Buy a flat. Save hard and work hard - then buy a small house. Save hard and work hard and do it up then trade up again.
May take 20 years but nothing comes easy. Depends how much you want it.
I find your attitude of the poor doing nothing but expecting the govt to take them to their new house in a sedan chair patronising and all that is wrong with the statist left.
If this isn't a result of economic improvement (I believe it is, partly, but I am open to other ideas) what else might be driving it?
I wonder if it is sheer exhaustion. The campaign is going on too long, far too long, and almost everything that can be said has now been said, and we are left with rancour and vitriol.
And the thing is, the Nats dish out more rancour and vitriol. So maybe that is putting off Scots people, especially women, as they recoil from the nastiness and the divisiveness.
Just an idea.
Not a very good one.
Then it is the economic improvement (as I first said) which is widening the NO lead. Indeed Prof Curtice agrees with me:
"The fall in Yes support in today’s poll has occurred in tandem with a noticeable decline in optimism about the prospects for Scotland’s economy under independence. Last month 37% told ICM that independence would be good for Scotland’s economy, while 41% stated it would be bad. This month that four point gap has grown to 14 points, with just 32% saying independence would be good for the economy while 46% feeling it would be bad."
As the UK economy improves, the idea of taking a big risk with an independent Scotland, and its uncertain economic prospects, looks much less appealing.
As the UK economy is likely to continue improving through to September, this should depress and annoy you. Not that you ever seem to need a reason for depression and annoyance.
You sadsack, do not compare people with your sad inferiority complex. I am perfectly happy, you on the other hand need reassurance constantly to make you feel good.
You are perfectly happy? What are you like in a *bad* mood?? Can human blood vessels dilate that far?
In other news, my undoubted need for reassurance is assuaged by the fact my UKIP blog now has 2000 shares.
And, yes, I think that anyone in Labour who describes it as a socialist party looks rather silly as well.
So you think the Labour party itself, and all those that voted for the wording of the new Clause 4, including all the Blairites, look silly. And of course Ed Miliband, who considers himself a socialist, and the Polly Toynbees of this world too.
Yup. Labour is not a socialist political party. This is a socialist political party:
Of course, you can be a socialist and be in and/or vote Labour.
Most "Socialists" would not vote Labour. Previously they would vote LD [ only to keep the Tories out ], Greens [ with less ideological objections ] or be the stay-at-home party and moan endlessly.
I count myself as a Socialist too ! The pragmatic kind.
Building Land is a resource which has been made scarce by Nimbys, green campaigns and taxes.
While I agree with this the blame for it still lies directly in the hands of government, they didn't have to appease the nimby's or the greens or put those taxes there. Governments have supported fast rising house prices in a cynical ploy to buy votes nothing more.
They have done this by keeping planning regulation tight and thus restricting new builds and importing huge increases in population to further increase housing pressure while loosening regulation on the buy to let side
Anyone who works hard can buy a house - perhaps not in Mayfair or Central Oxford but again depends how whiny and fussy you are.
Absolute and complete shadow chancellors. Sorry TGOHF this is complete bullshit and you know it, explain how a couple on average wage is ever going to afford a mortgage if you please. Or perhaps you are claiming they are not hard working? Not everyone can be earning 50k or more a year there is a limited number of jobs.
If 27k a year is the average wage that implies half the damn people in this country are earning less than that. As house prices rise there is going to be an ever increasing circle of people that cannot get a mortgage because no matter how hard they work they are never going to earn enough.
The house building regulations need to be loosened and the nimby's and the greens have to be told go take a hike. This problem arose purely because governments encouraged people to look on housing more and more as an investment and less and less as about having somewhere to live. A key part of this was allowing property to be part of pension investment portfolios.
I am very glad you feel able to make smug comments such as
Anyone who works hard can buy a house - perhaps not in Mayfair or Central Oxford but again depends how whiny and fussy you are.
but that just tells me you are another Marie Antoinette
Governments have not conspired to increase house prices, they have been frightened that the nimbys would vote against them. This government is fighting back on the front to free up more land for house building.
If this isn't a result of economic improvement (I believe it is, partly, but I am open to other ideas) what else might be driving it?
I wonder if it is sheer exhaustion. The campaign is going on too long, far too long, and almost everything that can be said has now been said, and we are left with rancour and vitriol.
And the thing is, the Nats dish out more rancour and vitriol. So maybe that is putting off Scots people, especially women, as they recoil from the nastiness and the divisiveness.
Just an idea.
Not a very good one.
