So along comes Yeltsin in 1991, who abolishes the communist party and replaces centrally planned socialism with 'free' market capitalism. All state industries are put up for sale.
So along come the future oligarchs who borrow money in rubles to buy production plant in rubles. Output and stocks are then sold on international markets at global prices (remember up to 100 times the price paid in Rubles). The foreign currency earnt was then invested in upgrading the capacity, productivity and output of the plant. Sometimes even the oligarch's earnt cash was not even used as joint ventures with western operators were established with the foreign party providing the investment capital and expertise in return for sharing in the profits of the output.
Now it doesn't take very long to work out how the oligarchs became very rich very quickly in this environment.
What kept Abramovich rich and out of jail, unlike many of his fellow oligarchs, is that he was prepared to sell his operations back to the state when Putin replaced Yeltsin and got wise as to what had been going on.
And what about Russian consumers you may ask? Well they ended up (eventually) paying world prices for their domestic energy supplies, around a hundred times more than they paid under socialist rule.
Now Ed Miliband may only have taken a single step on his long journey back to a Marxist utopia, but the British consumer (and Southam Observer) should use this cautionary tale to learn that consumers do not automatically benefit from the imposition of energy industry price controls.
Cutting benefits for under 25s will play well with under 25s in my opinion. They are most likely to have first hand experience of their peer group leaving school and being given (in context of their age) large financial incentives to do nothing. Might be a reason the Tories are doing relatively well with this age group already.
Cutting benefits for under 25s is an interesting one. Obviously, we won't hear the Tories telling young people to go to find work where the jobs are. Those in depressed areas will be stuck in them. Good news for immigrants though as they'll be less competition for work in the active areas.
Would you allow your kids to fall into a lifestyle of neither working nor studying at that age, Southam?
Nobody asking the bleeding obvious question. Why will Tories stop at cutting benefits for just the under 25's who left school 9 or 10 years earlier? To force people to hunt for work why not make it under 55's and cut the welfare budget by huge amounts? So the under 25 in my view is merely a start and may be tweaked to get those lazy 30 year olds out too. I might be wrong but this is another policy not in the manifesto which will be supported by Lib Dems who made pledges and reneged across the board to chase the coalition dollar.
I'm surely not the only one to spot the obvious point that if the market is moving so splendidly in the right direction then the government's risk is therefore reducing.
The left seem to be complaining that the scheme might be too successful too early.
Why does no party give practical help for youngsters (or indeed oldsters) to move around the country from economically deprived areas to areas with better job prospects?
That's a good question.
Here's another: I attended a fund-raising evening for a charity which does very good work helping youngsters who have left school with virtually nothing in the way of qualifications by mentoring them, providing remedial training, helping them apply for jobs or training places, and so on. They seem to be very successful, but one of the huge obstacles is that the jobs and training places are not in places easily accessible to the youngsters: they gave one example where the bus fares for one young lad who'd found a job in a town not too far away amounted to nearly £15 a day.
So why are we subsidising bus fares for pensioners rather than for such youngsters?
What Miliband has tapped into is the very strong feeling amongst the public that they are being taken for a ride. The feeling that modern society is essentially an enormous fleecing operation with them as the mark in every case.
The people cited as doing the taking are many and varied. Big companies, energy firms, railway networks, senior civil servants, Bankers, benefit cheats, charity bosses, Union leaders, politicians of all stripes, estate agents, the EU, councils, the beneficiaries of foreign aid, the tax man, oil companies and many more.
There's a big electoral dividend for anybody who can squeeze the above.
The flaw in that argument is that you have to try to govern afterwards.
Indeed plus that paragraph will form the opening chapter of the UKIP 2015 GE manifesto so that ground is spoken for.
The energy price freeze is not a good policy; it is bonkers.
For energy companies perhaps, but I respectfully suggest that the majority of voters will not agree with you on this one.
Watch the power companies go bust, and then tell everyone it isn't your fault.
No point in spinning turbines at a loss, when you can invest in other markets.
They won't go bust, but will simply mothball generating plant.
At that point in Mili-World, HMG steps in, takes it all over, and the taxpayer gets to sells energy for less than cost.
Sensible energy companies will simply take a series of plants off line for essential maintenance while Ed imposes his price cut. The clever ones will do it to the most marginal. That simply means the headroom on energy will drop and peaks will become more difficult to manage.
What Miliband has tapped into is the very strong feeling amongst the public that they are being taken for a ride. The feeling that modern society is essentially an enormous fleecing operation with them as the mark in every case.
This is exactly so.
Cameron is trying to direct this anger towards those on welfare, and that will work to an extent, but if he fails then the anger will be directed in another direction.
"What Miliband has tapped into is the very strong feeling amongst the public that they are being taken for a ride. The feeling that modern society is essentially an enormous fleecing operation with them as the mark in every case.
The people cited as doing the taking are many and varied. Big companies, energy firms, railway networks, senior civil servants, Bankers, benefit cheats, charity bosses, Union leaders, politicians of all stripes, estate agents, the EU, councils, the beneficiaries of foreign aid, the tax man, oil companies and many more."
Spot on!
And they're right. My shares in the utility companies have soared and I get a dividend of nearly 6% when the bank rate is near zero.
At the same time the MD of Centrica is giving himself £5,000,000 PA from a once nationalized industry. The saps who pay their ever increasing energy charges are right.
It's a rich man's world. There are just too many greedy bastards creaming off the top and people are becoming mightily pissed off.
Why does no party give practical help for youngsters (or indeed oldsters) to move around the country from economically deprived areas to areas with better job prospects?
Mainly because we have a housing shortage in areas with jobs.
But cutting housing benefit and telling people to stay with their parents is a novel way of making that mobility of labour problem even worse, which appears to be what they are briefing.
Hmm so is the problem
1. Labour couldn't create jobs in areas with surplus housing ? 2. Labour didn't build houses in areas with surplus jobs ? 3. All of the above.?
Why does no party give practical help for youngsters (or indeed oldsters) to move around the country from economically deprived areas to areas with better job prospects?
Mainly because we have a housing shortage in areas with jobs.
But cutting housing benefit and telling people to stay with their parents is a novel way of making that mobility of labour problem even worse, which appears to be what they are briefing.
It will affect single parents as well as I believe.
Oh dear god, Osbrowne's trying to make up policy on the hoof right this second on the posturing under 25's welfare bollocks. I can't see how this could possibly end badly.
We could be in for a Lansley reforms type disaster of Seth O Logue omnishables proportions.
"What Miliband has tapped into is the very strong feeling amongst the public that they are being taken for a ride. The feeling that modern society is essentially an enormous fleecing operation with them as the mark in every case.
The people cited as doing the taking are many and varied. Big companies, energy firms, railway networks, senior civil servants, Bankers, benefit cheats, charity bosses, Union leaders, politicians of all stripes, estate agents, the EU, councils, the beneficiaries of foreign aid, the tax man, oil companies and many more."
Spot on!
And they're right. My shares in the utility companies have soared and I get a dividend of nearly 6% when the bank rate is near zero.
At the same time the MD of Centrica is giving himself £5,000,000 PA from a once nationalized industry. The saps who pay their ever increasing energy charges are right.
It's a rich man's world. There are just too many greedy bastards creaming off the top and people are becoming mightily pissed off.
Roger, has it ever occurred to you that the energy companies might be making those profits in overseas markets?
Since you're a rich man, why not dump the shares or give them to a charity?
Oh, but wait, then you'll be complaining that that you're not getting the returns you expect on your investments. What a dilemma for you.
What Miliband has tapped into is the very strong feeling amongst the public that they are being taken for a ride. The feeling that modern society is essentially an enormous fleecing operation with them as the mark in every case.
The people cited as doing the taking are many and varied. Big companies, energy firms, railway networks, senior civil servants, Bankers, benefit cheats, charity bosses, Union leaders, politicians of all stripes, estate agents, the EU, councils, the beneficiaries of foreign aid, the tax man, oil companies and many more.
There's a big electoral dividend for anybody who can squeeze the above.
The flaw in that argument is that you have to try to govern afterwards.
In many ways this argument resembles Thatcher's standpoint. She was against the 70s establishment, which in those days consisted largely of the unions, the nationalised industries and the corporate state (bodies like NEDC). She fought for the little people, the small businesses, the council hose tenants etc. Privatisations were designed to create armies of small shareholders with real power, not the unaccountable corporate oligarchies which have emerged. Thacher's Tories were emphatically not on the side of the privileged elite. You could not say that of the Tory party today.
What Miliband has tapped into is the very strong feeling amongst the public that they are being taken for a ride. The feeling that modern society is essentially an enormous fleecing operation with them as the mark in every case.
The people cited as doing the taking are many and varied. Big companies, energy firms, railway networks, senior civil servants, Bankers, benefit cheats, charity bosses, Union leaders, politicians of all stripes, estate agents, the EU, councils, the beneficiaries of foreign aid, the tax man, oil companies and many more.
There's a big electoral dividend for anybody who can squeeze the above.
The flaw in that argument is that you have to try to govern afterwards.
In many ways this argument resembles Thatcher's standpoint. She was against the 70s establishment, which in those days consisted largely of the unions, the nationalised industries and the corporate state (bodies like NEDC). She fought for the little people, the small businesses, the council hose tenants etc. Privatisations were designed to create armies of small shareholders with real power, not the unaccountable corporate oligarchies which have emerged. Thacher's Tories were emphatically not on the side of the privileged elite. You could not say that of the Tory party today.
Why does no party give practical help for youngsters (or indeed oldsters) to move around the country from economically deprived areas to areas with better job prospects?
Surely you already know that the answer is it is cheaper in the short-term just to pay people benefits to stay in deprived areas and let EU migrants move in to the areas with better job prospects without any government spending.
Long-term the policy is not particularly wise, but it's a bit more complicated than planting trees.
I've had dates who behaved like the British public. They wouldn't pay for anything, spent all their time complaining about how unfair life was, indulged in the wildest and most unsavoury conspiracy theories and made it pretty clear that they weren't all that happy with my behaviour (which seemed innocuous enough to me).
Unlike politicians, however, I didn't need to bother trying to woo them.
Roger, has it ever occurred to you that the energy companies might be making those profits in overseas markets?
Otherwise, if you're so concerned, dump the shares or give them to a charity. You're rich and can afford to do so.
Roger also doesn't seem to have realised that the reason the shares yield highish dividends (although Centrica's yield is 4.45%, not 6%) is precisely because investors don't think the companies are raking in huge profits, relative to the risk.
Why does no party give practical help for youngsters (or indeed oldsters) to move around the country from economically deprived areas to areas with better job prospects?
Mainly because we have a housing shortage in areas with jobs.
But cutting housing benefit and telling people to stay with their parents is a novel way of making that mobility of labour problem even worse, which appears to be what they are briefing.
It will affect single parents as well as I believe.
Even better it will affect those who were thinking about being single parents...
Why does no party give practical help for youngsters (or indeed oldsters) to move around the country from economically deprived areas to areas with better job prospects?
Mainly because we have a housing shortage in areas with jobs.
But cutting housing benefit and telling people to stay with their parents is a novel way of making that mobility of labour problem even worse, which appears to be what they are briefing.
Hmm so is the problem
1. Labour couldn't create jobs in areas with surplus housing ? 2. Labour didn't build houses in areas with surplus jobs ? 3. All of the above.?
It's a pretty shit record when you look at it.
Housing policy has been a car crash for thirty five years in this country, and all Osborne is doing is trying to pump a bubble up to crisis level prices in time for an election.
yeah all of that tim, but prize A1 fquitery was letting another 4 million people into the country when there was no accommodation for them or infrstructure to match. If there has been a 35 yr housing problem Labour just burst the housing bank.
I heard Rod Liddle on the radio earlier and I wondered what turned good left wing journalists into right wing ones almost overnight?
Was it because they got rich as their London houses soared in value so they saw things from the other side of the fence? No I'm afraid the answer is much more prosaic than that....
The newspapers that pay the big bucks are all right wing so to keep their dosh rolling in there's only one thing to do......
Why does no party give practical help for youngsters (or indeed oldsters) to move around the country from economically deprived areas to areas with better job prospects?
Surely you already know that the answer is it is cheaper in the short-term just to pay people benefits to stay in deprived areas and let EU migrants move in to the areas with better job prospects without any government spending.
Long-term the policy is not particularly wise, but it's a bit more complicated than planting trees.
Given the choice between something easy and short term and something difficult and long term, we should be doing the difficult long term things.
Moreover, it would be like rolling stones downhill. Once more of the public had got used to the idea of moving for work, the additional incentives required to get others to do so would be minor, since people would see the benefits for themselves.
Thacher's Tories were emphatically not on the side of the privileged elite. You could not say that of the Tory party today.
Yes you can:
- IDS is putting enormous effort into reforming the welfare system to help people out of a vicious cycle of worklessness
- Gove is doing more than any Education Secretary has done since 1945 to help the bottom 25% by income out of the 'soft bigotry of low expectations'
- Osborne has done more to get the low-paid out of the tax trap than any Labour Chancellor; it is shocking to think that Labour were taking £1,700 tax from someone earning just £10,000.
"I watched the whole thing and i am wandering around like a zombie possessed. It's the Tory bromides - wall-to-wall throughout the speech. For a moment I thought he was computer-generated. But maybe I was nodding off.
Etc. etc, etc.
"From a betting point of view .... I think Cameron's speech won't make any waves and won't be game-changing at all."
Fairy nuff?
Peter - that message from a friend wouldn't be of a socialist persuasion by any chance would he/she ?
"So why are we subsidising bus fares for pensioners rather than for such youngsters?"
Because pensioners tend to vote Tory.
Oh really? That would explain why a well-known Tory Chancellor introduced free local bus passes for the over-60s ahead of the general election in 2005 and extended the scheme to cover all bus journeys in 2008.
Thacher's Tories were emphatically not on the side of the privileged elite. You could not say that of the Tory party today.
You could if you were an incompetent tory spinner somehow unaware of just how out of touch most of the public thinks Cameron's chumocracy are. The public wouldn't believe you of course but who cares about that?
Why does no party give practical help for youngsters (or indeed oldsters) to move around the country from economically deprived areas to areas with better job prospects?
Mainly because we have a housing shortage in areas with jobs.
But cutting housing benefit and telling people to stay with their parents is a novel way of making that mobility of labour problem even worse, which appears to be what they are briefing.
Hmm so is the problem
1. Labour couldn't create jobs in areas with surplus housing ? 2. Labour didn't build houses in areas with surplus jobs ? 3. All of the above.?
It's a pretty shit record when you look at it.
Housing policy has been a car crash for thirty five years in this country, and all Osborne is doing is trying to pump a bubble up to crisis level prices in time for an election.
yeah all of that tim, but prize A1 fquitery was letting another 4 million people into the country when there was no accommodation for them or infrstructure to match. If there has been a 35 yr housing problem Labour just burst the housing bank.
So get out of Europe and cope with an ageing population then. Only UKIP seem to be offering that as a policy aim.
Yeah Yadda it's your stock response for a failed policy. But
1. EU immigration is not the largest source of people coming in to this country 2. The EU allowed transitional controls as new member s joined and Labour chose not to exercise them.
Labour controlled nothing and made a difficult housing situation a crisis.
The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too.
The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too.
Don't worry, Southam, I expect Labour will match it.
The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too.
So you think its ok for u-25s to turn down a job or education and sponge off the state ?
The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too.
Don't worry, Southam, I expect Labour will match it.
Ah yes, but Labour will write the word fairness before every cut ;-)
The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too.
Don't worry, Southam, I expect Labour will match it.
I'd be surprised, but we'll see.
In all seriousness, what is the justification? When I left home to go to university my parents converted the top floor of our house into a flat that they could rent out. I did not get a job immediately on graduating so signed on and got some housing benefit too. That enabled me to stay in Birmingham (where I studied) and find a job, before coming down to London again a few months later. As I understand it, under these plans that would not be possible. Or am I missing something?
If I was David Cameron I'd be going into the next election promising that nobody who derives money directly or indirectly from the public purse can earn more than me. By law and on threat of prosecution.
Doctors, BBC 'talent', NHS chief executives, Civil servant mandarins, legal aid barristers. That means you, you greedy f8ckers.
Sorry, isn;t 140 grand enough to 'serve the public'?
The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too.
So you think its ok for u-25s to turn down a job or education and sponge off the state ?
Thinking like yours is why Labour are rooked.
Nope, but I do expect under 25s to be given a fair opportunity to find a job.
"Thacher's Tories were emphatically not on the side of the privileged elite. You could not say that of the Tory party today."
I'd say if anything the other way round though both generations of Tories are viewed that way by the public. Because of our austere times this lot seem the most contemptuous of the poor but it's really splitting hairs
"So why are we subsidising bus fares for pensioners rather than for such youngsters?"
Because pensioners tend to vote Tory.
Oh really? That would explain why a well-known Tory Chancellor introduced free local bus passes for the over-60s ahead of the general election in 2005 and extended the scheme to cover all bus journeys in 2008.
It explains why the Tories have not changed Brown's scheme and why they have not applied the bedroom tax to pensioners.
I would like to know ( after three years of opposing every cut ) what RedEd will do to 1. Reduce the defecit 2.pay down the national Debt 3.Create growth 4.Improve education and the NHS 5. Will he aim for a budget surplus? 6. Give us a say on our future in the EU All we have heard from him is vacuous, opportunistic, empty bribes and jumping on every populist bandwagon that rides through town.
The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too.
Don't worry, Southam, I expect Labour will match it.
I'd be surprised, but we'll see.
In all seriousness, what is the justification? When I left home to go to university my parents converted the top floor of our house into a flat that they could rent out. I did not get a job immediately on graduating so signed on and got some housing benefit too. That enabled me to stay in Birmingham (where I studied) and find a job, before coming down to London again a few months later. As I understand it, under these plans that would not be possible. Or am I missing something?
Under Labour you could louchely lounge about any place you like, drinking flat whites and reading the Guardian on your ipad until you got round to getting a job.
We don't want young boho types to have to say - get a bar job - to pay the bills whilst waiting for their dream job to come around...
@Southam - I don't know what the details will be, but what Cameron said was this:
There are still over a million young people not in education, employment, or training.
Today it is still possible to leave school, sign on, find a flat, start claiming housing benefit and opt for a life on benefits.
It’s time for bold action here. We should ask, as we write our next manifesto, if that option should really exist at all. Instead we should give young people a clear, positive choice: Go to school. Go to college. Do an apprenticeship. Get a job. But just choose the dole? We’ve got to offer them something better than that.
And let no one paint ideas like this as callous.
Think about it: with your children, would you dream of just leaving them to their own devices, not getting a job, not training, nothing? No – you’d nag and push and guide and do anything to get them on their way… and so must we. So this is what we want to see: everyone under 25 – earning or learning.
So the legacy Cameron and co want to leave our children is that if you are under 25, are out of work and do not have parents able to offer you accommodation and financial support, You're F***ed.
It explains why the Tories have not changed Brown's scheme and why they have not applied the bedroom tax to pensioners.
Right, so Labour giving pensioners freebies is pure and principled, but Tories not taking freebies away is buying votes. Got it. PB is such a wonderful place to learn about these things.
The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too.
So you think its ok for u-25s to turn down a job or education and sponge off the state ?
Thinking like yours is why Labour are rooked.
Nope, but I do expect under 25s to be given a fair opportunity to find a job.
Indefinitely subsidised by the taxpayer ? 1 year ? 2 years ?
Its not the government's money - its ours - and the voters don't want to pay for youngsters to have their own pad without working for it.
So the legacy Cameron and co want to leave our children is that if you are under 25, are out of work and do not have parents able to offer you accommodation and financial support, You're F***ed.
I think you are ignoring the "learning" part of "earning or learning".
Why does no party give practical help for youngsters (or indeed oldsters) to move around the country from economically deprived areas to areas with better job prospects?
Mainly because we have a housing shortage in areas with jobs.
But cutting housing benefit and telling people to stay with their parents is a novel way of making that mobility of labour problem even worse, which appears to be what they are briefing.
Hmm so is the problem
1. Labour couldn't create jobs in areas with surplus housing ? 2. Labour didn't build houses in areas with surplus jobs ? 3. All of the above.?
It's a pretty shit record when you look at it.
Housing policy has been a car crash for thirty five years in this country, and all Osborne is doing is trying to pump a bubble up to crisis level prices in time for an election.
No, tim.
The housing policy of the Coalition government is a reversal of the decline in house building experienced under Brown/
The current building rate of private sector housing (at 30-35,000) per quarter is about 60% of peak under Labour at a time when demand is only 30-40% of peak. The incentives provided by the Help to Buy scheme should accelerate the recovery of private sector housing construction to pre crisis levels.
There is no evidence of a housing bubble being created, This has been reviewed by the Bank of England and both Carney and Paul Fisher (Exec Director for Markets) have stated that they see no cause for alarm at all from current lending and house price levels:
Bringing forward HTB2 was probably done more to avert stagnating lending and sales and potential price falls as it was to inflate house prices. If you believe there is a bubble then it is up to you to post supporting evidence in the form of lending figures or actual house price rises.
As to social housing, you are continuing to avoid answering my comments on the business model for rapid expansion as set out in my previous comment to you downthread. Ready yet to comment sensibly on the issue?
Out all day - I'm sure the speech was a game-changer for both sides as far as each set of battalions is concerned, frankly not going to waste any more time on PB until the weekend polls at the v earliest. The interesting one will be OGH doing another 7-day change comparison as was done last weekend, until then all froth and fury.
The more I think about it the more extraordinary it is that the Tories are going to go into the next election promising to take benefits away from the under 25s. It really does beggar belief. There must be more to it than what is being reported. I am not sure they realise what a big demographic they are taking on here. Not just under 25s, but their families too.
Don't worry, Southam, I expect Labour will match it.
I'd be surprised, but we'll see.
In all seriousness, what is the justification? When I left home to go to university my parents converted the top floor of our house into a flat that they could rent out. I did not get a job immediately on graduating so signed on and got some housing benefit too. That enabled me to stay in Birmingham (where I studied) and find a job, before coming down to London again a few months later. As I understand it, under these plans that would not be possible. Or am I missing something?
Under Labour you could louchely lounge about any place you like, drinking flat whites and reading the Guardian on your ipad until you got round to getting a job.
We don't want young boho types to have to say - get a bar job - to pay the bills whilst waiting for their dream job to come around...
That's right - because that's what young people without do all day. But I would strongly encourage the Tories to follow this line.
So the legacy Cameron and co want to leave our children is that if you are under 25, are out of work and do not have parents able to offer you accommodation and financial support, You're F***ed.
You don't seriously think this back of the envelope posturing bollocks has been thought through do you? It's just not going to happen. Osbrowne's trying to spin it as more solid because everyone knows how empty and policy free Cameron's dull, uninspiring speech is.
"So you think its ok for u-25s to turn down a job or education and sponge off the state ?"
