iSAm you shld fact check. I just reloaded my position & my portfolio's currently coolly protected thanks. I posted those up not to go for betting on all of them but to see where arbing value could be found - not that i do that of course ;-) For e.g. pretty pointless punting 5-1 on Carswell losing to the tories when you can grab 12-1 on 0 ukip seats. maybe your just cross at ukip's poll slip? They might kick back up who knows. cant call this election. I just want my position covered right now & it is ta v much.
What jobs and opportunities are now available in the old mining towns? I don't see many. Ditto in most of the old industrial belt. I do not see them. My son left university with a 2:1 in history, exactly the same as I got. He was unemployed for four months and received not a penny in benefits; in December he finally found a job arranging MRA scan appointments for £15,000 a year. It's a complete waste of his talents and abilities, and he is also taking a job that could easily done by someone without a degree. Likewise, the graduates doing clerical work at our place are taking jobs that could just as well be done by non-graduates. These are not uncommon stories and there are no easy solutions. Technology and globalisation have permanently rendered many previously well-paid jobs almost entirely redundant. The contrast with what me and my friends did when we left university is stark. We travelled, we had no loans to pay back, we had a pick of jobs, we had a far less punitive benefits system to deal with, we all bought our first flats/homes in our 20s, and so on. The world has changed so much and we have not worked out how to deal with it yet.
I'm sorry to hear about your son's job problems, but that's the point: he got a job. And perhaps you should have tried directing him to a degree that would have better job prospects than history? Or perhaps to even have foregone university?
We ave covered the problems in old mining towns on here before - the sad thing is that not only did Labour shut more mines, but the Conservatives did more to get industries into them.
Your university history is obviously one of waste and excess, paid for by the state. ;-)
My son is not atypical, far from it. All his friends are in a similar position. And I am not making any party political points. The fact that the state paid for my university education (and has since earned it all back and a whole lot more) rather makes my point for me: my generation had it much easier.
What % of your generation went to univeristy compared which what % of your sons... That will tell you a lot.
Memo to Dave: If you're stuck for someone with local connections, I used to live in Kensington & Chelsea, and I've dined at Gordon Ramsay's and Daphne's.
I am not sure about opportunities. Technological change means that a lot of jobs - both white and blue collar - that used to be available and relatively well paid are just not there any more. We need many fewer lawyers than we used to, for example, because so much is now mechanised; journalism used to be a well paid job, it no longer is and you are competing on a global basis rather than nationally if you want to get into it; middle management jobs in industry are far less available than they used to be; and so on. Of course there are caveats, but when I look at the graduates that we now recruit and retain, with good degrees from good universities, who are essentially doing clerical work, I just wonder where they are going to go next, how they are going to pay off their loans, buy their first homes, and so on.
I'm not sure when you were a teenager - late 1970s / early 1980s? Think back to then and, if you can, think back to what it was like to grow up in a mining community where schools wrote you off at an early age. Or working as an unskilled labourer. I've known many people in that situation, and it wasn't pretty.
Opportunities generally are much greater, especially at the lower end of the social scale.
especially at the lower end of the social scale.
*splutter*
where you compete not just against UK graduates but also full on immigation where many candidates are better qualified than the locals ?
Don't agree JJ, the bottom 15% of society by income and education is where face our biggest challenge as a nation.
I agree that the major challenge is there, which is why I've constantly spluttered on about the constant levels of illiteracy and innumeracy in the country, which successive governments have not shifted. (*) I'm not sure of the solution, though: better parenting for a start, but how do we do that?
My point is, it is better than it was for those people back in those decades. At least there are jobs to compete for.
(*) And which UKIP's perverse obsession with grammar schools will not fix.
Memo to Dave: If you're stuck for someone with local connections, I used to live in Kensington & Chelsea, and I've dined at Gordon Ramsay's and Daphne's.
< I'm sorry to hear about your son's job problems, but that's the point: he got a job. And perhaps you should have tried directing him to a degree that would have better job prospects than history? Or perhaps to even have foregone university?
We ave covered the problems in old mining towns on here before - the sad thing is that not only did Labour shut more mines, but the Conservatives did more to get industries into them.
Your university history is obviously one of waste and excess, paid for by the state. ;-)
My son is not atypical, far from it. All his friends are in a similar position. And I am not making any party political points. The fact that the state paid for my university education (and has since earned it all back and a whole lot more) rather makes my point for me: my generation had it much easier.
Only if they were one of the few percent who went to university, as you did. Now there's a much higher percentage of people in FE, which is good (although I'd rather see much more vocational courses that useless courses, as discussed on here passim).
What's your solution? 50% of people in FE, with tuition fees paid for the state, living off a student grant, saving enough money to go swanning around the world at the end of their course?
And why is the clerical job demeaning? Surely it's an opportunity for him? Start near the bottom, show his skills, and progress? What did he want to do with his history degree?
It's not demeaning. No job is demeaning. There are no easy solutions. I certainly do not have any. This is not about party politics. It's about forces that are far greater than that.
I've just had to stop listening to Natalie Bennett being interviewed by Nick Ferrari. If my toes had curled any more they'd have started snapping. Not so much a car crash as a crashing a flaming camper van full of enraged porcupines straight into the lion enclosure at London Zoo.
I am connected to no-one of power or influence, as far as I know. That's not the way I swing.
Reality is not negativity, your cloud cuckoo land doesn't exist no matter how much you try to smile.
Some points: *) Job security is only good whilst the jobs remain. In fact, perhaps outside banking, has it ever really been true? And a flexible jobs market means that when the company does go bust, or the mine shut, or the chemical works downsize, there are more opportunities in other industries.
*) There are plenty of career ladders out there.
While it is trivial and near costless to reduce staff numbers, upper management will use that to create short term bubble stock prices. This is very apparent and demonstrable in both the level of staffing, the stock pricing and how the staffing returns after the cull. This is the easiest way to management bonuses to be boosted.
All the cost has been transferred onto the employee, removing any security in employment and effectively meaning that almost every single person in the United Kingdom is on a Zero Hours contract. The trivial minimum redundancy cost for the average worker is no barrier to hire and fire now. In fact it's encouraged, you don't want staff with 10+ years that might actually incur a cost when you sack a few thousand so a director gets a bigger bonus.