Then it is the economic improvement (as I first said) which is widening the NO lead. Indeed Prof Curtice agrees with me:
"The fall in Yes support in today’s poll has occurred in tandem with a noticeable decline in optimism about the prospects for Scotland’s economy under independence. Last month 37% told ICM that independence would be good for Scotland’s economy, while 41% stated it would be bad. This month that four point gap has grown to 14 points, with just 32% saying independence would be good for the economy while 46% feeling it would be bad."
As the UK economy improves, the idea of taking a big risk with an independent Scotland, and its uncertain economic prospects, looks much less appealing.
As the UK economy is likely to continue improving through to September, this should depress and annoy you. Not that you ever seem to need a reason for depression and annoyance.
You sadsack, do not compare people with your sad inferiority complex. I am perfectly happy, you on the other hand need reassurance constantly to make you feel good.
You are perfectly happy? What are you like in a *bad* mood?? Can human blood vessels dilate that far?
In other news, my undoubted need for reassurance is assuaged by the fact my UKIP blog now has 2000 shares.
Britain has gone soft on benefits and entitlements - as Fraser Nelson tweeted about the Sunday Times rich list, the majority at the top have built their own wealth from scratch rather than inherited it. All depends how much you want it - the days of it being served up on a plate are gone.
By the way I ignored this bit as I do not regard asking the british government to govern with an eye to benefitting all its people not just those that are businesses or rich or homeowners is actually a sense of entitlement nor whiny.
Sheesh you would think I had asked for government handouts to buy a house when all I want is for them to stop their protectionism.
As I take it you are a homeowner frankly the one with a sense of entitlement here is you with your view that the government should continue to protect your yearly above inflation rises in house prices
And, yes, I think that anyone in Labour who describes it as a socialist party looks rather silly as well.
So you think the Labour party itself, and all those that voted for the wording of the new Clause 4, including all the Blairites, look silly. And of course Ed Miliband, who considers himself a socialist, and the Polly Toynbees of this world too.
Yup. Labour is not a socialist political party. This is a socialist political party:
Of course, you can be a socialist and be in and/or vote Labour.
Most "Socialists" would not vote Labour. Previously they would vote LD [ only to keep the Tories out ], Greens [ with less ideological objections ] or be the stay-at-home party and moan endlessly.
I count myself as a Socialist too ! The pragmatic kind.
I have never understood how anyone can be a pragmatic socialist. You either believe in the ownership of the means of production and reject the pursuit of profit, or you don't! Socilaists are distinguished by their complete lack of pragmatism: Scargill, Benn, Hatton etc. Pragmatists are social democrats, surely.
"I don't like UKIP or its leader, Nigel Farage. They are the Dad’s Army of British politics, doddery, farcical and very unclear about what they are actually for.
But they have Captain Mainwaring’s virtues too. They are absolutely certain about what they are against, in this case an aloof political establishment that despises the concerns of normal human beings.
They are also indomitable when under attack. And they need to be. I have taken a close interest in British politics since I was a schoolboy, and I have never seen a more disgraceful alliance between politicians and their media toadies than the one that has been secretly made to do down UKIP.
On one day last week, almost every unpopular newspaper carried a cartoon portraying Nigel Farage as ugly, stupid or embattled, or all three.
Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.
The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.
Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text. Asked about the allegation, The Guardian drew itself up to its full height and snapped: ‘The Guardian does not disclose its sources.’ (A certain Sarah Tisdall, who went to prison 30 years ago after The Guardian handed over documents that disclosed her as its source, might disagree.)
Well, there you have it. The Tory Party and The Guardian (and the BBC) are all united against UKIP. That would seem the best possible reason to vote UKIP. It also tells you who and what the Conservative Party really is."
Comments
Surely it would have been more honest - not to mention truthful - to say that the vast majority of Romanians living in the UK have never committed or been accused of committing any kind of crime.
Cameron said he was the real heir to Blair, and in office has, I think, behaved like it. Miliband on taking over the Labour leadership proclaimed himself a socialist. I am prepared to take him at his word.
Surbiton/JackW For perspective the AV referendum was 67% Yes 32% No
This points out exactly the problem as more and more of us get pushed off the property ladder by the spiralling house prices so loved by both new labour and the current "tories"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101675842
Congratulations to new labour and the conservatives you will have taken us back in time to the victorian era when the proles all had to rent of usorious landlords who held vast swathes of housing with your focus on keeping houses on an ever increasing price spiral
This is indeed what Ed has reduced Labour to - a pressure group for public sector employees and those too lazy to shop around.
"The rich declare themselves poor
And most of us are not sure if we have too much, but God's not keeping score."