You live in such a black and white world. I have a young relative who got a first in 'multi media' (an assortment of the arts) and naturally she wants a job in the media together with the other 25 pupils in her class but these jobs are like gold dust and only a couple in her year have so far got fixed up.
They could stack shelves in Tesco but I think it's reasonable for them to wait a decent length of time to see if openings show themselves or they all might end up wasting their skills.
So the legacy Cameron and co want to leave our children is that if you are under 25, are out of work and do not have parents able to offer you accommodation and financial support, You're F***ed.
I think you are ignoring the "learning" part of "earning or learning".
And the "earning".
SO is basically saying : "manual & service sector jobs were beneath me - I wanted sit around to hone my CV until I got my perfect graduate job - and the taxpayers should pay me to do so "
So the legacy Cameron and co want to leave our children is that if you are under 25, are out of work and do not have parents able to offer you accommodation and financial support, You're F***ed.
You don't seriously think this back of the envelope posturing bollocks has been thought through do you? It's just not going to happen. Osbrowne's trying to spin it as more solid because everyone knows how empty and policy free Cameron's dull, uninspiring speech is.
I did not think the Tories would develop a policy that would force hardworking families and the disabled out of their homes to make way for feckless, child-breeding scroungers, but they did. So this does not seem beyond them.
"So you think its ok for u-25s to turn down a job or education and sponge off the state ?"
You live in such a black and white world. I have a young relative who got a first in 'multi media' (an assortment of the arts) and naturally she wants a job in the media together with the other 25 pupils in her class but these jobs are like gold dust and only a couple in her year have so far got fixed up.
They could stack shelves in Tesco but I think it's reasonable for them to wait a decent length of time to see if openings show themselves or they all might end up wasting their skills.
Picking 'media studies' as the basis for your argument really isn't helping.
They could stack shelves in Tesco but I think it's reasonable for them to wait a decent length of time to see if openings show themselves or they all might end up wasting their skills.
Ah but the country is skint - so I'm afraid it is not unreasonable for her to stack shelves in Tesco.
So the legacy Cameron and co want to leave our children is that if you are under 25, are out of work and do not have parents able to offer you accommodation and financial support, You're F***ed.
I think you are ignoring the "learning" part of "earning or learning".
And the "earning".
SO is basically saying : "manual & service sector jobs were beneath me - I wanted sit around to hone my CV until I got my perfect graduate job - and the taxpayers should pay me to do so "
Except I did a manual job when I left university, but it was the mid-80s, Brum was not booming and it took a few weeks to find one. Apart from that it's a great point you make.
Obviously, you want to believe that everyone without a job is a bone idle scrounger. But that is not the reality. And the under 25s not only get a vote, their parents, grandparents and other family members do too. The Tories need to be very careful with this.
I would like to know ( after three years of opposing every cut ) what RedEd will do to 1. Reduce the defecit 2.pay down the national Debt 3.Create growth 4.Improve education and the NHS 5. Will he aim for a budget surplus? 6. Give us a say on our future in the EU All we have heard from him is vacuous, opportunistic, empty bribes and jumping on every populist bandwagon that rides through town.
I'd find it reassuring if Cameron would be clearer on the difference between deficit and debt.
I think I'm right that he said - again - in his speech today that they were making progress on "paying down the deficit", which gives a seriously misleading impression compared to the reality.
You do not pay down a deficit - you reduce it. You pay down debt, but we are a long way from that.
It explains why the Tories have not changed Brown's scheme and why they have not applied the bedroom tax to pensioners.
Right, so Labour giving pensioners freebies is pure and principled, but Tories not taking freebies away is buying votes. Got it. PB is such a wonderful place to learn about these things.
Nope. Labour was being grubby and vote seeking. And the Tories are doing exactly the same thing.
So the legacy Cameron and co want to leave our children is that if you are under 25, are out of work and do not have parents able to offer you accommodation and financial support, You're F***ed.
I think you are ignoring the "learning" part of "earning or learning".
And the "earning".
SO is basically saying : "manual & service sector jobs were beneath me - I wanted sit around to hone my CV until I got my perfect graduate job - and the taxpayers should pay me to do so "
Except I did a manual job when I left university, but it was the mid-80s, Brum was not booming and it took a few weeks to find one. Apart from that it's a great point you make.
Obviously, you want to believe that everyone without a job is a bone idle scrounger. But that is not the reality. And the under 25s not only get a vote, their parents, grandparents and other family members do too. The Tories need to be very careful with this.
Anyone under 25 should be capable of learning and improving their skills. I don't see that as being particularly 'nasty' somehow....
One of mine qualified in Modern Languages in the summer and is back with us. She's applying for jobs but I suspect its rather more selective than it might be, because she can stay at home indefinitely.
So the legacy Cameron and co want to leave our children is that if you are under 25, are out of work and do not have parents able to offer you accommodation and financial support, You're F***ed.
You don't seriously think this back of the envelope posturing bollocks has been thought through do you? It's just not going to happen. Osbrowne's trying to spin it as more solid because everyone knows how empty and policy free Cameron's dull, uninspiring speech is.
I did not think the Tories would develop a policy that would force hardworking families and the disabled out of their homes to make way for feckless, child-breeding scroungers, but they did. So this does not seem beyond them.
Yes well, IDS thought he could totally transform welfare because he met some poor people in Glasgow years ago. Yet we all know just how hard he's been sat on and constrained by the chumocracy and treasury when they finally realised the cost and pitfalls. Posturing is one thing, potential omnishambles quite another.
So the legacy Cameron and co want to leave our children is that if you are under 25, are out of work and do not have parents able to offer you accommodation and financial support, You're F***ed.
I think you are ignoring the "learning" part of "earning or learning".
And the "earning".
SO is basically saying : "manual & service sector jobs were beneath me - I wanted sit around to hone my CV until I got my perfect graduate job - and the taxpayers should pay me to do so "
Except I did a manual job when I left university, but it was the mid-80s, Brum was not booming and it took a few weeks to find one. Apart from that it's a great point you make.
Obviously, you want to believe that everyone without a job is a bone idle scrounger. But that is not the reality. And the under 25s not only get a vote, their parents, grandparents and other family members do too. The Tories need to be very careful with this.
Anyone under 25 should be capable of learning and improving their skills. I don't see that as being particularly 'nasty' somehow....
Great - so more investment in training and non-university tertiary education. I would be all for that. We'll see if that is what is being promised here.
Nope. Labour was being grubby and vote seeking. And the Tories are doing exactly the same thing.
Unfortunately it's much harder to take things away than not to dole them out in the first place, as we've seen even with the no-brainers like Child Benefit for the well-off, or the spare-room subsidy.
So, no, the Tories are not doing exactly the same thing: not taking something away is not the same as introducing it.
Having said that, I think the bus pass in particular is pretty silly. It doesn't even benefit the most needy pensioners - those who benefit most are younger, fitter pensioners, not the very elderly stuck in their homes because they're not very mobile.
So the legacy Cameron and co want to leave our children is that if you are under 25, are out of work and do not have parents able to offer you accommodation and financial support, You're F***ed.
I think you are ignoring the "learning" part of "earning or learning".
And the "earning".
SO is basically saying : "manual & service sector jobs were beneath me - I wanted sit around to hone my CV until I got my perfect graduate job - and the taxpayers should pay me to do so "
When I graduated in 2001 it took me six weeks of looking for work, going to multiple job interviews, and being laughed at by one employer for applying for a menial job with a degree, before I was offered a job doing data entry.
I've been working ever since. I don't think it's too much to ask for support for six weeks, given that your fantasy of being able to walk into a job instantly was far from the reality in 2001, let alone in 2013.
They could stack shelves in Tesco but I think it's reasonable for them to wait a decent length of time to see if openings show themselves or they all might end up wasting their skills.
Ah but the country is skint - so I'm afraid it is not unreasonable for her to stack shelves in Tesco.
Are there currently several million job vacancies for shelf stackers at Tesco or even all super markets that would reduce unemployment to virtually zero ?
Nope. Labour was being grubby and vote seeking. And the Tories are doing exactly the same thing.
Unfortunately it's much harder to take things away than not to dole them out in the first place, as we've seen even with the no-brainers like Child Benefit for the well-off, or the spare-room subsidy.
So, no, the Tories are not doing exactly the same thing: not taking something away is not the same as introducing it.
Having said that, I think the bus pass in particular is pretty silly. It doesn't even benefit the most needy pensioners - those who benefit most are younger, fitter pensioners, not the very elederly stuck in their homes because they're not very mobile.
The bedroom tax exemption was not introduced by Labour. Can't see how it is harder to force a pensioner to pay extra for a spare room than it is to make a disabled person do it.
Something I was thinking about earlier. I actually find it relatively comforting that the PM doesn't know the price of an Aldi value loaf of bread. It would imply that he is wasting time with Lynton Crosby memorising these facts because it is pretty clear that the PM doesn't shop for value items or in Aldi.
I don't see why the public needs its politicians to know inane facts like those. I've certainly not bought a value loaf of bread (not since I was a student anyway) and I couldn't give the price if someone asked me. The Waitrose bakery makes a really nice brown loaf though which is about £1.50 though, as I'm sure the PM will know.
So the legacy Cameron and co want to leave our children is that if you are under 25, are out of work and do not have parents able to offer you accommodation and financial support, You're F***ed.
