You're looking at it from your point of view and not that of potential UKIP voters who are hacked off enough to look past all sorts of flaws as long as the people involved address their issues.
(Although it would be different if UKIP were already consistently at their core limit.)
"a link with a past that we're better off having moved away from"
It's good so many people are so concerned with improving the position of women in our brave new world - at least in the areas where the political and media class live anyway.
No, I'm looking at from the perspective of people who want an alternative, but don't want to be associated with those sorts of (repeated) comments. It shouldn't be acceptable in business; it shouldn't be acceptable in politics.
But then again, you're not the target grouping of his comments, are you?
1) Your original point about wishful thinking was wrong because you weren't looking at it from the point of view of a potential UKIP voter.
"But then again, you're not the target grouping of his comments, are you?"
2) Ooo bit of moral superiority there. For a good non-sexist like yourself what's more important - Bloom using the word "sluts" or the political and media class covering this up?
How do you know I'm not a potential UKIP voter? I've voted Green, Independent, Lib Dem and Conservative at the last few local/PCC/GE elections, so all I need is Labour and UKIP and I'll have the set. ;-)
No moral superiority in it at all. But I find it slightly funny that someone who is so concerned about rapes is willing to overlook Bloom's attitudes towards women, and sex workers in particular.
But as I said, you're not the target of his comments. Many potential UKIP voters are, and many of those won't like it.
UKIP are best off without Bloom. I'm starting to think they'd be best off without you, as well.
Dr. Prasannan, I'm trying to reduce the number of obnoxiously obscure words I use when writing (never excessive, it must be said), but I do like tatterdemalion. It's in the lyrics of Fairy Feller's Master Stroke, by Queen.
No, I'm looking at from the perspective of people who want an alternative, but don't want to be associated with those sorts of (repeated) comments. It shouldn't be acceptable in business; it shouldn't be acceptable in politics.
But then again, you're not the target grouping of his comments, are you?
1) Your original point about wishful thinking was wrong because you weren't looking at it from the point of view of a potential UKIP voter.
"But then again, you're not the target grouping of his comments, are you?"
2) Ooo bit of moral superiority there. For a good non-sexist like yourself what's more important - Bloom using the word "sluts" or the political and media class covering this up?
How do you know I'm not a potential UKIP voter? I've voted Green, Independent, Lib Dem and Conservative at the last few local/PCC/GE elections, so all I need is Labour and UKIP and I'll have the set. ;-)
No moral superiority in it at all. But I find it slightly funny that someone who is so concerned about rapes is willing to overlook Bloom's attitudes towards women, and sex workers in particular.
But as I said, you're not the target of his comments. Many potential UKIP voters are, and many of those won't like it.
UKIP are best off without Bloom. I'm starting to think they'd be best off without you, as well.
"No moral superiority in it at all. But I find it slightly funny that someone who is so concerned about rapes is willing to overlook Bloom's attitudes towards women, and sex workers in particular."
Spin that round.
"I'm starting to think they'd be best off without you, as well."
I'm a tad too leftie to be a UKIP supporter really, although a lot of my rellies are part of the target audience. Nowadays i like to think of myself as more of a freelance stirrer.
edit: "How do you know I'm not a potential UKIP voter?"
Dr. Prasannan, I'm trying to reduce the number of obnoxiously obscure words I use when writing (never excessive, it must be said), but I do like tatterdemalion. It's in the lyrics of Fairy Feller's Master Stroke, by Queen.
Mr. G, but I don't live on the Isle of Skye!
Morris, wrong one , I used the standard one, Skye one is slightlydifferent spelling, must be a bit more special I imagine but have never seen a Skye one myself.
It'll all be forgotten in two months. People are completely fed up with the three main parties so an ill-advised joke is hardly going to bring them back to the old voting patterns.
On a different note recently I've noticed that right-wingers I know are completely fed up with the Tories, but lefties don't seem to think they are all that bad. The most vocal about "dole scoungers" etc. are working class Labour voters these days, probably because they have to live with them and any antisocial behaviour.
UKIP need to be distinctive from the three main parties and the Bloom incident was a good example of how they could be - The Bloom slut joke was not meant as an insult but as a joke (rather a good one really and one that many people on here and elsewhere who express faux outrage over it would be laughing at if told in a comedy Club). UKIP could have played it down and said it wasn't important or even meant seriously (it clearly wasn't) and perhaps mentioned other party conference gaffes like Harman's 'ginger rodent' and said nothing much cam of that so why should we do anything different
I think it's fair to say that the biggest barrier to voting Conservative is that many voters see them as the party of the rich - even some people with quite right wing views. It's a much bigger problem for the party than people not voting for them because they're too socially conservative, something that the Conservative leadership quite misunderstand.
It is quite probably deterring people from joining as well. As someone who is interested in politics I have sometimes thought about joining, but what puts me off is the thought that I would have nothing in common socially with most of the members. The fact that many are social conservatives wouldn't put me off, as I would enjoy the argument.
The Tories huge achilles heel is that voters believe they are a party of the rich for the rich.
In 2010, the Tories got 10.7 million votes.
that's 10.7 million people who either don't believe your bold assertion about their views or for whom it doesn't affect their voting decision
and how many people did not vote Conservative in 2010 , 19 million actively voted against and 16 million did not vote at all . Either they did believe that assertion or it did not affect their voting decision
My point was that Roger was speaking about "The Voters" as a block, which is clearly bollocks.
Roger may or may not have been speaking bollocks but so were you
I think it's fair to say that the biggest barrier to voting Conservative is that many voters see them as the party of the rich - even some people with quite right wing views. It's a much bigger problem for the party than people not voting for them because they're too socially conservative, something that the Conservative leadership quite misunderstand.
Its not just about 'the rich' its a certain sort of inherited wealth, old boy network, privileged sort of rich. And its politically associated images of people being given safe constituencies and government jobs based on who their family is or which school they went to.
The image is very much privilege without anything given back in return.
Naturally the Cameroons couldn't accept the thought that it was this imagery which was damaging the Conservative party's image.
So the whole spurious gay marriage for huskies was thought to be the way forward highlighted by cycle & chauffer photostunts.
Interesting. Listening to radio coverage of P3. Gary Anderson, technical chap, opines that 2014 would be a better year for Alonso to move to McLaren, but is unsure if the contract can be got out of.
How do you know I'm not a potential UKIP voter? I've voted Green, Independent, Lib Dem and Conservative at the last few local/PCC/GE elections, so all I need is Labour and UKIP and I'll have the set. ;-)
No moral superiority in it at all. But I find it slightly funny that someone who is so concerned about rapes is willing to overlook Bloom's attitudes towards women, and sex workers in particular.
But as I said, you're not the target of his comments. Many potential UKIP voters are, and many of those won't like it.
UKIP are best off without Bloom. I'm starting to think they'd be best off without you, as well.
"No moral superiority in it at all. But I find it slightly funny that someone who is so concerned about rapes is willing to overlook Bloom's attitudes towards women, and sex workers in particular."
Spin that round.
"I'm starting to think they'd be best off without you, as well."
I'm a tad too leftie to be a UKIP supporter really, although a lot of my rellies are part of the target audience. Nowadays i like to think of myself as more of a freelance stirrer.
edit: "How do you know I'm not a potential UKIP voter?" me knot fick
I've spun it round, ruminated, cogitated, and still agree with my comment. Bloom's comments are disgraceful, if taken as a whole, and go against your apparent avowed hatred of all rape.
Unless your repeated posting of that link indicated you are more concerned about *who* is doing the raping, rather than the hideous act itself?
If not, how do Bloom's comments (especially about sex workers) help protect women from rape?
It is quite probably deterring people from joining as well. As someone who is interested in politics I have sometimes thought about joining, but what puts me off is the thought that I would have nothing in common socially with most of the members. The fact that many are social conservatives wouldn't put me off, as I would enjoy the argument.
John , its a genuine question but if you are not wealthy or socially conservative why would you join the conservative party?
Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was ppart of Brown's magic circle.
Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.
Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!
Well that's just anti Londoe are "rich" for our troubles.
Londoners are tossers think they should get more than everybody else and deserve all they get, if you want to stay in the dump suck it up and stop stealing money from the rest of the country to support your supposed Nirvana.
Morning Alan, Hope you are well. I have spent some good nights in London on expenses but what a bunch of overprivileged whingers. They want to get north of the Watford gap and see what they have done to the rest of the country, sucked almost dry.
I don't mind visiting London occasionally but it strikes me as a ghastly shithole to live in. Personally I've never been tempted to live there though I've had job offers to do so. So if Londoners want to live in their opulent midden fair dos but we need an economic structure which lets the rest of us do what's best for our regions.
Personally I'm very grateful to Londoners willingness to work harder than me for lower living standards than I have.
Not only does this allow me a better quality of life it also gives me a great deal of amusement.
How do you know I'm not a potential UKIP voter? I've voted Green, Independent, Lib Dem and Conservative at the last few local/PCC/GE elections, so all I need is Labour and UKIP and I'll have the set. ;-)
No moral superiority in it at all. But I find it slightly funny that someone who is so concerned about rapes is willing to overlook Bloom's attitudes towards women, and sex workers in particular.
But as I said, you're not the target of his comments. Many potential UKIP voters are, and many of those won't like it.
UKIP are best off without Bloom. I'm starting to think they'd be best off without you, as well.
"No moral superiority in it at all. But I find it slightly funny that someone who is so concerned about rapes is willing to overlook Bloom's attitudes towards women, and sex workers in particular."
Spin that round.
"I'm starting to think they'd be best off without you, as well."
I'm a tad too leftie to be a UKIP supporter really, although a lot of my rellies are part of the target audience. Nowadays i like to think of myself as more of a freelance stirrer.
edit: "How do you know I'm not a potential UKIP voter?" me knot fick
I've spun it round, ruminated, cogitated, and still agree with my comment. Bloom's comments are disgraceful, if taken as a whole, and go against your apparent avowed hatred of all rape.
Unless your repeated posting of that link indicated you are more concerned about *who* is doing the raping, rather than the hideous act itself?
If not, how do Bloom's comments (especially about sex workers) help protect women from rape?
Which do you think is more important?
Why is/was one all over the news and the other completely absent?
But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
Doh, the people spending the extra money will create more jobs. Well seen you toffs get your jobs through influence and not intelligence.
link?
I got all my jobs through competitive interviews and working 70-100 hour weeks.
Its not just about 'the rich' its a certain sort of inherited wealth, old boy network, privileged sort of rich. And its politically associated images of people being given safe constituencies and government jobs based on who their family is or which school they went to.
The image is very much privilege without anything given back in return.
Naturally the Cameroons couldn't accept the thought that it was this imagery which was damaging the Conservative party's image.
So the whole spurious gay marriage for huskies was thought to be the way forward highlighted by cycle & chauffer photostunts.
Yes , there is probably a reason why ,the obviously not old school tie John Major got more votes in 1992 than any tory or indeed labour? government for many general election
UKIP need to be distinctive from the three main parties and the Bloom incident was a good example of how they could be - The Bloom slut joke was not meant as an insult but as a joke (rather a good one really and one that many people on here and elsewhere who express faux outrage over it would be laughing at if told in a comedy Club). UKIP could have played it down and said it wasn't important or even meant seriously (it clearly wasn't) and perhaps mentioned other party conference gaffes like Harman's 'ginger rodent' and said nothing much cam of that so why should we do anything different</blockquote
He didn't tell a joke,I dunno what comedy clubs you go to, but I expect funnier than that. He made a lame jokey comment, about the room being full of sluts. It wasn't really that bad, in the context of the meeting in the hall, but, not the sort of comment a mainstream politician would get away with. From that point, it went to ratshit, with Bloom losing the plot outside, and then Farage compounding it with his bleating about a ruined conference.
point a): yep, but how does that fit in with opinion polling on green issues?
point c): I believe the problem with new nuclear plants is not the planning process per se, but more the funding. As with wind farms and other greenery, the suppliers want a guaranteed price for their power over a span of decades. This could (should?) be fixed by having the government build the nuclear power stations themselves, as we did in the 1950s and 1960s. We want the power stations, we take the risk. (I might be wrong in this...)
point d): I'm unsure how we could have moved 10x as fast on fracking. There's some very physical limitations.
(a) Well Osborne finding the money to dismantle the fuel escalator has proved pretty popular. I think many would be shocked how much their bills are being driven by these policies.
(c) IANAE but my understanding is the dithering is the biggest problem. If we have to accept some of the economic risk of such long term facilities so be it.
(d) As many have pointed out there is little new in fracking. It has been developed enormously over a decade or more in the US. Why are we still having pilot studies and environmental assessments? We should be in production by now. If we were the risk of the BG gas price rise would at least be less.
On (c) the problem is that the companies wanted guaranteed revenues. i.e. they want equity returns without equity risk. If they were prepared to run it on a build and operate basis then it would potentially be worthwhile, but that would mean returns of 8-10%.
There's an argument that the government should take the equity risk themselves, even if it is run through an arms-length corporation.
But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
Doh, the people spending the extra money will create more jobs. Well seen you toffs get your jobs through influence and not intelligence.
link?
I got all my jobs through competitive interviews and working 70-100 hour weeks.
Do those 70-100 hours include all the time you're on PB ?
Personally I wonder how some people here have time to do anything else.
I don't mind visiting London occasionally but it strikes me as a ghastly shithole to live in. Personally I've never been tempted to live there though I've had job offers to do so. So if Londoners want to live in their opulent midden fair dos but we need an economic structure which lets the rest of us do what's best for our regions.
Personally I'm very grateful to Londoners willingness to work harder than me for lower living standards than I have.
Not only does this allow me a better quality of life it also gives me a great deal of amusement.
I loved living and working in London as a young man in his twenties in the 90's but by the time I was 35 I had had enough. You need energy to live happily in London (money helps as well although not as important to living happily there as some suggest)
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
What would your solution be? What would you change to make things more equitable?
I would increase minimum wages , reduce benefits and make anyone on benefits work 40 hours a week. Taxation would be simplified and closing the tax dodges that companies and politicians rich buddies use to avoid paying would be closed. So everybody pays what they should and those that can't get help for a minimum period, with the carrot of a living wage.
Making people on benefits work 40 hours a week has downsides. Typically they end up doing relatively unskilled jobs (e.g. manual labour, streetsweeping, etc). But this then means that people who previously did these jobs can't compete with employees with a zero marginal cost.
The Tories huge achilles heel is that voters believe they are a party of the rich for the rich.
In 2010, the Tories got 10.7 million votes.
that's 10.7 million people who either don't believe your bold assertion about their views or for whom it doesn't affect their voting decision
and how many people did not vote Conservative in 2010 , 19 million actively voted against and 16 million did not vote at all . Either they did believe that assertion or it did not affect their voting decision
My point was that Roger was speaking about "The Voters" as a block, which is clearly bollocks.
Roger may or may not have been speaking bollocks but so were you
Please explain.
Roger said [all] "the Voters" believe this.
My response was "here are 11m who don't believe that"
I never claimed that no voters (or even that a majority) did not agree with Roger.
twistedfirestoopper - yes but I think the reason people vote for UKIP is that they are not mainstream politicians . I agree mainstream politicians would get all political correct about it and say how serious it was and sexist etc because they are frightened of possibly offending anyone at all . A lot of people are a bit weary of this timidness now and UKIP gets a lot of those type of people -their core if you like!!
Mr. Bobajob, whilst that's a ridiculous percentage (how does it come about? Not doubting your word, just curious) some are paying 0% or 20% and would rather be paying more.
40p tax rate plus the Child Tax Charge. Marginal rate is around 70%. Ozzy created a massive disincentive to work harder for middle income London family men. That's the reality.
Against some stiff competition, that's the most laughable thing I've ever read on PB
But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
Doh, the people spending the extra money will create more jobs. Well seen you toffs get your jobs through influence and not intelligence.
link?
I got all my jobs through competitive interviews and working 70-100 hour weeks.
I am sure all your interviews will be taped and on the web, again are you the missing link. Given I do not even though who you are and based it on your constant boasting about family connections, jetting around the world, beach houses , mansions and cheap £200 meals would suggest that even if you are plastered all over the web , send me a link so that I will know how important and clever you really are. The fact you have to try and justify yourself and give the "I work 25 hours a day to get my gazillions excuse" says it all.
Mr. Jonathan, on food banks it's important to note these are new and that their use has rapidly increased since their relatively recent introduction. This cannot be blamed on any single party because they haven't yet reached full capacity (ie more people, every year, have needed/wanted to use them than there has been capacity to cater to). Only when we reach the ceiling will we be able to assess how economic circumstances are affecting those at the lower end.
Morris , however in a country as wealthy as the UK it is a sad indictment on UK that we have so much poverty and need food banks whilst the rich are just grabbing more and more. UK is sick at the core.
What would your solution be? What would you change to make things more equitable?
I would increase minimum wages , reduce benefits and make anyone on benefits work 40 hours a week. Taxation would be simplified and closing the tax dodges that companies and politicians rich buddies use to avoid paying would be closed. So everybody pays what they should and those that can't get help for a minimum period, with the carrot of a living wage.
Making people on benefits work 40 hours a week has downsides. Typically they end up doing relatively unskilled jobs (e.g. manual labour, streetsweeping, etc). But this then means that people who previously did these jobs can't compete with employees with a zero marginal cost.
Better than doing nothing and at least will instill some work ethic in them. This country is in such a dire state that there are lots of things needing done that would not take away any current employment. People who get something for nothing just seek more of the same.
F1: James Allen has an interesting point. Next year, apparently, driver weight will become more important. This'll count against Hulkenberg, who, for F1, is tall and heavy. Might help Massa, if he's still in the sport.
John , its a genuine question but if you are not wealthy or socially conservative why would you join the conservative party?
Well, because I usually vote for them and they are the party I come closest to supporting. I am a libertarian and in favour of liberal economics, and the Tories include some people at least who are in favour of both. I was definitely a Thatcherite, initially as a schoolboy, and have always voted Tory in General Elections as I think that socialism and social democracy are not good for the country. I have no problem with people becoming rich, despite not being so myself, and not really having any inclination nor the ability to do so. I would like to pay less tax myself, and see no reason why rich people should pay more.
So, given that I am interested in politics, you would have thought I would join a political party, and the Tories come closest to representing my views.
John , its a genuine question but if you are not wealthy or socially conservative why would you join the conservative party?
Well, because I usually vote for them and they are the party I come closest to supporting. I am a libertarian and in favour of liberal economics, and the Tories include some people at least who are in favour of both. I was definitely a Thatcherite, initially as a schoolboy, and have always voted Tory in General Elections as I think that socialism and social democracy are not good for the country. I have no problem with people becoming rich, despite not being so myself, and not really having any inclination nor the ability to do so. I would like to pay less tax myself, and see no reason why rich people should pay more.
So, given that I am interested in politics, you would have thought I would join a political party, and the Tories come closest to representing my views.
Good answer , I guess you are frustrated that a party like the liberal democrats is not more orange book centred? .
Making people on benefits work 40 hours a week has downsides. Typically they end up doing relatively unskilled jobs (e.g. manual labour, streetsweeping, etc). But this then means that people who previously did these jobs can't compete with employees with a zero marginal cost.
Also it means that unemployed people can't spend those 40hpw looking for work. OK it is quite possible to look for a job while you have another full time job - millions do it - but having the time available during the normal working week should make you better at it. At the least it would slow people down getting another proper job.
If the Tories know they've got a problem with a perception that they are simply for the rich I think I can help.
1.Don't promote a clique of rich boys above their ability solely on the grounds that they come from the same social circle, nobody in their right minds thinks George Osborne and Jeremy Hunt are the best people in their party to be fronting health and the economy.
2.Don't run election campaigns focused on prioritising inheritance tax cuts followed by in office prioritising a tax cut for top earners.
Simple but effective, I'm sure the PB Tories can agree.
I agree with you about number 2 Tim , sort of know what you are saying about 1 (although Osborne versus Balls is a home win for me!) but you must have find it depressing that Labour copied the inheritance tax concessions and were therefore the party that implemented a more generous inheritance tax regime!
"No moral superiority in it at all. But I find it slightly funny that someone who is so concerned about rapes is willing to overlook Bloom's attitudes towards women, and sex workers in particular."
Spin that round.
"I'm starting to think they'd be best off without you, as well."
I'm a tad too leftie to be a UKIP supporter really, although a lot of my rellies are part of the target audience. Nowadays i like to think of myself as more of a freelance stirrer.
edit: "How do you know I'm not a potential UKIP voter?" me knot fick
I've spun it round, ruminated, cogitated, and still agree with my comment. Bloom's comments are disgraceful, if taken as a whole, and go against your apparent avowed hatred of all rape.
Unless your repeated posting of that link indicated you are more concerned about *who* is doing the raping, rather than the hideous act itself?
If not, how do Bloom's comments (especially about sex workers) help protect women from rape?
Which do you think is more important?
Why is/was one all over the news and the other completely absent?
Is it completely absent? Is it absent in the link you keep on posting?
Perhaps scale is one thing. 1 in 200 women were raped in 2006/7 (and also a large number of men, although some do not class that as rape). A wide variety of crimes and levels of disdemeanour will be buried within those figures, but it ain't a pretty picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_Kingdom
You could argue that *that* does not get nearly enough exposure in the media. Abuse by gangs is important and should be dealt with, but it is dwarfed by the major problem.
And Bloom's comments (not just yesterday's, but others as well) actively hinders progress. He shows f'all respect for women, so why should anyone respect him or the party he represents?
Guido...Ed Balls doing the Judas on McBride..and Ed M defending the Liar who took the country to war, killing thousands in the process..and they want to run the country
I loved living and working in London as a young man in his twenties in the 90's but by the time I was 35 I had had enough. You need energy to live happily in London (money helps as well although not as important to living happily there as some suggest)
I got out at 38 I think, although only to the eastern part of Hampshire, and continued to commute for a few more years so I still had some of the benefits while having the pleasure of trees and being woken up by geese flying overhead rather than the night bus.
I think you are right, it is a great place to be for a while, in the end I prefer living and working in small town England where it is easier to feel part of a community. But the legacy of my commuting days is that I am only 5 minutes' walk from the railway station, and less than 50 minutes from London, so the best of both worlds really.
(I am only now regretting it slightly as the real ale and craft beer scene has really exploded in London - over 40 breweries in the capital now and rising - and it must be great to be a beer geek in the Smoke)
If the Tories know they've got a problem with a perception that they are simply for the rich I think I can help.
1.Don't promote a clique of rich boys above their ability solely on the grounds that they come from the same social circle, nobody in their right minds thinks George Osborne and Jeremy Hunt are the best people in their party to be fronting health and the economy.
2.Don't run election campaigns focused on prioritising inheritance tax cuts followed by in office prioritising a tax cut for top earners.
Simple but effective, I'm sure the PB Tories can agree.
I agree with you about number 2 Tim , sort of know what you are saying about 1 (although Osborne versus Balls is a home win for me!) but you must have find it depressing that Labour copied the inheritance tax concessions and were therefore the party that implemented a more generous inheritance tax regime!
Osborne proposed to prioritise a tax cut for those leaving up to £2 million in 2010,in the teeth of a recession, and the heir to the Baronetcy with the £2 million trust fund wonders why his party has an image problem.
Personally I think IHT should be abolished and everyone treats it as unearned income with a £250k unearned income tax allowance over a lifetime.
Fairer Tim in theory . But practically pretty impossible to police . I would say massive tax evasion would occur ,having to keep bank statements for the whole of your life etc. At least inheritance tax(~IHT) as it stands gets administrated through a will and usually a lawyer.
Its a difficult one in that if you massively increase IHT tax rates or lower the threshold then people will just give money away in their lifetimes and that will arguably increase inequality as offspring will get money earlier in life to forge an advantage over somebody who doesn't . At least if you have to wait for your parents to die you are on average likely to be in your sixties and therefore cannot use the inheritance to forge much of an advantage in life as you could if you were in your 20s
Like the real ales once in a while myself John . CAMRA do a big beer festival at Nottingham Castle (where I now reside-not at the castle itself !) in October and I go every year as there is nothing like drinking ale during and throughout the day ,outside ,on a early Autumn day with a few discerning friends.
UNFORTUNATELY ITS SOLD OUT ALREADY !! might have to get desparate and trawl through ebay for tickets!
Making people on benefits work 40 hours a week has downsides. Typically they end up doing relatively unskilled jobs (e.g. manual labour, streetsweeping, etc). But this then means that people who previously did these jobs can't compete with employees with a zero marginal cost.
Also it means that unemployed people can't spend those 40hpw looking for work. OK it is quite possible to look for a job while you have another full time job - millions do it - but having the time available during the normal working week should make you better at it. At the least it would slow people down getting another proper job.
Hmmm, I think they could build in time for job applications and searching for jobs. Point is they would have to get out their beds early turn up and do something. Better than being a parasite and it could be done such that anyone previously gainfully employed had xx months to find a job before they had to start contributing to society for the free cash, wasters would be forced to attend or lose their free cash.
Like the real ales once in a while myself John . CAMRA do a big beer festival at Nottingham Castle (where I now reside-not at the castle itself !) in October and I go every year as there is nothing like drinking ale during and throughout the day ,outside ,on a early Autumn day with a few discerning friends.
UNFORTUNATELY ITS SOLD OUT ALREADY !! might have to get desparate and trawl through ebay for tickets!
Join CAMRA then and volunteer to work. You will get in free, get your dibs on the most interesting beer, and depending on the staff beer policy, drink free or at a substantially reduced rate.
Alternatively, you can usually get returns at all-ticket beer festivals, the local CAMRA mailing list or facebook page can be a source, or you can go and queue up at opening time, you will usually find people coming to sell unwanted tickets. Ebay may work as well, of course, I have never tried.
ObPolitics: I do sometimes vote LibDem in local elections, but then I try to vote on local issues. I am not sure about the Orange Book wing. They do seem to be in a minority (viz. the general response to a coalition with the Tories) and I tend to believe they have been infected with left-liberalism themselves.
tim thinks the 70% tax rate goes on to infinity - and people never go out the other side. Chump.
No I don't, but you keep on with the PB Tory mantra
70% marginal rates good. 50% marginal rates bad.
Where does this bollox of 70% come from - the marginal rate from £50k to £60k incomes is anwhere from 40% (if no kids) to 100%+ if got circa 10 kids?
Whilst we're at it Labour brought in 60% "marginal rates good" at £100k to £119k too please remember..
So essentially Labour then gave a tax cut on anyone from £120k to £150k as their marginal rate then dropped back to just 40% from 60% for those on the lower income....
Jim Pickard @PickardJE 27m Ed balls proposes that HelptoBuy threshold should be cut from current 600k. Seems eminently sensible.
Can the Lib Dems and the sensible Tories force the enemy within to accept that, or is Osborne determined that people buying million dollar flats must become subsidy junkies to help him succeed in 2015 where he failed so badly in 2010?
tim
Please explain in what way the 2014 Help to Buy scheme is a "subsidy".
It is the government providing an insurance to banks against catastrophic price falls in the housing market. The banks pay a premium to the government for providing such insurance.
The banks will pay this premium as it permits them to offer high Loan to Value (LTV) (>75%) mortgage products without having to increase the capital they hold to cover the increased risk of such lending. The cost to the banks of paying the government an insurance premium is less in a time of capital constraints than increasing bank capital.
The availability of high LTV mortgage products enables first time buyers and first movers to buy their own homes and prevents the volume of transactions in the housing market falling to the extent that it triggers a housing price crash.
So everyone party to the scheme benefits. More households can buy their own houses; banks can increase their lending volumes; and the government avoids the recessionary impact of a housing price crash.
Yet you are running around predicting that house prices will rise as a result of the scheme causing the taxpayer to fund "subsidy junkies".
tim, if house prices rise then there will be no claims on the insurance. The government will pay no claims. The schemes will be net revenue earners. Taxpayers will benefit. There will be no 'subsidy'.
There will only be a net subsidy from taxpayers to borrowers if house prices fall.
You can't have it both ways. Either house prices rise and there is no subsidy, or house prices fall and there may be a subsidy. You appear to be arguing that house prices are rising in response to government stimulus and that the taxpayer is subsidising the bubble.
Your argument is not only totally illogical: it is totally wrong.
Hmmm, I think they could build in time for job applications and searching for jobs.
That would make it less of a real job and more of an... er... training course for the unemployed. Congratulations, you have just reinvented the late and unlamented New Deal. And don't forget it would cost the taxpayer money to run these jobs - probably more than it should - and as has been pointed out lower down, crowd out the people who usually do these jobs.
Point is they would have to get out their beds early turn up and do something. Better than being a parasite and it could be done such that anyone previously gainfully employed had xx months to find a job before they had to start contributing to society for the free cash, wasters would be forced to attend or lose their free cash.
That is a good point, it puts people under a bit of pressure. And about the only value of the full time New Deal training course was that people who were doing a bit on the side, would fail to attend and get their benefits stopped.
While Angela Merkel will almost certainly stay Chancellor after tomorrow's German election, the CDU leads the SPD by at least 10 points in the latest polls, the AfD will be the key unpredictable element, latest polls have them at 4-4.5% and INSA at 5% (as indeed did a yougov). http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Matthew Norman writes: “Why did we tolerate this putrid nonsense from New Labour?
New Labour achieved virtually nothing, but its toxic feuding left a stain on a great democracy”
“How on earth did a great democracy tolerate this putrid nonsense for so long? The answer to that is that the democracy which put up with it for a decade has axiomatically (and, touch wood, temporarily) lost the right to regard itself as great.”
I really hope Mr Norman is using the ‘Royal We’ in this instance – because a primary reason this nonsense was allowed to continue unfettered, was the utter failure of a cowed fourth estate, which I believe constitutes a part of this ‘great democracy’ to report a great deal of it.
If £60K isn't much, depending on where you live, and it is in other parts of the world, there is potentially an argument for differing levels of taxation.
If so, does that mean salary will vary depending on location? Answer: If you're subject to market forces, then typically yes. If you're working for the 'public' benefit, then generally not.
Matthew Norman writes: “Why did we tolerate this putrid nonsense from New Labour?
New Labour achieved virtually nothing, but its toxic feuding left a stain on a great democracy”
“How on earth did a great democracy tolerate this putrid nonsense for so long? The answer to that is that the democracy which put up with it for a decade has axiomatically (and, touch wood, temporarily) lost the right to regard itself as great.”
I really hope Mr Norman is using the ‘Royal We’ in this instance – because a primary reason this nonsense was allowed to continue unfettered, was the utter failure of a cowed fourth estate, which I believe constitutes a part of this ‘great democracy’ to report a great deal of it.
Of all the countless stories I wrote as a political diarist about the unimaginably infantile and queeny egos involved, the most indecently perfect vignette came from the night of the 1997 general election. Mr Brown and Robin Cook were both flying from Edinburgh to the landslide celebration in London at precisely the same time, as their offices knew they would in advance. Such was the mutual loathing that they could not bring themselves to share a plane for an hour, and each spent a small fortune on hiring his own private jet.
The Mail has a couple of interesting Damian McBride nuggets today:
"If there’s a lasting legacy from Gordon’s loyalty to the Crown, it is that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are firmly in the royalist camp. Both are fervent admirers of Prince Charles.
If they are in Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street when Charles ascends the throne, those people who fear and resent his influence over government policy may have good reason to worry."
"Basically, I was just trying to make the Blair mob look as though they couldn’t run a whelk stall.
Not that this was hard: in 2002, Tony forgot Home Office minister Angela Eagle existed, gave someone else her job and effectively sacked her from the government by mistake — and without informing her."
Just asked Kevin Maguire on Twitter whether he has featured in the McBride excerpts yet. Must be only a matter of time since he was ppart of Brown's magic circle.
Only someone as uber privileged as Rachel Reeves could think £60k isn't seen as rich. She should ask the good people of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool or anywhere north of there. Suspect they will have a very different view. Up here in the Highlands, few senior managers or company directors earn £60k.
Was interested to read that Reeves husband was Gordon Brown's private secretary and speech-writer at one time. Another link into the spider's web!
Well that's just anti Londoe are "rich" for our troubles.
Londoners are tossers think they should get more than everybody else and deserve all they get, if you want to stay in the dump suck it up and stop stealing money from the rest of the country to support your supposed Nirvana.
Morning Alan, Hope you are well. I have spent some good nights in London on expenses but what a bunch of overprivileged whingers. They want to get north of the Watford gap and see what they have done to the rest of the country, sucked almost dry.
I don't mind visiting London occasionally but it strikes me as a ghastly shithole to live in. Personally I've never been tempted to live there though I've had job offers to do so. So if Londoners want to live in their opulent midden fair dos but we need an economic structure which lets the rest of us do what's best for our regions.
Personally I'm very grateful to Londoners willingness to work harder than me for lower living standards than I have.
Not only does this allow me a better quality of life it also gives me a great deal of amusement.
I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum from you on this one Richard. I'd much rather astound them with my ingratitude as it's better sport. ;-)
But Rachel Reeves' comments are important. They signal that Labour would not plan to raise taxes substantially which in turn means that it would plan to spend at similar levels to the current Government. Its spending commitments will need to be rationed carefully.
Unless it is planning to raise business taxes a fair bit.
Osborne is going to leave office spending 44% of GDP, there is absolutely no need for Labour to spend more than Osborne, in 12 out of their 13 years in office before the crisis hit they spent less than that.
The key will be to reduce welfare spending rather than increasing it as Thatcher, Major and Cameron did. and the key to that is moving from housing benefit to housebuilding, and a living wage rather than subsidising low pay.
Can you explain exactly how a living wage would work in practice?
I still don't understand how increasing the cost of labour will increase the number of jobs available.
Doh, the people spending the extra money will create more jobs. Well seen you toffs get your jobs through influence and not intelligence.
link?
I got all my jobs through competitive interviews and working 70-100 hour weeks.
Do those 70-100 hours include all the time you're on PB ?
Personally I wonder how some people here have time to do anything else.
They were historical - I'm now down to about 60 in the week + being on call at weekends :-)
But I have an office-based job and travel a lot for work so can find time to pop in occasionally.
The Mail has a couple of interesting Damian McBride nuggets today:
"If there’s a lasting legacy from Gordon’s loyalty to the Crown, it is that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are firmly in the royalist camp. Both are fervent admirers of Prince Charles.
If they are in Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street when Charles ascends the throne, those people who fear and resent his influence over government policy may have good reason to worry."
"Basically, I was just trying to make the Blair mob look as though they couldn’t run a whelk stall.
Not that this was hard: in 2002, Tony forgot Home Office minister Angela Eagle existed, gave someone else her job and effectively sacked her from the government by mistake — and without informing her."
To be fair, I wouldn't mind forgetting that Angela Eagle exists either.
Well seen you toffs get your jobs through influence and not intelligence.
link?
I got all my jobs through competitive interviews and working 70-100 hour weeks.
I am sure all your interviews will be taped and on the web, again are you the missing link. Given I do not even though who you are and based it on your constant boasting about family connections, jetting around the world, beach houses , mansions and cheap £200 meals would suggest that even if you are plastered all over the web , send me a link so that I will know how important and clever you really are. The fact you have to try and justify yourself and give the "I work 25 hours a day to get my gazillions excuse" says it all.
Well "you toffs get your jobs through influence and not intelligence" included a lot of assumptions that needed rebuffing. I have worked for 3 public companies in my career, and justified my position in all of them through hard work and delivering on the objectives my bosses set me. On intelligence, I have a good degree from a good university (although I am sure alanbrooke would disagree) but accept that may not be the best measure of "intelligence"
As for the rest - it's not intended to be boasting. I don't particularly try to hide who I am and I'm no more important than the average bear. Jetting around the world comes with my job (and I'd rather stay at home); my beach house was bought and paid for from my taxed income (and I still have a big mortgage on it!). The £200 meal wasn't cheap - and I said it wasn't cheap - but was very nice. My employer decided to take some good clients out to celebrate completion of a project and I got to go. I suspect you have made a lot of assumptions about me that are just plain wrong...
Making people on benefits work 40 hours a week has downsides. Typically they end up doing relatively unskilled jobs (e.g. manual labour, streetsweeping, etc). But this then means that people who previously did these jobs can't compete with employees with a zero marginal cost.
Better than doing nothing and at least will instill some work ethic in them. This country is in such a dire state that there are lots of things needing done that would not take away any current employment. People who get something for nothing just seek more of the same.
I don't disagree - but it is not a costless policy.
Stuart Wheeler's speech at UKIP conference. UKIP would like to spend £4 million next May on their 2014 EU/local election campaign. (Their total annual spend in 2009, according to the Electoral Commission, was £1.2 million.)
They've hired an outside firm to help them with fundraising.
Jim Pickard @PickardJE 27m Ed balls proposes that HelptoBuy threshold should be cut from current 600k. Seems eminently sensible.
Can the Lib Dems and the sensible Tories force the enemy within to accept that, or is Osborne determined that people buying million dollar flats must become subsidy junkies to help him succeed in 2015 where he failed so badly in 2010?
I haven't checked the numbers, but there are two main arguments on the level:
(1) If the primary purpose is to help first time buyers, I would have thought somewhere around the average house price (£250K?) is sufficient. May be a little higher in London - a 2 bedroom flat in a normal (not P/SP) area should be covered in my view.
(2) If the purpose is really to reduce the risk of a wave of BTL flats being put on the market and crashing capital values (hence creating the need for re-equitisation of the banks) then there may be a different level that is appropriate.
I loved living and working in London as a young man in his twenties in the 90's but by the time I was 35 I had had enough. You need energy to live happily in London (money helps as well although not as important to living happily there as some suggest)
I got out at 38 I think, although only to the eastern part of Hampshire, and continued to commute for a few more years so I still had some of the benefits while having the pleasure of trees and being woken up by geese flying overhead rather than the night bus.
I think you are right, it is a great place to be for a while, in the end I prefer living and working in small town England where it is easier to feel part of a community. But the legacy of my commuting days is that I am only 5 minutes' walk from the railway station, and less than 50 minutes from London, so the best of both worlds really.
(I am only now regretting it slightly as the real ale and craft beer scene has really exploded in London - over 40 breweries in the capital now and rising - and it must be great to be a beer geek in the Smoke)
Do you mind if I ask where? I grew up between Basingstoke and Andover.
tim thinks the 70% tax rate goes on to infinity - and people never go out the other side. Chump.
Well exactly, and thanks for answering on my behalf. Anyway, if everyone in London has now determined there's no point working harder to earn more than £60k it's going to take the edge of tim's property bubble.
I'd agree. We open the house each year for it - all the tours got fully booked weeks in advance though.
Which house, may I ask?
And do you do private tours? :-)
One place I meant to visit this year (not part of this scheme) is Coggleshall Abbey. I was walking past last year and fell in love with the place, especially when the owner chatted with me for ten minutes.
I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum from you on this one Richard. I'd much rather astound them with my ingratitude as it's better sport. ;-)
Do you think so AB?
Personally I find the 'arrogant bstard northerner' persona aggravates them far more than the sterotypical 'grumpy ungrateful northerner'.
Making condescending comments about the pitiful hovels that they're mortgaged up to the hilts for is great fun. As in making references to commuting times and beer prices.
Ha, I just read that it was Rachel Reeves who made the comment, now I know why the usual crowd of lefties are defending people earning £60k!
If this was a Tory making the comment we would get the usual "out of touch toff" comments from tim and the rest. Double standards thy name is leftism.
Not really, I'd look at the top 10% who own 40% of wealth before defining "rich" not someone living in London left with around £20k disposable income after rent and transport.
Tim, I earn just under that amount, personally I feel pretty well off. I can buy whatever I want, I am just closing on a one bed flat in zone 2 and will have plenty of money to spare even after that. £60k, even in London, is a very good wage. It is more than double the national average (£27k) wage and for people like me £60k per year is enough to consider myself well off, as it should be.
Not just that but I have savings, investments, options from my company bonus scheme. If someone earning £60k is having money problems they needs to take a look at their life.
Ha, I just read that it was Rachel Reeves who made the comment, now I know why the usual crowd of lefties are defending people earning £60k!
If this was a Tory making the comment we would get the usual "out of touch toff" comments from tim and the rest. Double standards thy name is leftism.
Not really, I'd look at the top 10% who own 40% of wealth before defining "rich" not someone living in London left with around £20k disposable income after rent and transport.
Tim, I earn just under that amount, personally I feel pretty well off. I can buy whatever I want, I am just closing on a one bed flat in zone 2 and will have plenty of money to spare even after that. £60k, even in London, is a very good wage. It is more than double the national average (£27k) wage and for people like me £60k per year is enough to consider myself well off, as it should be.
Not just that but I have savings, investments, options from my company bonus scheme. If someone earning £60k is having money problems they needs to take a look at their life.
Ha, I just read that it was Rachel Reeves who made the comment, now I know why the usual crowd of lefties are defending people earning £60k!
If this was a Tory making the comment we would get the usual "out of touch toff" comments from tim and the rest. Double standards thy name is leftism.
Not really, I'd look at the top 10% who own 40% of wealth before defining "rich" not someone living in London left with around £20k disposable income after rent and transport.
Tim, I earn just under that amount, personally I feel pretty well off. I can buy whatever I want, I am just closing on a one bed flat in zone 2 and will have plenty of money to spare even after that. £60k, even in London, is a very good wage. It is more than double the national average (£27k) wage and for people like me £60k per year is enough to consider myself well off, as it should be.
Not just that but I have savings, investments, options from my company bonus scheme. If someone earning £60k is having money problems they needs to take a look at their life.
Max, do you have children?
Of course not. I wouldn't be buying a one bedroom flat in zone 2 if I had children...
I would be looking at a 3 bed in a commuter town. £60k with two kids, a mortgage and a season ticket is still plenty wealthy. If people are silly enough to have more kids they can afford then that is not the state's problem.
Total income for both of us is about half of that, and we're the richest we've ever been. The kids are independent, and we've virtually no mortgage. We both have bus passes and beer is between £2.20 and £2.60 a pint. And we're only a short bus ride from tim's hostelry should we wish to go upmarket
The house may be worth half of bugger all, but compared to when .... stops there before the four Yorkshiremen appear.
Londoners are welcome to the crowds, the commuting and the ludicrous prices.
Do you mind if I ask where? I grew up between Basingstoke and Andover.
Fleet. It's a bit of a compromise but has access to countryside, the SW main line to London and the West Country, a shopping centre I can run most of my weekly errands, Waitrose, is on the M3, close to the M4, and you can drive North without having to use the M25 (although that is much better than it used to be now it has been widened). There are probably nicer places locally even if you stick to "towns", e.g. Farnham and Alton, but they have their own drawbacks (Farnham is too expensive and the town centre traffic sucks, Alton's train service to London is slow and not as good as it should be).
You've made me look like a Reich idiot! BBC glitch sees UKIP leader Farage sporting an unfortunate 'Hitler moustache' after he denies claims of singing Nazi songs
NOTHING irritates non-Londoners more than Londoners exulting in the rising value of their properties.
I suspect this underlies most anti-London feeling.
It's not that, it's the bleating about how London is the centre of the universe. Witness the gnashing of teeth over the fact that earning "only" 60k in London means you're in poverty, and can only afford a skinny latte, rather than that tasty hazelnut organic badger milk mocha, or something.
As I say the difference between people with and without kids to put them in the top decile is surprisingly large can't remember what the exact figure from the IFS was but its over £500 per week I think.
Why is that important? MaxPB wouldn't suddenly become poor if he had children.
Polling research by Iposos MORI for Channel 4 News shows the Labour Party trails the Tories on economic credibility, and that the Liberal Democrats claim to be a "party of government" is not believed.
I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum from you on this one Richard. I'd much rather astound them with my ingratitude as it's better sport. ;-)
Do you think so AB?
Personally I find the 'arrogant bstard northerner' persona aggravates them far more than the sterotypical 'grumpy ungrateful northerner'.
Making condescending comments about the pitiful hovels that they're mortgaged up to the hilts for is great fun. As in making references to commuting times and beer prices.
;-)
Conversely, my one bed Camden flat, for which I paid £325K less than four years ago, is now worth close on half a million. Heh.