When George Michael is complaining about the rich, I think we can see the real problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=0
And another:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16714480
I'm thinking of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and the work they do to eliminate malaria. Or Lord Ashcroft supporting Crimestoppers and military. Do these people have a self-awareness gene that Louis XVI lacked?
"Owning a property isnt a human right. You have to work hard and earn it"
Not necessarily, in fact, most of those getting on the "property ladder" these days do so using their parents hard work.
There are exceptions such as "union bashing" doctors, vets, lawyers, etc who rather stunningly don't realise that their various governing bodies are in fact exactly the same thing.
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
None of this relative poverty latest iPhone (or trainers 30 years ago) bollocks.
When people rail against the "1%" they of course, globally, are railing against themselves. Not that they have the self-awareness to understand that.
https://www.facebook.com/SuzanneEvansUKIP
Another view is that the English teat is back making lots of creamy milk for Scots to suckle on.
There may also be a slow dawning that the SNP is talking bollocks about just how many times you can slice and dice the oil revenue to create their economic Nirvana....
So you seem to be lacking a wider point than US tax rates.
It is not an issue , is a small subsample from a poll and given the polling companies have no clue how to weight in this case just another "look a squirrel".
My complaint is simple, successive governments of all colours have worked to keep the house prices rising over and above both price inflation and wage inflation. This in turn has meant that the bottom rung of that property ladder has been pulled out of the reach of the majority and this is still being done.
Of course you have to work to afford a home but lets face it nowadays the prospect of owning a home is non existent for a huge proportion of the electorate down to the policies of restricting house building and low interest rates.
The reason people can't afford to buy therefore has absolutely nothing to do with them not be willing to work hard it is merely that no matter how hard they work that initial step is beyond their capability. This is why during the laxer years people were lying outrageously on self certification. It was the only way they could get a mortgage. If interest rates go up as they will have to sooner or later these people will be dropping like flies and the properties will be snapped up to swell the burgeoning property empires of the buy to letters.
Governments are supposed to govern in the best interests of ALL the country not merely that part that runs business's or can afford to buy a house and that is what new labour and camerons lot are doing and continue to do
I carry no torch for the super rich. But they do pay for the NHS.
I would happily welcome another 100,000 into the country if it meant we had world-beating healthcare, free at the point of use. Every time they bought a yacht or a Bentley or a Mayfair pad, I would have a sly grin at the VAT or the Stamp Duty they were paying into our coffers.
"Tories have been a major political force for centuries - deep down these people are street fighters who take no prisoners"
Give over with the fake machismo. Tories pay others to do the street fighting.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/
The reason why the UK was so stable throughout the 18th and 19th century when all about them were facing revolution after revolution was that they very effectively co-oped the middle classes ("the aspirational") into the ruling classes. After all, what was the Glorious Revolution but a state-sanctioned coup by the upper middle classes?
The problem that the world faces these days is that the super-rich are largely diivorced rom their national roots. Those who remain tied to country also tend to have a different - and more generous - worldview.
Louis and co should have sent their wealth to London, There are highly paid lawyers and accountants that specialize in the hiding of wealth.....sometimes even openly.
Some on here even boast of their prowess.
The passion of the nationalists may be creating an opportunity for those who are more data driven to make money. 5-1 for Yes to be 35-40% seems like a good bet opportunity as mentioned before.
Roflwmtita - both NP and I were being tongue in cheek unlike you with your's in another Salmond orifice:)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100271887/our-political-masters-are-horrified-by-ukip-trouble-is-the-voters-arent/
Congrats Sean.
lol - you are funnier when you've had a few.
When Poland acceded to the EU and 500k+ Poles emigrated to the UK, the effect was to overwhelm:
1. Polish charities and churches.
2. Catholic charities and schools.
3. Maternity services in the NHS.
But, of course, that was news to the Labour Government of the time and to Cameroons.
The analogy I've been using is it's as if your relatives come over to stay; you're pleased to see them if <4, but when >10 it's a bit of a strain.
Obviously the currency debacle has to be addressed.
But the long campaign and the economic recovery was a bigger factor than the Queens games and the Ryder cup - esp when there are few Scottish medal prospects and no Scots in the Ryder cup team.
If Eck had gone for it in 2011/2012 the result would have been closer. Better to be nimble than rely on a dog and pony show.
On a less serious note: LibLabCon=two cheeks of the same arse with the LibDems in the middle.
It's farcical.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/dominiclawson/article1411850.ece
Anyone who works hard can buy a house - perhaps not in Mayfair or Central Oxford but again depends how whiny and fussy you are.