*) Buying housing is a problem. Which is why we perhaps we need to look at society's attitude to housing ("we must have a garden and garage!") and move to a more Continental rental view. And when we talk about new housing, we need to build communities, not houses.
*) Owning a house does not necessarily make you more happy than buying one. It's an odd concept.
Except rents are completely unaffordable which is one of the reasons the country spends £17bn per annum on Housing Benefit (on top of the contribution that comes from the £42bn that make up Tax Credits and Child Benefit.
Buying is attractive because it is often cheaper than Renting and even when it's merely the same cost, you get Equity for your money which you don't when you rent.
*) Pensions are complicated by the fact we are all living longer. Which, whilst we need a sane debate on it, is probably a good thing, isn't it?
Average Life Expectancy increases have been very clear to all governments for decades. They did nothing.
What they did do, particularly under Lawson, Lamont and Brown was make a series of decisions which have destroyed the private pension industry and dis-incentivised business from providing retirement savings schemes which are even remotely worth considering.
We have the ridiculous situation where anyone in this country paying money into a Defined Contribution Pension is financially irresponsible.
My son is not atypical, far from it. All his friends are in a similar position. And I am not making any party political points. The fact that the state paid for my university education (and has since earned it all back and a whole lot more) rather makes my point for me: my generation had it much easier.
Oddly enough, when I graduated in 1984, there were 3 million unemployed and it was hard to get work other than temporary clerical stuff even in the south. The problem was not that there weren't any jobs in my field but they all required commercial experience which you couldn't get without a job.
Back then, they were called "second jobs" and that was the area where the labour shortage of the 1980s manifested itself especially in the south.
What jobs and opportunities are now available in the old mining towns? I don't see many. Ditto in most of the old industrial belt. I do not see them. My son left university with a 2:1 in history, exactly the same as I got. He was unemployed for four months and received not a penny in benefits; in December he finally found a job arranging MRA scan appointments for £15,000 a year. It's a complete waste of his talents and abilities, and he is also taking a job that could easily done by someone without a degree. Likewise, the graduates doing clerical work at our place are taking jobs that could just as well be done by non-graduates. These are not uncommon stories and there are no easy solutions. Technology and globalisation have permanently rendered many previously well-paid jobs almost entirely redundant. The contrast with what me and my friends did when we left university is stark. We travelled, we had no loans to pay back, we had a pick of jobs, we had a far less punitive benefits system to deal with, we all bought our first flats/homes in our 20s, and so on. The world has changed so much and we have not worked out how to deal with it yet.
I'm sorry to hear about your son's job problems, but that's the point: he got a job. And perhaps you should have tried directing him to a degree that would have better job prospects than history? Or perhaps to even have foregone university?
We ave covered the problems in old mining towns on here before - the sad thing is that not only did Labour shut more mines, but the Conservatives did more to get industries into them.
Your university history is obviously one of waste and excess, paid for by the state. ;-)
My son is not atypical, far from it. All his friends are in a similar position. And I am not making any party political points. The fact that the state paid for my university education (and has since earned it all back and a whole lot more) rather makes my point for me: my generation had it much easier.
The biggest issue is the limitless supply of labour, thanks to the EU, as well as the many loopholes for the rest of the world (as well as short termist, poorly thought out outsourcing). I am afraid I do see many people either unemployed or working jobs far below their skill level. It really does impact across the social spectrum.
What an absolute joke. PBers really should listen to this 3 minutes worth for entertainment value if nothing else! Are we seriously talking about this woman possibly appearing for the Greens on the TV political debates? She was altogether unimpressive on the Andrew Neil programme a few weeks ago, but that pales into insignificance compared her performance here with Nick Ferrari.
Bennett gets both things wrong. She hasn't done her homework and she is a bad communicator. A bad communicator who at least knows their stuff is acceptable, a good communicator who deflects the things they don't know about and gets the benefit of a poicy across is fine.
Bennett does neither.
Calling Neil, always frank on his party's leaders - what is the mechanism for leader change in the Green Party? Do you think it might/should happen?
Memo to Dave: If you're stuck for someone with local connections, I used to live in Kensington & Chelsea, and I've dined at Gordon Ramsay's and Daphne's.
iSAm you shld fact check. I just reloaded my position & my portfolio's currently coolly protected thanks. I posted those up not to go for betting on all of them but to see where arbing value could be found - not that i do that of course ;-) For e.g. pretty pointless punting 5-1 on Carswell losing to the tories when you can grab 12-1 on 0 ukip seats. maybe your just cross at ukip's poll slip? They might kick back up who knows. cant call this election. I just want my position covered right now & it is ta v much.
If you think the individual odds on ukip getting 0, 1,2,3,4,&5 seats w Ladbrokes are 'storming value' when they add up to 85% and you can back 'less than 6' at 54% you are stark raving mad... That's what you said though, just pointing out your Rick unless anyone took it seriously
Why would I be cross? The polls are virtually meaningless
My son is not atypical, far from it. All his friends are in a similar position. And I am not making any party political points. The fact that the state paid for my university education (and has since earned it all back and a whole lot more) rather makes my point for me: my generation had it much easier.
Oddly enough, when I graduated in 1984, there were 3 million unemployed and it was hard to get work other than temporary clerical stuff even in the south. The problem was not that there weren't any jobs in my field but they all required commercial experience which you couldn't get without a job.
Back then, they were called "second jobs" and that was the area where the labour shortage of the 1980s manifested itself especially in the south.
Indeed, but the benefits system was a whole lot more generous than it is now. When I was unemployed for a few months in the early 90s I even had my mortgage paid for me.
What jobs and opportunities are now available in the old mining towns? I don't see many. Ditto in most of the old industrial belt. I do not see them. My son left university with a 2:1 in history....
I'm sorry to hear about your son's job problems, but that's the point: he got a job. And perhaps you should have tried directing him to a degree that would have better job prospects than history? Or perhaps to even have foregone university?
We ave covered the problems in old mining towns on here before - the sad thing is that not only did Labour shut more mines, but the Conservatives did more to get industries into them.
Your university history is obviously one of waste and excess, paid for by the state. ;-)
My son is not atypical, far from it. All his friends are in a similar position. And I am not making any party political points. The fact that the state paid for my university education (and has since earned it all back and a whole lot more) rather makes my point for me: my generation had it much easier.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 52 secs52 seconds ago
Office of National Statistics says rates of conception for under-18s in England & Wales are at their lowest since records began in 1969
Great news.
The decline of teenage drinking and the rise of Islam...
All those arranged marriages and teenage brides? You can have the reduction in binge drinking though, and the fact that kids are so distracted by social media and playstations that a nothing-else-to-do shag-in-a-bus-shelter is a less frequent occurrence.
Memo to Dave: If you're stuck for someone with local connections, I used to live in Kensington & Chelsea, and I've dined at Gordon Ramsay's and Daphne's.
Daphne's would be in Greg Hands' seat.
Daphne's, Brompton Cross - amazed to see it is in his constituency.
I understand that both Nick P and I were once shortlisted for Kensington and Chelsea.
Nick got the gig. I didn't vote for him, you may be surprised to hear.
Big mistake, Nick would have been great in K&C.
If I recall I was runner up to a very talented local activist, who will be an MP this May. It was a great experience, the best bit about it was to get a nice write up in the Times by Anthony Howard and to see all the famous people at the hustings.
With a history degree, what sort of job was he looking for? What about a career in teaching?
That's what he plans to do. I got a degree in history. It teaches you a great deal. I use the skills I learned at university every single day. I have often been accused on here of dancing on the head of a needle. That's what studying history makes you do: you get very suspicious of generalities, learn the importance of precision in language and constantly ask yourself about sources of information and the motives of information-providers. I have every confidence in my son's ability to make a great life for himself. My point was and is that it is going to be a far tougher challenge for him than it was for me. My generation had it much easier. And with that I must do some work.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
Let's leave aside the cheap smears, shall we?
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
I'm not sure any government of any colour can do much about that. The West is no longer economically dominant and reality means we will have to sing for our supper in future.
In practice this means education becomes ever more important as does innovation and entrepreneurship. Just to stand still.
ComRes for @DailyMailUK: majority (55%) think that if SNP joins coalition govt they shouldn't be allowed to decide on non-Scots laws
FPT - the Herald [Daily - so pro-SLAB if anything] is running a rather different slant from the same poll. And the wording they use is rather different. What was the original question, do you know, please? 'Non-Scots' or 'do not have an impact on Scotland'?
"More than half of voters think the SNP should be able to join a UK-wide coalition government in the event of a hung parliament in May, according to a poll.
Research by ComRes for the Daily Mail found that 57% of people would back such a move, with 37% opposed to it and 6% saying they did not know.
In the event of such an outcome in the general election, 55% said they would not want the SNP to make decisions on laws that do not have an impact on Scotland.
More than a third (38%) thought the party should be allowed to take decisions on English laws. while 7% did not know."
I understand that both Nick P and I were once shortlisted for Kensington and Chelsea.
Nick got the gig. I didn't vote for him, you may be surprised to hear.
Big mistake, Nick would have been great in K&C.
If I recall I was runner up to a very talented local activist, who will be an MP this May. It was a great experience, the best bit about it was to get a nice write up in the Times by Anthony Howard and to see all the famous people at the hustings.
But I thought your political heart lies in Chichester.
I hear the natives still talk of your dashing charismatic campaign in 2005 - it has become the stuff of legend (or something).
My son is not atypical, far from it. All his friends are in a similar position. And I am not making any party political points. The fact that the state paid for my university education (and has since earned it all back and a whole lot more) rather makes my point for me: my generation had it much easier.
Oddly enough, when I graduated in 1984, there were 3 million unemployed and it was hard to get work other than temporary clerical stuff even in the south. The problem was not that there weren't any jobs in my field but they all required commercial experience which you couldn't get without a job.
Back then, they were called "second jobs" and that was the area where the labour shortage of the 1980s manifested itself especially in the south.
Indeed, but the benefits system was a whole lot more generous than it is now. When I was unemployed for a few months in the early 90s I even had my mortgage paid for me.
A great example of policy by media.
The Daily Mail found some short term prisoner was having his mortgage paid during his 6 month stretch, public outcry ensues, government caves in and scraps the benefit, hundreds of thousands of people lose entitlement to mortgage benefits many of whom ending up homeless as a result (replacement has a 6 month wait to only get interest being paid and only on principle not on any arrears).
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
Let's leave aside the cheap smears, shall we?
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
Isn't that true of the United States as well?
In fact, the only places in the developed world where that's not the case have to be places with enormous commodity endowments (Canada, Australia, Norway), which have all been beneficiaries of the 2000-2013 commodities boom.
I wonder if Portillo could be persuaded to make a comeback in K&C. He could be a surprise dark horse to become the next leader, finally.
Doubt it.
He has nothing but bad things to say about his former party (actually I've never understood why he is still on This Week, because keeping him there means the Conservative Party is the one party that is never represented) and if he did make a political comeback I imagine it would be as a Lib-Dem candidate?
It's apparently being circulated as a guide to anti-SNP voting by a Labour constituency vice-chairman. It should also firm up some of the SNP support as well as the opposition to the SNP.
With a history degree, what sort of job was he looking for? What about a career in teaching?
That's what he plans to do. I got a degree in history. It teaches you a great deal. I use the skills I learned at university every single day. I have often been accused on here of dancing on the head of a needle. That's what studying history makes you do: you get very suspicious of generalities, learn the importance of precision in language and constantly ask yourself about sources of information and the motives of information-providers. I have every confidence in my son's ability to make a great life for himself. My point was and is that it is going to be a far tougher challenge for him than it was for me. My generation had it much easier. And with that I must do some work.
What you appear to be saying is 'Those of my generation who went to university had it much easier'.
Which was a very narrow, atypical subset. Your experience was far from typical, and unaffordable with such a large university population.
(*) And which UKIP's perverse obsession with grammar schools will not fix.
Everybody always wants to talk about Grammar Schools, but nobody ever wants to talk about secondary moderns. Wonder why?
Because in most areas with Grammar schools even the council treated them as second (well more like 5th) class citizens.....
The irony is that all the outstanding comprehensive schools I know stream children virtually immediately....
Streaming on a subject-by-subject basis is, overall, a good thing. Setting, on the other hand, which Grammar schools are basically a giant version of is a terrible thing.
ComRes for @DailyMailUK: majority (55%) think that if SNP joins coalition govt they shouldn't be allowed to decide on non-Scots laws
FPT - the Herald [Daily - so pro-SLAB if anything] is running a rather different slant from the same poll. And the wording they use is rather different. What was the original question, do you know, please? 'Non-Scots' or 'do not have an impact on Scotland'?
"More than half of voters think the SNP should be able to join a UK-wide coalition government in the event of a hung parliament in May, according to a poll.
Research by ComRes for the Daily Mail found that 57% of people would back such a move, with 37% opposed to it and 6% saying they did not know.
In the event of such an outcome in the general election, 55% said they would not want the SNP to make decisions on laws that do not have an impact on Scotland.
More than a third (38%) thought the party should be allowed to take decisions on English laws. while 7% did not know."
I know I'm a minority, but if the SNP have the MPs and can forge an agreement to join a coalition, then I see no reason why they shouldn't. After all, Scotland is a part of the UK.
However I think the actuality of them voting on UK only matters would scupper any good will very quickly for all the members of that coalition.
......the moves in the betting markets don’t seem to make a lot of sense. I think it’s a result of more and more people actually starting to think about the election the nearer we get, and a very large number of those people believing that Ed Miliband is too much of an electoral liability to become PM, irrespective of what the polls say.
I understand that both Nick P and I were once shortlisted for Kensington and Chelsea.
Nick got the gig. I didn't vote for him, you may be surprised to hear.
I didn't know Jonathan was in there too! I always feel a bit guilty about that one. It was 1983 and Stephen Benn (son of Tony and brother of Hilary) was the local GLC member and a really nice guy, and looking for a hopeless seat to start a shot at a winnable one later. I thought I'd have a go, and basically won because the lights fused in the middle of my selection speech. I continued to harangue them without pause through the gloom as even the most hardened left-wingers giggled sympathetically, and was told later that someone who was going to vote for Stephen decided I should get her vote as a reward for imperturbability. I won by 2.
Soon afterwards, my dad died and my mum was desperate for a change of scene (my family had the "generations live together" tradition), so we went back to Switzerland. Stephen gave up on a political career and has been the (very good) spokesman for the British Chemical Society, I think ever since. He'd have been a good MP and I'm sorry to have got in his way. I met him years later, and he was as forgiving as I'd have expected from that personally amiable family.
It's apparently being circulated as a guide to anti-SNP voting by a Labour constituency vice-chairman. It should also firm up some of the SNP support as well as the opposition to the SNP.
Suicidal picture from SLAB. This picture is going to be sent to every single Yes voter in Scotland and re-energise them to vote SNP, while the Labour inclined Yes voters will not react well to being asked to vote Tory.
Tactical voting needs to be done on a nod and wink basis, not so openly like this. Seriously stupid from SLAB.
With a history degree, what sort of job was he looking for? What about a career in teaching?
That's what he plans to do. I got a degree in history. It teaches you a great deal. I use the skills I learned at university every single day. I have often been accused on here of dancing on the head of a needle. That's what studying history makes you do: you get very suspicious of generalities, learn the importance of precision in language and constantly ask yourself about sources of information and the motives of information-providers. I have every confidence in my son's ability to make a great life for himself. My point was and is that it is going to be a far tougher challenge for him than it was for me. My generation had it much easier. And with that I must do some work.
Yet more bollocks from the land of Flightpath.
I've worked in the Engineering sector nearly all my life, I have a degree in French and German and not an Engineering qualification to my name. Most of the people I know who have good Engineering degrees ended up as accountants.
Very frustrated ones as they wanted to play with machines but sold out for money.
ComRes for @DailyMailUK: majority (55%) think that if SNP joins coalition govt they shouldn't be allowed to decide on non-Scots laws
FPT - the Herald [Daily - so pro-SLAB if anything] is running a rather different slant from the same poll. And the wording they use is rather different. What was the original question, do you know, please? 'Non-Scots' or 'do not have an impact on Scotland'?
"More than half of voters think the SNP should be able to join a UK-wide coalition government in the event of a hung parliament in May, according to a poll.
Research by ComRes for the Daily Mail found that 57% of people would back such a move, with 37% opposed to it and 6% saying they did not know.
In the event of such an outcome in the general election, 55% said they would not want the SNP to make decisions on laws that do not have an impact on Scotland.
More than a third (38%) thought the party should be allowed to take decisions on English laws. while 7% did not know."
I know I'm a minority, but if the SNP have the MPs and can forge an agreement to join a coalition, then I see no reason why they shouldn't. After all, Scotland is a part of the UK.
However I think the actuality of them voting on UK only matters would scupper any good will very quickly for all the members of that coalition.
The problem I have with the SNP being part of a UK government coalition is that the SNP have no interest in making the UK a success - since that would run counter to their objective of Scottish Independence.
With a history degree, what sort of job was he looking for? What about a career in teaching?
That's what he plans to do. I got a degree in history. It teaches you a great deal. I use the skills I learned at university every single day. I have often been accused on here of dancing on the head of a needle. That's what studying history makes you do: you get very suspicious of generalities, learn the importance of precision in language and constantly ask yourself about sources of information and the motives of information-providers. I have every confidence in my son's ability to make a great life for himself. My point was and is that it is going to be a far tougher challenge for him than it was for me. My generation had it much easier. And with that I must do some work.
Yet more bollocks from the land of Flightpath.
I've worked in the Engineering sector nearly all my life, I have a degree in French and German and not an Engineering qualification to my name. Most of the people I know who have good Engineering degrees ended up as accountants.
Very frustrated ones as they wanted to play with machines but sold out for money.
Until British industry values science and technology as much as medicine and banking there is always going to be a brain drain. Blame short sighted British management for giving themselves and their mates bumper pay and being cheap when it comes to paying engineers.
When I moved from software development to being an analyst I almost doubled my wage and I don't have to deal with the awful working practices of software development any more.
Just read carswels 'enoch' piece... Bit of a misrepresentation, he barely mentions him
But when he does I am surprised he draws his conclusion... Powell wasn't against migration of the sort Carswell proposes, indeed it was Powell who actively encouraged immigration to staff the NHS, but was against mass uncontrolled immigration, as is Carswell.
With a history degree, what sort of job was he looking for? What about a career in teaching?
That's what he plans to do. I got a degree in history. It teaches you a great deal. I use the skills I learned at university every single day. I have often been accused on here of dancing on the head of a needle. That's what studying history makes you do: you get very suspicious of generalities, learn the importance of precision in language and constantly ask yourself about sources of information and the motives of information-providers. I have every confidence in my son's ability to make a great life for himself. My point was and is that it is going to be a far tougher challenge for him than it was for me. My generation had it much easier. And with that I must do some work.
Yet more bollocks from the land of Flightpath.
I've worked in the Engineering sector nearly all my life, I have a degree in French and German and not an Engineering qualification to my name. Most of the people I know who have good Engineering degrees ended up as accountants.
Very frustrated ones as they wanted to play with machines but sold out for money.
Until British industry values science and technology as much as medicine and banking there is always going to be a brain drain. Blame short sighted British management for giving themselves and their mates bumper pay and being cheap when it comes to paying engineers.
When I moved from software development to being an analyst I almost doubled my wage and I don't have to deal with the awful working practices of software development any more.
The UK has something like 13 times the number of accountants as Germany.
ComRes for @DailyMailUK: majority (55%) think that if SNP joins coalition govt they shouldn't be allowed to decide on non-Scots laws
FPT - the Herald [Daily - so pro-SLAB if anything] is running a rather different slant from the same poll. And the wording they use is rather different. What was the original question, do you know, please? 'Non-Scots' or 'do not have an impact on Scotland'?
"More than half of voters think the SNP should be able to join a UK-wide coalition government in the event of a hung parliament in May, according to a poll.
Research by ComRes for the Daily Mail found that 57% of people would back such a move, with 37% opposed to it and 6% saying they did not know.
In the event of such an outcome in the general election, 55% said they would not want the SNP to make decisions on laws that do not have an impact on Scotland.
More than a third (38%) thought the party should be allowed to take decisions on English laws. while 7% did not know."
I know I'm a minority, but if the SNP have the MPs and can forge an agreement to join a coalition, then I see no reason why they shouldn't. After all, Scotland is a part of the UK.
However I think the actuality of them voting on UK only matters would scupper any good will very quickly for all the members of that coalition.
The problem I have with the SNP being part of a UK government coalition is that the SNP have no interest in making the UK a success - since that would run counter to their objective of Scottish Independence.
That may well be the case, but as UK MPs they have right to put those views to practice in a coalition.
Yeah but the restaurants aren't so good, and it's awfully far away.
And it would have saved TFL an awful lot of money. The announcement last week of all night running on the metropolitan line would not have been necessary..
Yeah but the restaurants aren't so good, and it's awfully far away.
It's strange to think Labour won Uxbridge in 1966. The London Borough of Hillingdon was marginal throughout the 1980s and 1990s, before shifting heavily to the Conservatives in the 2000s.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
Let's leave aside the cheap smears, shall we?
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
Isn't that true of the United States as well?
In fact, the only places in the developed world where that's not the case have to be places with enormous commodity endowments (Canada, Australia, Norway), which have all been beneficiaries of the 2000-2013 commodities boom.
Very much so. It's far easier to recognise a problem than it is to come up with solutions to it.
ComRes for @DailyMailUK: majority (55%) think that if SNP joins coalition govt they shouldn't be allowed to decide on non-Scots laws
FPT - the Herald [Daily - so pro-SLAB if anything] is running a rather different slant from the same poll. And the wording they use is rather different. What was the original question, do you know, please? 'Non-Scots' or 'do not have an impact on Scotland'?
"More than half of voters think the SNP should be able to join a UK-wide coalition government in the event of a hung parliament in May, according to a poll.
Research by ComRes for the Daily Mail found that 57% of people would back such a move, with 37% opposed to it and 6% saying they did not know.
In the event of such an outcome in the general election, 55% said they would not want the SNP to make decisions on laws that do not have an impact on Scotland.
More than a third (38%) thought the party should be allowed to take decisions on English laws. while 7% did not know."
I know I'm a minority, but if the SNP have the MPs and can forge an agreement to join a coalition, then I see no reason why they shouldn't. After all, Scotland is a part of the UK.
However I think the actuality of them voting on UK only matters would scupper any good will very quickly for all the members of that coalition.
The problem I have with the SNP being part of a UK government coalition is that the SNP have no interest in making the UK a success - since that would run counter to their objective of Scottish Independence.
That may well be the case, but as UK MPs they have right to put those views to practice in a coalition.
The rest of UK would soon learn.
Sure, constitutionally they have the right - just as the Sinn Fein MPs do. I wasn't denying that.
My objection is purely political. Any British political party (or at least its leadership) that formed such an agreement with the SNP would be signing their own death warrant. That's a good reason why it shouldn't happen.
Memo to Dave: If you're stuck for someone with local connections, I used to live in Kensington & Chelsea, and I've dined at Gordon Ramsay's and Daphne's.
I'll pass it on Richard. Best of luck
Pah! Time for a woman - someone who has lived a bit and worked a lot and doesn't come from the usual background and speaks languages other than English and doesn't talk the usual blather and bullsh*t that passes for politics in this country.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
Let's leave aside the cheap smears, shall we?
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
Isn't that true of the United States as well?
In fact, the only places in the developed world where that's not the case have to be places with enormous commodity endowments (Canada, Australia, Norway), which have all been beneficiaries of the 2000-2013 commodities boom.
The US also has an 'enormous endowment'. I would suggest the relationship is betseen those developed countries suffering mass immigration and those not. California is the best example, the 50s 60s utopia people from across the US migrated to has suffered mass emigration of native born since the 90s due to a precipitous decline in living standards.
Memo to Dave: If you're stuck for someone with local connections, I used to live in Kensington & Chelsea, and I've dined at Gordon Ramsay's and Daphne's.
I'll pass it on Richard. Best of luck
Pah! Time for a woman - someone who has lived a bit and worked a lot and doesn't come from the usual background and speaks languages other than English and doesn't talk the usual blather and bullsh*t that passes for politics in this country.
I've played bridge in the constituency and have firm views on the appropriateness of moving the diplodocus out of the main hall of the Natural History Museum. I'm not a Conservative, but that shouldn't be a dealbreaker in these LibLabCon days.
Situation normal then. It would take years to sort them out, and some ideological & intellectual clarity rather than Murphy's headless chicken-ism.
Despite the Labour constitution being clear that this sort of thing results in automatic expulsion, I'll bet this doofus is still paying his party dues by the GE.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
Let's leave aside the cheap smears, shall we?
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
Isn't that true of the United States as well?
In fact, the only places in the developed world where that's not the case have to be places with enormous commodity endowments (Canada, Australia, Norway), which have all been beneficiaries of the 2000-2013 commodities boom.
The US also has an 'enormous endowment'. I would suggest the relationship is betseen those developed countries suffering mass immigration and those not. California is the best example, the 50s 60s utopia people from across the US migrated to has suffered mass emigration of native born since the 90s due to a precipitous decline in living standards.
24.2.15 LAB 297 (295) CON 269(268) LD 30(29) UKIP 2(2) Others 52(56) (Ed is crap is PM) Last BJESUS in brackets Last weeks BJESUS in brackets BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) Using current polling adjusted for 72 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
ComRes for @DailyMailUK: majority (55%) think that if SNP joins coalition govt they shouldn't be allowed to decide on non-Scots laws
FPT - the Herald [Daily - so pro-SLAB if anything] is running a rather different slant from the same poll. And the wording they use is rather different. What was the original question, do you know, please? 'Non-Scots' or 'do not have an impact on Scotland'?
"More than half of voters think the SNP should be able to join a UK-wide coalition government in the event of a hung parliament in May, according to a poll.
Research by ComRes for the Daily Mail found that 57% of people would back such a move, with 37% opposed to it and 6% saying they did not know.
In the event of such an outcome in the general election, 55% said they would not want the SNP to make decisions on laws that do not have an impact on Scotland.
More than a third (38%) thought the party should be allowed to take decisions on English laws. while 7% did not know."
I know I'm a minority, but if the SNP have the MPs and can forge an agreement to join a coalition, then I see no reason why they shouldn't. After all, Scotland is a part of the UK.
However I think the actuality of them voting on UK only matters would scupper any good will very quickly for all the members of that coalition.
The problem I have with the SNP being part of a UK government coalition is that the SNP have no interest in making the UK a success - since that would run counter to their objective of Scottish Independence.
That may well be the case, but as UK MPs they have right to put those views to practice in a coalition.
The rest of UK would soon learn.
Sure, constitutionally they have the right - just as the Sinn Fein MPs do. I wasn't denying that.
My objection is purely political. Any British political party (or at least its leadership) that formed such an agreement with the SNP would be signing their own death warrant. That's a good reason why it shouldn't happen.
I agree. The real question is will there be a party that is dumb enough to believe it can defy that political certainty? I'm sure there are some political parties who are led by people who would believe that they are immune to such a tragedy through immutable self belief.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd leave aside the cheap smears, shall we?
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
Isn't that true of the United States as well?
In fact, the only places in the developed world where that's not the case have to be places with enormous commodity endowments (Canada, Australia, Norway), which have all been beneficiaries of the 2000-2013 commodities boom.
The US also has an 'enormous endowment'. I would suggest the relationship is betseen those developed countries suffering mass immigration and those not. California is the best example, the 50s 60s utopia people from across the US migrated to has suffered mass emigration of native born since the 90s due to a precipitous decline in living standards.
The US is still a large commodities importer, albeit not as much as one as the UK.
Ill ask again!
Can you remember our bet on the lib Dems? You lost £20 in the WYTHENSHAWE by election by backing ukip at 11/2, you said your dad would give the the dough at dirty dicks in May but he didn't... So we agreed a £20 bet on the lib Dems doing badly, I think it was something like 15@11/2 they get 8-10% and a fiver at 8/1 they get less than 8%
With a history degree, what sort of job was he looking for? What about a career in teaching?
That's what he plans to do. I got a degree in history. It teaches you a great deal. I use the skills I learned at university every single day. I have often been accused on here of dancing on the head of a needle. That's what studying history makes you do: you get very suspicious of generalities, learn the importance of precision in language and constantly ask yourself about sources of information and the motives of information-providers. I have every confidence in my son's ability to make a great life for himself. My point was and is that it is going to be a far tougher challenge for him than it was for me. My generation had it much easier. And with that I must do some work.
Yet more bollocks from the land of Flightpath.
I've worked in the Engineering sector nearly all my life, I have a degree in French and German and not an Engineering qualification to my name. Most of the people I know who have good Engineering degrees ended up as accountants.
Very frustrated ones as they wanted to play with machines but sold out for money.
Until British industry values science and technology as much as medicine and banking there is always going to be a brain drain. Blame short sighted British management for giving themselves and their mates bumper pay and being cheap when it comes to paying engineers.
When I moved from software development to being an analyst I almost doubled my wage and I don't have to deal with the awful working practices of software development any more.
I have a Psychology Degree but worked in Software Development for years (self taught programmer originally) emigrated to do property development but mostly ended up teaching, considering coming back to Blighty this year, but not sure if I want to make the effort of catching up of 5 years of software tools and techniques or if I am going to turn my carpentry hobby into a profession since they seem to be thin in the ground.. fun times!
Much will turn on whether the Conservative Party (if there is a Conservative government after the next election) will fall into line, or will be divided.
Memo to Dave: If you're stuck for someone with local connections, I used to live in Kensington & Chelsea, and I've dined at Gordon Ramsay's and Daphne's.
I'll pass it on Richard. Best of luck
Pah! Time for a woman - someone who has lived a bit and worked a lot and doesn't come from the usual background and speaks languages other than English and doesn't talk the usual blather and bullsh*t that passes for politics in this country.
I've played bridge in the constituency and have firm views on the appropriateness of moving the diplodocus out of the main hall of the Natural History Museum. I'm not a Conservative, but that shouldn't be a dealbreaker in these LibLabCon days.
Neither am I. But that is, as the Italians would say, a mere detail. We could do a job share!
Yeah but the restaurants aren't so good, and it's awfully far away.
I think it will do Boris a lot of good to represent Uxbridge rather than Kensington. Both for his leadership/PM prospects, and for his waistline.
Elsewhere, nice to see Gayle cash in my tips. It took a little longer than I thought, but I wouldn't be surprised to see another double-hundred yet. 163.5 was a crazy line.
24.2.15 LAB 297 (295) CON 269(268) LD 30(29) UKIP 2(2) Others 52(56) (Ed is crap is PM) Last BJESUS in brackets Last weeks BJESUS in brackets BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) Using current polling adjusted for 72 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
Memo to Dave: If you're stuck for someone with local connections, I used to live in Kensington & Chelsea, and I've dined at Gordon Ramsay's and Daphne's.
I'll pass it on Richard. Best of luck
Pah! Time for a woman - someone who has lived a bit and worked a lot and doesn't come from the usual background and speaks languages other than English and doesn't talk the usual blather and bullsh*t that passes for politics in this country.
Hmm. If you became a prospective MP you would either fail immediately and disastrously or you would start blathering like the rest of them .....
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
Let's leave aside the cheap smears, shall we?
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
Isn't that true of the United States as well?
In fact, the only places in the developed world where that's not the case have to be places with enormous commodity endowments (Canada, Australia, Norway), which have all been beneficiaries of the 2000-2013 commodities boom.
The US also has an 'enormous endowment'. I would suggest the relationship is betseen those developed countries suffering mass immigration and those not. California is the best example, the 50s 60s utopia people from across the US migrated to has suffered mass emigration of native born since the 90s due to a precipitous decline in living standards.
The US is still a large commodities importer, albeit not as much as one as the UK.
The ONS have some interesting graphs on the UK situation on their new Visual.ONS page, onto which they are regularly putting interesting new analyses of data.
Really? I take exactly the opposite view: my son will have many advantages and opportunities that I never had *if he wants to take them*.
I'm really positive for the future. There's lots of things that need fixing, but I'd rather be growing up nowadays than in the seventies and eighties, as I did. (*)
I've known too many people of (I think) your generation whose future was anything but gilded - for instance men who were told at a young age there was no point educating them, as they'd just end up working at the mine. It's a different country, but better.
(*) Music excepted.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
Isn't that true of the United States as well?
In fact, the only places in the developed world where that's not the case have to be places with enormous commodity endowments (Canada, Australia, Norway), which have all been beneficiaries of the 2000-2013 commodities boom.
The US also has an 'enormous endowment'. I would suggest the relationship is betseen those developed countries suffering mass immigration and those not. California is the best example, the 50s 60s utopia people from across the US migrated to has suffered mass emigration of native born since the 90s due to a precipitous decline in living standards.
The US is still a large commodities importer, albeit not as much as one as the UK.
The ONS have some interesting graphs on the UK situation on their new Visual.ONS page, onto which they are regularly putting interesting new analyses of data.
A very good illustration of our industrial decline.
Whether prospects better or worse for young people today depends on what social class you belong to.
I'd tentatively suggest that, in general, it's better to be a teenager now, whatever your social class, than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The opportunities are greater, which is why I'm surprised by SO's utter negativity on that point.
I'd go back further, but I know your incredible fondness for the 1950s, the days of national service, chemical castration of homosexuals, women knowing their place, etc, etc.
People growing up in the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, (or the Fifties, for that matter) were growing up in societies where they could expect to be better off than their parents. Outside of the upper middle classes, people no longer have that expectation.
Isn't that true of the United States as well?
In fact, the only places in the developed world where that's not the case have to be places with enormous commodity endowments (Canada, Australia, Norway), which have all been beneficiaries of the 2000-2013 commodities boom.
The US also has an 'enormous endowment'. I would suggest the relationship is betseen those developed countries suffering mass immigration and those not. California is the best example, the 50s 60s utopia people from across the US migrated to has suffered mass emigration of native born since the 90s due to a precipitous decline in living standards.
The US is still a large commodities importer, albeit not as much as one as the UK.
The ONS have some interesting graphs on the UK situation on their new Visual.ONS page, onto which they are regularly putting interesting new analyses of data.
A very good illustration of our industrial decline.
The dependence on foreign energy introduced from 1999 onwards is the worst strategic policy decision since relying on a 'piece of paper' in 1938.
I used to live in Kensington and we all agree I'd make a great MP
FWIW, I've lived in Kensington for 10 years and I have seen Malcolm precisely *once* in that time, despite playing a pretty active role in the local community.
Memo to Dave: If you're stuck for someone with local connections, I used to live in Kensington & Chelsea, and I've dined at Gordon Ramsay's and Daphne's.
Daphne's would be in Greg Hands' seat.
Daphne's, Brompton Cross - amazed to see it is in his constituency.
Not sure I'd read the Greek situation like that. But I have some thoughts on renegotiation.
It was either you, or someone you might agree with, who asked "what must Cameron achieve for a successful negotiation?". That is a valid question for Cameron - what are the goalposts. But just as is a racing certainty Cameron will proclaim success, I don't doubt that many will proclaim defeat, no matter what.
Fundamentally if Cameron gets x change or y alteration, very few of us are in a position to understand if our relationship with the EU has changed overall. People on here more than most, but even so I doubt that one way or another any renegotiation - whatever happens - will alter voting outcomes. Putting it bluntly, the vast majority of people will "hear what they want to hear, and disregard the rest" - see everything through the spectacles of their previous position.
Comments
My point is, it is better than it was for those people back in those decades. At least there are jobs to compete for.
(*) And which UKIP's perverse obsession with grammar schools will not fix.
All the cost has been transferred onto the employee, removing any security in employment and effectively meaning that almost every single person in the United Kingdom is on a Zero Hours contract. The trivial minimum redundancy cost for the average worker is no barrier to hire and fire now. In fact it's encouraged, you don't want staff with 10+ years that might actually incur a cost when you sack a few thousand so a director gets a bigger bonus. Except rents are completely unaffordable which is one of the reasons the country spends £17bn per annum on Housing Benefit (on top of the contribution that comes from the £42bn that make up Tax Credits and Child Benefit.
Buying is attractive because it is often cheaper than Renting and even when it's merely the same cost, you get Equity for your money which you don't when you rent. Average Life Expectancy increases have been very clear to all governments for decades. They did nothing.
What they did do, particularly under Lawson, Lamont and Brown was make a series of decisions which have destroyed the private pension industry and dis-incentivised business from providing retirement savings schemes which are even remotely worth considering.
We have the ridiculous situation where anyone in this country paying money into a Defined Contribution Pension is financially irresponsible.
Back then, they were called "second jobs" and that was the area where the labour shortage of the 1980s manifested itself especially in the south.
Why would I be cross? The polls are virtually meaningless
You are directly elected dictator in waiting
If I recall I was runner up to a very talented local activist, who will be an MP this May. It was a great experience, the best bit about it was to get a nice write up in the Times by Anthony Howard and to see all the famous people at the hustings.
Data provided by NUS. Obviously.
In practice this means education becomes ever more important as does innovation and entrepreneurship. Just to stand still.
I think Mike was saying The Rant have taken over the ComRes/Indy poll? If so, then I assume we won't be getting a third ComRes poll this month?
So that means from now until the end of Feb it's just YouGov and one Populus?
"More than half of voters think the SNP should be able to join a UK-wide coalition government in the event of a hung parliament in May, according to a poll.
Research by ComRes for the Daily Mail found that 57% of people would back such a move, with 37% opposed to it and 6% saying they did not know.
In the event of such an outcome in the general election, 55% said they would not want the SNP to make decisions on laws that do not have an impact on Scotland.
More than a third (38%) thought the party should be allowed to take decisions on English laws. while 7% did not know."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/poll-57-of-people-would-back-the-snp-joining-a-uk-wide-coalition-governme.1424772114
I hear the natives still talk of your dashing charismatic campaign in 2005 - it has become the stuff of legend (or something).
The irony is that all the outstanding comprehensive schools I know stream children virtually immediately....
The Daily Mail found some short term prisoner was having his mortgage paid during his 6 month stretch, public outcry ensues, government caves in and scraps the benefit, hundreds of thousands of people lose entitlement to mortgage benefits many of whom ending up homeless as a result (replacement has a 6 month wait to only get interest being paid and only on principle not on any arrears).
In fact, the only places in the developed world where that's not the case have to be places with enormous commodity endowments (Canada, Australia, Norway), which have all been beneficiaries of the 2000-2013 commodities boom.
He has nothing but bad things to say about his former party (actually I've never understood why he is still on This Week, because keeping him there means the Conservative Party is the one party that is never represented) and if he did make a political comeback I imagine it would be as a Lib-Dem candidate?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-mTY8yW8AAEYlL.jpg
http://wingsoverscotland.com/scottish-labours-new-policy-vote-tory/
It's apparently being circulated as a guide to anti-SNP voting by a Labour constituency vice-chairman. It should also firm up some of the SNP support as well as the opposition to the SNP.
Which was a very narrow, atypical subset. Your experience was far from typical, and unaffordable with such a large university population.
However I think the actuality of them voting on UK only matters would scupper any good will very quickly for all the members of that coalition.
......the moves in the betting markets don’t seem to make a lot of sense. I think it’s a result of more and more people actually starting to think about the election the nearer we get, and a very large number of those people believing that Ed Miliband is too much of an electoral liability to become PM, irrespective of what the polls say.
http://politicalbookie.com/2015/02/24/why-are-the-tories-favourites
Soon afterwards, my dad died and my mum was desperate for a change of scene (my family had the "generations live together" tradition), so we went back to Switzerland. Stephen gave up on a political career and has been the (very good) spokesman for the British Chemical Society, I think ever since. He'd have been a good MP and I'm sorry to have got in his way. I met him years later, and he was as forgiving as I'd have expected from that personally amiable family.
Tactical voting needs to be done on a nod and wink basis, not so openly like this. Seriously stupid from SLAB.
I've worked in the Engineering sector nearly all my life, I have a degree in French and German and not an Engineering qualification to my name. Most of the people I know who have good Engineering degrees ended up as accountants.
Very frustrated ones as they wanted to play with machines but sold out for money.
When I moved from software development to being an analyst I almost doubled my wage and I don't have to deal with the awful working practices of software development any more.
But when he does I am surprised he draws his conclusion... Powell wasn't against migration of the sort Carswell proposes, indeed it was Powell who actively encouraged immigration to staff the NHS, but was against mass uncontrolled immigration, as is Carswell.
And we wonder why we're failing to keep pace.
The rest of UK would soon learn.
My objection is purely political. Any British political party (or at least its leadership) that formed such an agreement with the SNP would be signing their own death warrant. That's a good reason why it shouldn't happen.
Well, if your chosen profession is in advertising, a 'Patisserie Valerie' at the very least.. ; )
http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-big-squeeze-the-decline-of-americas-california-dream/
Despite the Labour constitution being clear that this sort of thing results in automatic expulsion, I'll bet this doofus is still paying his party dues by the GE.
24.2.15 LAB 297 (295) CON 269(268) LD 30(29) UKIP 2(2) Others 52(56) (Ed is crap is PM)
Last BJESUS in brackets Last weeks BJESUS in brackets
BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing)
Using current polling adjusted for 72 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
The only bit he gets wrong is the idea that Cameron will be conned. He will be an active participant in the attempts to con the British public.
http://www.capx.co/defeat-of-varoufakis-will-embolden-the-eurocrats-to-con-cameron/
May be worth giving carpentry a try, but I can't pretend to have any specialist knowledge in the area.
Elsewhere, nice to see Gayle cash in my tips. It took a little longer than I thought, but I wouldn't be surprised to see another double-hundred yet. 163.5 was a crazy line.
She is being grilled by Andrew Neil in half an hour so let's hope she's had a honey and lemon infusion
Sick as a dog
He spends his weekends in Edinburgh.
I'd be glad to have a more committed MP.
It was either you, or someone you might agree with, who asked "what must Cameron achieve for a successful negotiation?". That is a valid question for Cameron - what are the goalposts. But just as is a racing certainty Cameron will proclaim success, I don't doubt that many will proclaim defeat, no matter what.
Fundamentally if Cameron gets x change or y alteration, very few of us are in a position to understand if our relationship with the EU has changed overall. People on here more than most, but even so I doubt that one way or another any renegotiation - whatever happens - will alter voting outcomes. Putting it bluntly, the vast majority of people will "hear what they want to hear, and disregard the rest" - see everything through the spectacles of their previous position.