See above.
If that keeps you happy then I'm genuinely happy for you.
But it does make you sound insecure.
Everyone I know also has houses which have gone up significantly in value but they don't feel the need to talk about it.
Note they have houses - a four bed detached in a nice area or a one bed flat where the rioters were marauding in 2011.
You've made me look like a Reich idiot! BBC glitch sees UKIP leader Farage sporting an unfortunate 'Hitler moustache' after he denies claims of singing Nazi songs
Can someone tell me if the bbc have the technology to deliberately put a glitch on the tv screen where they wanted to on the screen ?
The technology to make a mask of any shape and colour on a TV screen has existed for a long time. I do not doubt that this was deleberate although it would be hard to prove.
NOTHING irritates non-Londoners more than Londoners exulting in the rising value of their properties.
I suspect this underlies most anti-London feeling.
It's not that, it's the bleating about how London is the centre of the universe. Witness the gnashing of teeth over the fact that earning "only" 60k in London means you're in poverty, and can only afford a skinny latte, rather than that tasty hazelnut organic badger milk mocha, or something.
I think you will find that most Londoners on this board (yours truly included) don't see £60k as being in poverty or anywhere near it. It's the lefty non-Londoners who are trying desperately to justify Rachel Reeves' idiotic comments from this morning.
Londoners who (rightly) go on about it being a world class city who then moan about immigration are the ones that piss me off. It's emigration that kills cities.
Well you should know,your a prime example of someone living in a multicultural/racial area.
Comments
No moral superiority in it at all. But I find it slightly funny that someone who is so concerned about rapes is willing to overlook Bloom's attitudes towards women, and sex workers in particular.
But as I said, you're not the target of his comments. Many potential UKIP voters are, and many of those won't like it.
UKIP are best off without Bloom. I'm starting to think they'd be best off without you, as well.
Mr. G, but I don't live on the Isle of Skye!
F1: P3 underway.
Spin that round.
"I'm starting to think they'd be best off without you, as well."
I'm a tad too leftie to be a UKIP supporter really, although a lot of my rellies are part of the target audience. Nowadays i like to think of myself as more of a freelance stirrer.
edit: "How do you know I'm not a potential UKIP voter?"
me knot fick
On a different note recently I've noticed that right-wingers I know are completely fed up with the Tories, but lefties don't seem to think they are all that bad. The most vocal about "dole scoungers" etc. are working class Labour voters these days, probably because they have to live with them and any antisocial behaviour.
The image is very much privilege without anything given back in return.
Naturally the Cameroons couldn't accept the thought that it was this imagery which was damaging the Conservative party's image.
So the whole spurious gay marriage for huskies was thought to be the way forward highlighted by cycle & chauffer photostunts.
Unless your repeated posting of that link indicated you are more concerned about *who* is doing the raping, rather than the hideous act itself?
If not, how do Bloom's comments (especially about sex workers) help protect women from rape?
John , its a genuine question but if you are not wealthy or socially conservative why would you join the conservative party?
Not only does this allow me a better quality of life it also gives me a great deal of amusement.
Why is/was one all over the news and the other completely absent?
I got all my jobs through competitive interviews and working 70-100 hour weeks.
Its not just about 'the rich' its a certain sort of inherited wealth, old boy network, privileged sort of rich. And its politically associated images of people being given safe constituencies and government jobs based on who their family is or which school they went to.
The image is very much privilege without anything given back in return.
Naturally the Cameroons couldn't accept the thought that it was this imagery which was damaging the Conservative party's image.
So the whole spurious gay marriage for huskies was thought to be the way forward highlighted by cycle & chauffer photostunts.
Yes , there is probably a reason why ,the obviously not old school tie John Major got more votes in 1992 than any tory or indeed labour? government for many general election
There's an argument that the government should take the equity risk themselves, even if it is run through an arms-length corporation.
Personally I wonder how some people here have time to do anything else.
I don't mind visiting London occasionally but it strikes me as a ghastly shithole to live in. Personally I've never been tempted to live there though I've had job offers to do so. So if Londoners want to live in their opulent midden fair dos but we need an economic structure which lets the rest of us do what's best for our regions.
Personally I'm very grateful to Londoners willingness to work harder than me for lower living standards than I have.
Not only does this allow me a better quality of life it also gives me a great deal of amusement.
I loved living and working in London as a young man in his twenties in the 90's but by the time I was 35 I had had enough. You need energy to live happily in London (money helps as well although not as important to living happily there as some suggest)
Roger said [all] "the Voters" believe this.
My response was "here are 11m who don't believe that"
I never claimed that no voters (or even that a majority) did not agree with Roger.
That's absolutely accurate, Mark.
Any play, the uKIP debacle only made pages 8&9 of the Sun, but they do lay into the party in their "Sun Says" editorial on p10
Reckon thenSun will say "Don't vote" when it comes to GE 2015
The fact you have to try and justify yourself and give the "I work 25 hours a day to get my gazillions excuse" says it all.
So, given that I am interested in politics, you would have thought I would join a political party, and the Tories come closest to representing my views.
First 16 minutes of the video linked to below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03c9t7d/UKIP_Conference_2013_20_09_2013/
Perhaps scale is one thing. 1 in 200 women were raped in 2006/7 (and also a large number of men, although some do not class that as rape). A wide variety of crimes and levels of disdemeanour will be buried within those figures, but it ain't a pretty picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_Kingdom
From other figures, 85,000 women raped every year, and 400,000 sexually assaulted.
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/Statistics2.php
You could argue that *that* does not get nearly enough exposure in the media. Abuse by gangs is important and should be dealt with, but it is dwarfed by the major problem.
And Bloom's comments (not just yesterday's, but others as well) actively hinders progress. He shows f'all respect for women, so why should anyone respect him or the party he represents?
I think you are right, it is a great place to be for a while, in the end I prefer living and working in small town England where it is easier to feel part of a community. But the legacy of my commuting days is that I am only 5 minutes' walk from the railway station, and less than 50 minutes from London, so the best of both worlds really.
(I am only now regretting it slightly as the real ale and craft beer scene has really exploded in London - over 40 breweries in the capital now and rising - and it must be great to be a beer geek in the Smoke)
Its a difficult one in that if you massively increase IHT tax rates or lower the threshold then people will just give money away in their lifetimes and that will arguably increase inequality as offspring will get money earlier in life to forge an advantage over somebody who doesn't . At least if you have to wait for your parents to die you are on average likely to be in your sixties and therefore cannot use the inheritance to forge much of an advantage in life as you could if you were in your 20s
If this was a Tory making the comment we would get the usual "out of touch toff" comments from tim and the rest. Double standards thy name is leftism.
UNFORTUNATELY ITS SOLD OUT ALREADY !! might have to get desparate and trawl through ebay for tickets!
Alternatively, you can usually get returns at all-ticket beer festivals, the local CAMRA mailing list or facebook page can be a source, or you can go and queue up at opening time, you will usually find people coming to sell unwanted tickets. Ebay may work as well, of course, I have never tried.
ObPolitics: I do sometimes vote LibDem in local elections, but then I try to vote on local issues. I am not sure about the Orange Book wing. They do seem to be in a minority (viz. the general response to a coalition with the Tories) and I tend to believe they have been infected with left-liberalism themselves.
Whilst we're at it Labour brought in 60% "marginal rates good" at £100k to £119k too please remember..
So essentially Labour then gave a tax cut on anyone from £120k to £150k as their marginal rate then dropped back to just 40% from 60% for those on the lower income....
Please explain in what way the 2014 Help to Buy scheme is a "subsidy".
It is the government providing an insurance to banks against catastrophic price falls in the housing market. The banks pay a premium to the government for providing such insurance.
The banks will pay this premium as it permits them to offer high Loan to Value (LTV) (>75%) mortgage products without having to increase the capital they hold to cover the increased risk of such lending. The cost to the banks of paying the government an insurance premium is less in a time of capital constraints than increasing bank capital.
The availability of high LTV mortgage products enables first time buyers and first movers to buy their own homes and prevents the volume of transactions in the housing market falling to the extent that it triggers a housing price crash.
So everyone party to the scheme benefits. More households can buy their own houses; banks can increase their lending volumes; and the government avoids the recessionary impact of a housing price crash.
Yet you are running around predicting that house prices will rise as a result of the scheme causing the taxpayer to fund "subsidy junkies".
tim, if house prices rise then there will be no claims on the insurance. The government will pay no claims. The schemes will be net revenue earners. Taxpayers will benefit. There will be no 'subsidy'.
There will only be a net subsidy from taxpayers to borrowers if house prices fall.
You can't have it both ways. Either house prices rise and there is no subsidy, or house prices fall and there may be a subsidy. You appear to be arguing that house prices are rising in response to government stimulus and that the taxpayer is subsidising the bubble.
Your argument is not only totally illogical: it is totally wrong.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
New Labour achieved virtually nothing, but its toxic feuding left a stain on a great democracy”
“How on earth did a great democracy tolerate this putrid nonsense for so long? The answer to that is that the democracy which put up with it for a decade has axiomatically (and, touch wood, temporarily) lost the right to regard itself as great.”
I really hope Mr Norman is using the ‘Royal We’ in this instance – because a primary reason this nonsense was allowed to continue unfettered, was the utter failure of a cowed fourth estate, which I believe constitutes a part of this ‘great democracy’ to report a great deal of it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10323319/Why-did-we-tolerate-this-putrid-nonsense-from-New-Labour.html
An interesting data visualisation: all the bible's contradictions in graphical form:
http://bibviz.com/#
For instance, is it okay to kill?
http://bibviz.com/is-it-ok-to-kill-sab.html
Usual caveats apply, but it's fun ...
Starts 45 minutes into the video linked to below. (Ends at 1:10)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03c9t7d/UKIP_Conference_2013_20_09_2013/
If so, does that mean salary will vary depending on location? Answer: If you're subject to market forces, then typically yes. If you're working for the 'public' benefit, then generally not.
Of all the countless stories I wrote as a political diarist about the unimaginably infantile and queeny egos involved, the most indecently perfect vignette came from the night of the 1997 general election. Mr Brown and Robin Cook were both flying from Edinburgh to the landslide celebration in London at precisely the same time, as their offices knew they would in advance. Such was the mutual loathing that they could not bring themselves to share a plane for an hour, and each spent a small fortune on hiring his own private jet.
"If there’s a lasting legacy from Gordon’s loyalty to the Crown, it is that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are firmly in the royalist camp. Both are fervent admirers of Prince Charles.
If they are in Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street when Charles ascends the throne, those people who fear and resent his influence over government policy may have good reason to worry."
"Basically, I was just trying to make the Blair mob look as though they couldn’t run a whelk stall.
Not that this was hard: in 2002, Tony forgot Home Office minister Angela Eagle existed, gave someone else her job and effectively sacked her from the government by mistake — and without informing her."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-21/clive-palmer-has-won-the-seat-of-fairfax-by-36-votes/4972790
But I have an office-based job and travel a lot for work so can find time to pop in occasionally.
As for the rest - it's not intended to be boasting. I don't particularly try to hide who I am and I'm no more important than the average bear. Jetting around the world comes with my job (and I'd rather stay at home); my beach house was bought and paid for from my taxed income (and I still have a big mortgage on it!). The £200 meal wasn't cheap - and I said it wasn't cheap - but was very nice. My employer decided to take some good clients out to celebrate completion of a project and I got to go. I suspect you have made a lot of assumptions about me that are just plain wrong...
They've hired an outside firm to help them with fundraising.
http://youtu.be/82tyhwxpWLw
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-parties-annual-accounts/2012#UKIP
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2427772/Doubts-cast-housing-bubble-figures-homes-bought-cash-UK-year.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24184473
How many of those in the photo 'happened' to be passing by, as opposed to being told to turn out?
(1) If the primary purpose is to help first time buyers, I would have thought somewhere around the average house price (£250K?) is sufficient. May be a little higher in London - a 2 bedroom flat in a normal (not P/SP) area should be covered in my view.
(2) If the purpose is really to reduce the risk of a wave of BTL flats being put on the market and crashing capital values (hence creating the need for re-equitisation of the banks) then there may be a different level that is appropriate.
A queue n Bristol had to be closed earlier when organisers realised nearly 3,000 people were outside.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-24186367
For any architecture fans (or just the nosey), it's London's Open House this weekend, where 400 buildings are opened for the public to look around:
http://www.londonopenhouse.org/
A chance to see some absolute gems.
"To be fair, I wouldn't mind forgetting that Angela Eagle exists either."
Didn't they wonder where the whining noise was coming from?
And do you do private tours? :-)
One place I meant to visit this year (not part of this scheme) is Coggleshall Abbey. I was walking past last year and fell in love with the place, especially when the owner chatted with me for ten minutes.
http://www.theabbeycoggeshall.co.uk/
It's not the sort of thing you should admit on PB, but I have a passion for early bricks and concrete ... ;-)
Personally I find the 'arrogant bstard northerner' persona aggravates them far more than the sterotypical 'grumpy ungrateful northerner'.
Making condescending comments about the pitiful hovels that they're mortgaged up to the hilts for is great fun. As in making references to commuting times and beer prices.
;-)
Not just that but I have savings, investments, options from my company bonus scheme. If someone earning £60k is having money problems they needs to take a look at their life.
I would be looking at a 3 bed in a commuter town. £60k with two kids, a mortgage and a season ticket is still plenty wealthy. If people are silly enough to have more kids they can afford then that is not the state's problem.
£60k pa not rich. Hmmm ...
Total income for both of us is about half of that, and we're the richest we've ever been. The kids are independent, and we've virtually no mortgage. We both have bus passes and beer is between £2.20 and £2.60 a pint. And we're only a short bus ride from tim's hostelry should we wish to go upmarket
The house may be worth half of bugger all, but compared to when .... stops there before the four Yorkshiremen appear.
Londoners are welcome to the crowds, the commuting and the ludicrous prices.
With an income of £60k, we'd become spoilt.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2427431/UKIP-leader-Nigel-Farage-pictured-sporting-an-unfortunate-Hitler-moustache.html
Can someone tell me if the bbc have the technology to deliberately put a glitch on the tv screen where they wanted to on the screen ?
http://www.channel4.com/news/politics-ipsos-mori-polling-labour-lib-dem-conservative
http://www.astoft.co.uk/berks/newburystjohn.htm
You can sell up and move back to Cornwall or Hereford.
But if you want to live in London you'd have to buy another house there, which would also have increased in cost. See above.
If that keeps you happy then I'm genuinely happy for you.
But it does make you sound insecure.
Everyone I know also has houses which have gone up significantly in value but they don't feel the need to talk about it.
Note they have houses - a four bed detached in a nice area or a one bed flat where the rioters were marauding in 2011.
Each to their own of course.
I do not doubt that this was deleberate although it would be hard to prove.