Britain has gone soft on benefits and entitlements - as Fraser Nelson tweeted about the Sunday Times rich list, the majority at the top have built their own wealth from scratch rather than inherited it. All depends how much you want it - the days of it being served up on a plate are gone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b043n4yx/referendum-documentaries-7-blethering-referendum-part-2
And as I note downtthread, it's not at all clear to me that the statistic isn't simply measuring some other cross-correlated factor such as perceived identity or, I would now add, age of the person in question - a lot of English born people identifying themselves as such will be elderly retirees and so for that last reason alone more likely to vote No, as well as Tory (a well known demographic phenomenon in Dumfries and Galloway). Nothing to do with place of birth.
Edit: further to this it was the Sunday Times, presumably, which asked Panelbase to ask those questions. Not the SNP or whoever.
They have done this by keeping planning regulation tight and thus restricting new builds and importing huge increases in population to further increase housing pressure while loosening regulation on the buy to let side Absolute and complete shadow chancellors. Sorry TGOHF this is complete bullshit and you know it, explain how a couple on average wage is ever going to afford a mortgage if you please. Or perhaps you are claiming they are not hard working? Not everyone can be earning 50k or more a year there is a limited number of jobs.
If 27k a year is the average wage that implies half the damn people in this country are earning less than that. As house prices rise there is going to be an ever increasing circle of people that cannot get a mortgage because no matter how hard they work they are never going to earn enough.
The house building regulations need to be loosened and the nimby's and the greens have to be told go take a hike. This problem arose purely because governments encouraged people to look on housing more and more as an investment and less and less as about having somewhere to live. A key part of this was allowing property to be part of pension investment portfolios.
I am very glad you feel able to make smug comments such as but that just tells me you are another Marie Antoinette
(like this one)
http://www.electionleaflets.org/leaflets/full/582b0201-69d5-4be9-a63c-b8f4896fd90f/
It includes a text-to number to make a £5 donation. That strikes me as a very good idea, but I don't think I've come across that on a political leaflet before.
The SNP have been working towards this moment for decades. I honestly thought that,when the time came, they would pull out stacks of detailed, robust plans that they'd been working on in back rooms for years and years, thoroughly tested and able to withstand the toughest criticism. Instead, it's just been a bunch of back-of-the-fag-paper stuff that falls apart under the most cursory scrutiny.
What the hell have they been doing all these years?
It seems that the establishment attacks of ukip stories seem to work sean ;-)
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/
Of course, you can be a socialist and be in and/or vote Labour.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
Ladbrokes reveal that 82% of all money that's been bet on the Euros most votes market has been on Ukip
May take 20 years but nothing comes easy. Depends how much you want it.
I find your attitude of the poor doing nothing but expecting the govt to take them to their new house in a sedan chair patronising and all that is wrong with the statist left.
I count myself as a Socialist too ! The pragmatic kind.
"The best commentary on UKIP that I have seen in a major publication-ever. Realistic!"
What's the old adage - 'bread and circuses' ? ; )
Sheesh you would think I had asked for government handouts to buy a house when all I want is for them to stop their protectionism.
As I take it you are a homeowner frankly the one with a sense of entitlement here is you with your view that the government should continue to protect your yearly above inflation rises in house prices
But they have Captain Mainwaring’s virtues too. They are absolutely certain about what they are against, in this case an aloof political establishment that despises the concerns of normal human beings.
They are also indomitable when under attack. And they need to be. I have taken a close interest in British politics since I was a schoolboy, and I have never seen a more disgraceful alliance between politicians and their media toadies than the one that has been secretly made to do down UKIP.
On one day last week, almost every unpopular newspaper carried a cartoon portraying Nigel Farage as ugly, stupid or embattled, or all three.
Last Wednesday, the insider magazine Private Eye also claimed that the Leftist daily The Guardian had made a secret deal with the Tory Party, which claims to be conservative.
The Tories, it was alleged, had promised the favourite newspaper of the liberal elite a steady supply of damaging stories about UKIP candidates saying daft things (Tories, of course, never say daft things). In return, the newspaper had promised to avoid identifying the source.
Such stories are immediately picked up by BBC radio and TV news channels, which view The Guardian as sacred text. Asked about the allegation, The Guardian drew itself up to its full height and snapped: ‘The Guardian does not disclose its sources.’ (A certain Sarah Tisdall, who went to prison 30 years ago after The Guardian handed over documents that disclosed her as its source, might disagree.)
Well, there you have it. The Tory Party and The Guardian (and the BBC) are all united against UKIP. That would seem the best possible reason to vote UKIP. It also tells you who and what the Conservative Party really is."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2631545/PETER-HITCHENS-Fair-taxes-Theyre-likely-Osborne-joining-Take-That.html#ixzz324akuHMp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook