Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the French Republican primary run-off tomorrow David Herd

24

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,220
    edited November 2016
    There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3972832/So-really-Just-Managing-Struggling-JAMS-government-priority-just-interviews-thinks-label-applies-them.html
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020

    Having gained independence, why would any Scot want the country's pensioners to be at the mercy of the whims of a foreign government?

    You pay your debts regardless , being a foreigner does not cancel them out.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    edited November 2016

    Having gained independence, why would any Scot want the country's pensioners to be at the mercy of the whims of a foreign government?

    Going by this thread, yes. They also want British citizenship as well, apparently.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020

    On a serious note: It is not nice to take the pish out of the poor. Leave Scotland alone!

    :this-add-was-not-endorsed-by-the-jockanese-clown-collective:

    Dream on
  • Mr. Observer, goodwill is worthless with the EU. How much did Blair achieve with all the goodwill he got by throwing away half our rebate?
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited November 2016
    malcolmg said:

    Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.

    We rent Trident from the Septics: Has Pres-Elect Trump offered youse a concession on the deal?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317
    edited November 2016

    There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3972832/So-really-Just-Managing-Struggling-JAMS-government-priority-just-interviews-thinks-label-applies-them.html

    £600 on food per month? :o

    Also their take home appears quite low, given that pensions contributions come out afterwards.
  • Having gained independence, why would any Scot want the country's pensioners to be at the mercy of the whims of a foreign government?

    Quite.

    rUK government decides to slash pensions.

    What can Scottish voters do about it?

    Vote out the Scottish government......
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317
    malcolmg said:

    You pay your debts regardless , being a foreigner does not cancel them out.
    What's the legal basis for this liability (beyond the contributions that exist within the fund)?
  • malcolmg said:



    On a serious note: It is not nice to take the pish out of the poor. Leave Scotland alone!

    :this-add-was-not-endorsed-by-the-jockanese-clown-collective:
    Dream on

    :first-official-endorsement-by-the-jockanese-clown-collective?:
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    RobD said:

    What's the legal basis for this liability (beyond the contributions that exist within the fund)?
    None, NI is a tax like any other and contributions are irrelevant.
  • kle4 said:

    Don't we wonder why all elections are not AV?

    2011 Referendum result:

    No 2 AV 68%
    Yes 2 AV 32%
    :innocent:
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,114

    If I were Fillon, I'd offer Juppé a job, which should at least keep Bayrou fairly neutral.
    Prime Minister... Again....
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,100
    I like the French system. I like the way it forces a choice from minor party supporters and gives a chance for reflection.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317

    2011 Referendum result:

    No 2 AV 68%
    Yes 2 AV 32%
    :innocent:
    But who exactly voted for a Hard No 2 AV? :D
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,114
    edited November 2016

    2011 Referendum result:

    No 2 AV 68%
    Yes 2 AV 32%
    :innocent:
    You can't just quote the first round numbers. What happened in the run off?
  • rcs1000 said:

    You can't just quote the first round numbers. What happened in the run off?

    Ended-up being ditched...?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155
    Off-topic:

    A few months ago there was a discussion about test flights for new planes, and whether the crew wore suits and ties. Well, the latest video from Airbus about their latest plane - the stretched A350 - has some rather heavy evidence that they wear full safety equipment.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/25/airbus_flies_new_plane_for_the_first_time/
  • rcs1000 said:

    You can't just quote the first round numbers. What happened in the run off?
    That was the run-off! There wasn't a "don't know" option!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,834
    malcolmg said:

    Fact we do not need to fund Westminster will mean we will be rolling in it , Trident rent will cover pensions.
    Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
  • What's your basis for that assertion?

    'Would some people lose their British citizenship?

    'Current British nationality law – the British Nationality Act 1981 - does not prevent British citizens from holding dual/multiple nationalities.
    Assuming that Scottish nationality law also allowed for dual citizenship, British citizens who became eligible for Scottish citizenship could, in theory, become dual Scottish/British citizens.
    However, it is possible that the UK Government would decide to impose some qualifying restrictions on who could continue to claim British citizenship – for example, by requiring a historical or ongoing connection to the rest of the UK, or requiring people to actively choose to retain their British citizenship. This would have some similarities with the approach taken in 1949 towards citizens of Eire after the Republic of Ireland was established.'

    http://tinyurl.com/zos3pt8
    Yes, my language was loose. I meant that they wouldn't be solely British citizens.

    But either way, I can't see how pensions and benefits wouldn't be the responsibility of the relevant successor state (with pension funds transferred as appropriate too).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,571
    rcs1000 said:

    You can't just quote the first round numbers. What happened in the run off?
    The run off was decided by PR. 32% get AV and 68% just get a single preference.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    FF43 said:

    Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
    No, an independent Scotland would go the Irish route, declare neutrality and hide behind England's military force
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,571
    rcs1000 said:

    Prime Minister... Again....
    Given the state of the parties the PM is likely to be a Republican regardless of who wins the Presidency.
  • F1: qualifying is at 1pm.

    I suspect it won't be too surprising, though we'll see how Ferrari can do after good pace in P3.
  • FF43 said:

    Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
    If Scotland wants to join NATO I suspect a Trump White House will be a lot more concerned about the 2% spend.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,834

    Off-topic:

    A few months ago there was a discussion about test flights for new planes, and whether the crew wore suits and ties. Well, the latest video from Airbus about their latest plane - the stretched A350 - has some rather heavy evidence that they wear full safety equipment.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/25/airbus_flies_new_plane_for_the_first_time/

    You might find this article interesting. It explains the precautions for initial test flights:
    http://bloga350.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/emergency-scape-for-test-crew-located.html

    First flight is fully choreographed. Pilots follow the exact manoeuvres in sequence that have already been tested on ground. Later on you test extreme conditions and that's when you are most likely to have accidents.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    When it comes to crapness I think the polls have some way to go to matching Twitter.....in Twitter land Prime Minister Milliband and Prime Salmond of Scotland welcome President Clinton's election.....
    It was Twitter and like formats, that flew over the heads of the MSM and the Polls, that won it for Trump.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155
    FF43 said:

    You might find this article interesting. It explains the precautions for initial test flights:
    http://bloga350.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/emergency-scape-for-test-crew-located.html

    First flight is fully choreographed. Pilots follow the exact manoeuvres in sequence that have already been tested on ground. Later on you test extreme conditions and that's when you are most likely to have accidents.
    Thanks, that was interesting.
  • Yes, my language was loose. I meant that they wouldn't be solely British citizens.

    But either way, I can't see how pensions and benefits wouldn't be the responsibility of the relevant successor state (with pension funds transferred as appropriate too).
    They would, but there would also be a transitional period, the length of which would depend on negotiated terms. I believe that a good many Irish citizens are currently paid UK state pensions for their time working & contributing in the UK, and the same should apply to the citizens of a putative indy Scotland for their time working within the UK.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155
    MikeK said:

    It was Twitter and like formats, that flew over the heads of the MSM and the Polls, that won it for Trump.
    LOL. Do you *really* believe that Twitter and the like won it for Trump?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Jenna Abrams
    That awkward moment when you'd been fighting capitalism for your whole life and then you die on #blackfriday
    Bye, Fidel Castro
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,333
    Oh, wow, the long-awaited AV thread.

    What I'd like to see is a system that allows the candidate who's everybody's second favourite to win through, even if that person is no-one's first favourite.

    Doesn't seem right to totally rule that candidate out just because of coming second. You end up with someone few people much want, and call it a majority.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Jenna Abrams
    That awkward moment when you'd been fighting capitalism for your whole life and then you die on #blackfriday
    Bye, Fidel Castro

    "His supporters said he had given Cuba back to the people. Critics saw him as a dictator."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38114953

    Hmmm...doesn't that describe every dictator?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155

    "His supporters said he had given Cuba back to the people. Critics saw him as a dictator."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38114953

    Hmmm...doesn't that describe every dictator?
    Can anyone recommend a good biography of Castro, or a detailed history of Cuba up to and past the revolution?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020
    Blue_rog said:

    No, an independent Scotland would go the Irish route, declare neutrality and hide behind England's military force
    Now the big girls blouses crawl out. UK military ( or England as you term it ) could not beat a carpet. Two carriers with no planes , next to no navy with their latest and greatest unable to work in warm climates as engines blow up, submarines that are crap , etc. A few infantry left as teh only thing that works.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,131
    edited November 2016

    There's trouble ahead for May if the Daily Mail are running articles questioning who is a JAM and finding some of them on £100K a year. If people self-identify like this, it will be most of the population and how on earth is May going to afford to make so many people better off?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3972832/So-really-Just-Managing-Struggling-JAMS-government-priority-just-interviews-thinks-label-applies-them.html

    The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
  • "His supporters said he had given Cuba back to the people. Critics saw him as a dictator."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38114953

    Hmmm...doesn't that describe every dictator?
    Another celeb gone in 2016.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020
    FF43 said:

    Those aren't facts, because they aren't true. Scotland's share of UK military spending, let alone the part spent on Trident doesn't nearly cover its pensions liability. An independent Scotland would presumably want a military. The budget might go on different things and not include Trident, but it won't necessarily be less than the UK figure in proportion. The White Paper promised Scottish defence spending would match the UK one as a proportion of GDP.
    The money we spend already is not spent in Scotland, we are funding elsewhere, our spending would triple immediately for no increase.
  • Another celeb gone in 2016.
    Not one I shall shed a tear over....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,190
    edited November 2016
    RobD said:

    £600 on food per month? :o

    Also their take home appears quite low, given that pensions contributions come out afterwards.
    "Even in Cornwall, we had to pay £1,000 for our tent and £400 for the campsite "

    £1000 for a tent !!!!! Somebody saw you coming.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020

    Quite.

    rUK government decides to slash pensions.

    What can Scottish voters do about it?

    Vote out the Scottish government......
    I doubt they would remain an fUK government after that , unionists really are as dumb as they post after all.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155
    malcolmg said:

    The money we spend already is not spent in Scotland, we are funding elsewhere, our spending would triple immediately for no increase.
    Care to share your thinking and figures for that?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020
    RobD said:

    £600 on food per month? :o

    Also their take home appears quite low, given that pensions contributions come out afterwards.
    Must be eating like mice if they can live on £600 a month
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020
    MaxPB said:

    Going by this thread, yes. They also want British citizenship as well, apparently.
    You halfwit we are British citizens
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    malcolmg said:

    Now the big girls blouses crawl out. UK military ( or England as you term it ) could not beat a carpet. Two carriers with no planes , next to no navy with their latest and greatest unable to work in warm climates as engines blow up, submarines that are crap , etc. A few infantry left as teh only thing that works.
    Casually forgetting about England's independent nuclear weapons
  • Jonathan said:

    I like the French system. I like the way it forces a choice from minor party supporters and gives a chance for reflection.

    But who is to say what a 'minor party' is?

    Suppose the French system had been used in that Inverness election in 1992, when the result was:

    LD 26.0
    Lab 25.1
    SNP 24.7
    Con 22.6
    Grn 1.5

    Realistically, there's only one minor party there.

    If you use FPTP then fine, it's a close-run thing but the LDs win. If, however, you use a majoritarian system then why use a method that would undoubtedly write off a great many SNP, Con and Grn voters who didn't pick which two of the four (or three, excluding their own party) would make the run-off, and consequently would be highly unlikely to prove the support of 50%+? Why not simply go through all the preferences and redistribute as necessary?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020
    Pulpstar said:

    The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
    One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020
    RobD said:

    What's the legal basis for this liability (beyond the contributions that exist within the fund)?
    More basis than Scotland paying off UK debts. Scotland would be happy if rUK took that position , just keep it and we can start off with our own assets and debt free. If UK want to keep everything then it would be everything, even the UK debts.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020

    Ended-up being ditched...?
    No wonder I would ditch you pronto as well
  • Pulpstar said:

    The £100k a year people are NOT Jams. They can piss OFF.
    The Mail frequently lets its mask slip with "typical two home families" - there's nothing remotely "typical" about a "two home family" - except in the conmentariate....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020
    Blue_rog said:

    Casually forgetting about England's independent nuclear weapons
    Yes great one lets kill ourselves , great idea baldrick, phone President Trump and ask for the key.
  • Blue_rog said:

    Casually forgetting about England's independent nuclear weapons
    So independent they can't be based in England.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155
    malcolmg said:

    One out of the four could be counted, rest are just greedy whingers.
    Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."

    They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020

    Care to share your thinking and figures for that?
    Simple fact is we pay a share prorata per population and a fraction of that is spent in Scotland, whereas a shedload is spent in England. Numbers are asy to find if you are interested and further cuts planned.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020

    "Even in Cornwall, we had to pay £1,000 for our tent and £400 for the campsite "

    £1000 for a tent !!!!! Somebody saw you coming.
    glamping is not cheap

  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    malcolmg said:

    You halfwit we are British citizens
    Sounds like having your cake and eating it, good luck with that.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020

    Friends of ours are what I would call genuine JAMs; they have a reasonable lifestyle, but wonder whether they can afford to have and raise a second child. They do not have many savings and a heavyish mortgage. As he put it to me this week: "We're only one illness away from being in the sh*t."

    They're not exactly conspicuous spenders, either.
    Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS.
    I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020

    Sounds like having your cake and eating it, good luck with that.
    More than your wheel must be broken, I am a British Citizen and have been since birth , how can that change.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155
    malcolmg said:

    Simple fact is we pay a share prorata per population and a fraction of that is spent in Scotland, whereas a shedload is spent in England. Numbers are asy to find if you are interested and further cuts planned.
    http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0041/00418420.pdf
  • malcolmg said:

    Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS.
    I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
    Almost everyone just about manages but that's because they set their expenditure to their income, not the other way around. Given a pay rise they will still just about manage because they will spend more. Given a pay cut they may still be able to just about manage by spending less.

    Very few people spend either the least or the most that they could spend.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020

    http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0041/00418420.pdf
    Means nothing , someone has made some guesses on UK income. There is no Scottish state and no Scottish GDP. We are a subset of teh UK and it cannot be accurately extrapolated in any decent way shape or form.
    If you take a prorata based on population which is still a guess , we get a fraction of the amount we contribute to military spending come back and be spent in Scotland.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,550
    Our lovable Scotnats are very kind to fill the vacuum left by the absence earth-shattering political events at the moment, but I don't see why we're having this discussion? There won't be Scottish independence. There won't be Indyref 2. Stick a fork in it; it's done.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155
    malcolmg said:

    Sure lots are but from those four sets and the choices they have made , only one could be considered JAMS.
    I have little savings , heavyish mortgage, wife does not work, etc but doubt anyone would have consider me a JAM given my income.
    Yep, fair enough.

    What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools).

    Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
  • Yep, fair enough. What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools).
    Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
    Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155

    Almost everyone just about manages but that's because they set their expenditure to their income, not the other way around. Given a pay rise they will still just about manage because they will spend more. Given a pay cut they may still be able to just about manage by spending less.

    Very few people spend either the least or the most that they could spend.
    My dad taught me an important lesson when I was a child: "Expenditure swells to fill income".

    Its human nature. All three of us kids have tried to break that trend; one of us saves at least 10% of earnings, and often much more than that. I saved enough money to allow myself "luxuries" such as a year out walking.

    It's an annoyance when you're young and not earning much; it's a boon later in life.

    Mind, savings rates are so cr@p that in many ways saving seems stupid.

    But this conversation just makes me realise how lucky I've been.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,550
    Wealthy people leaving France, coming to UK, US, Switzerland and Belgium
    https://www.rt.com/business/368145-france-wealthy-leaving-country/
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155

    Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
    Yes, frequently, for the obvious reasons.

    Your point is?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    malcolmg said:

    You halfwit we are British citizens
    Post independence?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,167

    Yep, fair enough.

    What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools).

    Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
    The U.K. has the both very expensive childcare and very expensive housing costs, compared to most countries. Housing is also very small, I don't have the stats to hand but the average home is possibly the smallest in the OECD. Commuting can also be very expensive.

    Conclusion: most families in this country are JAMs, if we are honest with ourselves.

    The standard of living is terrible, unless you're a well off singleton, a pensioner, or a financier.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,167

    Ever considered the impact of 300k young immigrants added to the UK each year, on housing costs and wage/salary rates?
    Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.

    Sorry.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020

    Almost everyone just about manages but that's because they set their expenditure to their income, not the other way around. Given a pay rise they will still just about manage because they will spend more. Given a pay cut they may still be able to just about manage by spending less.

    Very few people spend either the least or the most that they could spend.
    very true
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    Yes. The academic evidence as opposed to your bar room anec-bollocks, is: limited.

    Sorry.
    Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2016
    malcolmg said:

    More than your wheel must be broken, I am a British Citizen and have been since birth , how can that change.
    By voting to go Independent, that's how it can change. Do Slovaks have Czech citizenship? I don't know the answer but that seems the best comparison.

    Don't want it to change, vote against Independence.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020

    Yep, fair enough.

    What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!) and does some contracting whilst their son naps. To make ends meet, they even take in lodgers in their spare rooms (usually students at language schools).

    Yet they're still only just managing. Part of this is because they're in Cambridge, which can be an expensive place to live with a mortgage. But something's wrong when people work so hard and yet struggle to make progress.
    for sure and it seems to be much more common in UK than others, something far wrong with the governing of this country.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Ummm

    Jean Claude Junker
    With the death of #FidelCastro, the world has lost a man who was a hero for many. https://t.co/u0ULZoG8Fl
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,020
    MaxPB said:

    Post independence?
    I am sure there would be choice , and likely dual citizenship like Eire. Worst case I could chose to remain British.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,167
    MaxPB said:

    Anecdote on PB has been a better gauge of real life than academic studies and polls for the last few years. Dismiss it at your peril.
    No it hasn't.

    There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.

    But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,167
    malcolmg said:

    for sure and it seems to be much more common in UK than others, something far wrong with the governing of this country.
    See my post above.

    Housing.
    Childcare.
    Commuting.

    The U.K. triple whammy.
  • malcolmg said:

    I am sure there would be choice , and likely dual citizenship like Eire. Worst case I could chose to remain British.
    Worst case you could choose to remain British by opting against being Scottish. If you're going to do that, why go independent?

    Looking up the answer to my question it seems that was the choice for Czechs/Slovaks - a forced choice of one or the other.
  • What annoys me is that our friends are strivers: she has a full-time job, whilst he looks after their son (I have to take part of the blame for that!)

    The job or the son?
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    edited November 2016

    Those people in the daily mail on 100k per year or with a buy to let AND holiday home in the Dordogne should stop whinging. They are by definition in the top 10% of earners and the problem is with the lifestyle choices they made.

    Our own income is modest, less than the national average household income. I calculated last week - if everything remains equal - we will be able to move to a medium size detached house in a nice area, run a family car, and retire with assets of 500k in addition to the state pension and private pensions ( and that figure is before any inheritances are factored in).

    The problem is that people have no access to the home ownership are basically stuck in a trap of feudal servitude. The number of these people is rising to over 50%, which is politically toxic. The only solution - which should have actually happened ten years ago - is a crash in housing prices.

    Basically the problem is that people don't know how to live within their means.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155

    The job or the son?
    LOL! I meant the job. :)
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,183

    No it hasn't.

    There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.

    But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.
    The arrogance of posts like this are exactly why I am pleased we haven't gone down the 'evidence based policy technocracy' that a good mate of mine keeps whining about.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155
    Mortimer said:

    The arrogance of posts like this are exactly why I am pleased we haven't gone down the 'evidence based policy technocracy' that a good mate of mine keeps whining about.
    So you prefer "non-evidence based policy idiocracy" ?
  • See my post above.

    Housing.
    Childcare.
    Commuting.

    The U.K. triple whammy.
    Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).

    As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,167
    Mortimer said:

    The arrogance of posts like this are exactly why I am pleased we haven't gone down the 'evidence based policy technocracy' that a good mate of mine keeps whining about.
    Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    No it hasn't.

    There's a greater tolerance for right wing dissent on here, for sure, which is helpful for questioning the soft left, elite consensus.

    But I prefer fact to fiction, thanks, with the proviso that one is always open to new evidence.

    The PB consensus got the Con win (though as a minority) in 2015, it got EUref closer and a lot of us made a lot of money on Trump winning because we knew on some level he had a decent shot, much better than the average 5.5 I got in the end.

    When the academics are part of the soft left elite, is their "evidence" really worth anything?
  • nielh said:


    Those people in the daily mail on 100k per year or with a buy to let AND holiday home in the Dordogne should stop whinging. They are by definition in the top 10% of earners and the problem is with the lifestyle choices they made.

    Our own income is modest, less than the national average household income. I calculated last week - if everything remains equal - we will be able to move to a medium size detached house in a nice area, run a family car, and retire with assets of 500k in addition to the state pension and private pensions ( and that figure is before any inheritances are factored in).

    The problem is that people have no access to the home ownership are basically stuck in a trap of feudal servitude. The number of these people is rising to over 50%, which is politically toxic. The only solution - which should have actually happened ten years ago - is a crash in housing prices.

    Basically the problem is that people don't know how to live within their means.

    Some of this is bascially, first world sh*t, to be honest. "Oh darling, we can barely afford a gardener for our property in the south of france now the pound has dropped."
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155

    Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).

    As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?

    Almost certainly. Remember, people will charge whatever idiots/fools are willing to spend.

    They're probably people who go 'glamping'.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Ummm

    Jean Claude Junker
    With the death of #FidelCastro, the world has lost a man who was a hero for many. https://t.co/u0ULZoG8Fl

    Early lunch in Belgium?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,167
    edited November 2016
    nielh said:


    Those people in the daily mail on 100k per year or with a buy to let AND holiday home in the Dordogne should stop whinging. They are by definition in the top 10% of earners and the problem is with the lifestyle choices they made.

    Our own income is modest, less than the national average household income. I calculated last week - if everything remains equal - we will be able to move to a medium size detached house in a nice area, run a family car, and retire with assets of 500k in addition to the state pension and private pensions ( and that figure is before any inheritances are factored in).

    The problem is that people have no access to the home ownership are basically stuck in a trap of feudal servitude. The number of these people is rising to over 50%, which is politically toxic. The only solution - which should have actually happened ten years ago - is a crash in housing prices.

    Basically the problem is that people don't know how to live within their means.

    You contradict yourself.

    You say that people are losing access to home ownership (a major indicator of financial security) and then you gripe that people don't know how to live within their means.

    The two just may be connected?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,183

    So you prefer "non-evidence based policy idiocracy" ?
    No, I prefer democracy where views are respected. Not shouted down and definitely not shut out.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    Perhaps your mate is just sick of hearing your prejudice based mewlings.

    Or maybe because what people see and feel in everyday life is completely contradictory to the "evidence" written by people in ivory towers?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,155
    MaxPB said:

    The PB consensus got the Con win (though as a minority) in 2015, it got EUref closer and a lot of us made a lot of money on Trump winning because we knew on some level he had a decent shot, much better than the average 5.5 I got in the end.

    When the academics are part of the soft left elite, is their "evidence" really worth anything?
    Whoever sets the agenda, or helps set policy, will be part of the elite (whether soft left or not).
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    Interesting discussion. My original point was not so much - are these really JAMs? But the fact that they self-identify as such, which will be bad news for May. If being only one illness away from penury is one of the criteria, then huge swathes of the population fall into this one (although I note that the 100K people in DM article had illness income protection).

    As another aside it seemed incredible to me that it cost them £1400 for a week's camping in Cornwall. It's been a few years since I camped, but that seems astonishing. Yuppie yurts?

    £1400 for a week of camping is bloody expensive.
  • MaxPB said:

    £1400 for a week of camping is bloody expensive.
    Last time I went, about eight years ago, it was £8 a night somewhere in Wales.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    Whoever sets the agenda, or helps set policy, will be part of the elite (whether soft left or not).
    Which is my point. The same people who have been denying the downsides of globalisation are also denying the downsides of unskilled immigration.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,167
    MaxPB said:

    The PB consensus got the Con win (though as a minority) in 2015, it got EUref closer and a lot of us made a lot of money on Trump winning because we knew on some level he had a decent shot, much better than the average 5.5 I got in the end.

    When the academics are part of the soft left elite, is their "evidence" really worth anything?
    Another one for post truth. And an engineer, too, I think? Sad.
This discussion has been closed.