I think you are ignoring the "learning" part of "earning or learning".
And the "earning".
SO is basically saying : "manual & service sector jobs were beneath me - I wanted sit around to hone my CV until I got my perfect graduate job - and the taxpayers should pay me to do so "
Except I did a manual job when I left university, but it was the mid-80s, Brum was not booming and it took a few weeks to find one. Apart from that it's a great point you make.
Obviously, you want to believe that everyone without a job is a bone idle scrounger. But that is not the reality. And the under 25s not only get a vote, their parents, grandparents and other family members do too. The Tories need to be very careful with this.
Anyone under 25 should be capable of learning and improving their skills. I don't see that as being particularly 'nasty' somehow....
Great - so more investment in training and non-university tertiary education. I would be all for that. We'll see if that is what is being promised here.
Well I would have thought if you want everyone to be 'learning or earning' you have to provide that facility. If not then it's as you say rather pointless.
One of mine qualified in Modern Languages in the summer and is back with us. She's applying for jobs but I suspect its rather more selective than it might be, because she can stay at home indefinitely.
No shelf stacking for her....!
And under these new plans, if they are being reported correctly, you are stuck with her until she is 25 and can find work that pays her enough to move out. So no minimum wage stuff like shelf-stacking, unless rents are extremely low in your part of the world.
Why does anyone think that Heseltine somehow speaks for the model Tory party? I bump into him occasionally in Waitrose; his wife more frequently - both simply lovely people. But as relevant as Tony Benn is to what the modern Tory party thinks and decides.
They could stack shelves in Tesco but I think it's reasonable for them to wait a decent length of time to see if openings show themselves or they all might end up wasting their skills.
Ah but the country is skint - so I'm afraid it is not unreasonable for her to stack shelves in Tesco.
Are there currently several million job vacancies for shelf stackers at Tesco or even all super markets that would reduce unemployment to virtually zero ?
They could stack shelves in Tesco but I think it's reasonable for them to wait a decent length of time to see if openings show themselves or they all might end up wasting their skills.
Ah but the country is skint - so I'm afraid it is not unreasonable for her to stack shelves in Tesco.
Are there currently several million job vacancies for shelf stackers at Tesco or even all super markets that would reduce unemployment to virtually zero ?
I'm sure plenty on the left think that the state can grow jobs on trees, like they can money.
The bedroom tax exemption was not introduced by Labour. Can't see how it is harder to force a pensioner to pay extra for a spare room than it is to make a disabled person do it.
Well, I haven't noticed any Labour MPs arguing that pensioners should also be affected by the new policy, have you? (Only tim seems to be saying that.). Nor did they include pensioners when they introduced the identical measure for people whose landlord happens to be a private company.
Why does anyone think that Heseltine somehow speaks for the model Tory party? I bump into him occasionally in Waitrose; his wife more frequently - both simply lovely people. But as relevant as Tony Benn is to what the modern Tory party thinks and decides.
That would be slightly more convincing if he wasn't basically saying the same thing the leader of the modern model Tory party David Cameron has said. Save that Heseltine left out the fruitcakes and loonies part.
The bedroom tax exemption was not introduced by Labour. Can't see how it is harder to force a pensioner to pay extra for a spare room than it is to make a disabled person do it.
Well, I haven't noticed any Labour MPs arguing that pensioners should also be affected by the new policy, have you? (Only tim seems to be saying that.). Nor did they include pensioners when they introduced the identical measure for people whose landlord happens to be a private company.
Labour did/would do it too is a pretty poor debating point Richard, as I am sure you are aware. I am not arguing that the Labour party is whiter than white, steadfast in its refusal to pander to certain interest groups, that is an argument you have made about the Conservative party on more than one occasion. The Tories are in government, the Tories support the bedroom tax, the bedroom tax exempts a Tory-voting demographic. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Something I was thinking about earlier. I actually find it relatively comforting that the PM doesn't know the price of an Aldi value loaf of bread. It would imply that he is wasting time with Lynton Crosby memorising these facts because it is pretty clear that the PM doesn't shop for value items or in Aldi.
I don't see why the public needs its politicians to know inane facts like those. I've certainly not bought a value loaf of bread (not since I was a student anyway) and I couldn't give the price if someone asked me. The Waitrose bakery makes a really nice brown loaf though which is about £1.50 though, as I'm sure the PM will know.
Couldn't agree more, Max, but it does depend on the individual.
Bill Clinton was famously good at remembering the prices of household items, but that was because he was a naturally inquistive person. Nobody seriously thought it made him any better qualified to be POTUS. He was just like that.
They could stack shelves in Tesco but I think it's reasonable for them to wait a decent length of time to see if openings show themselves or they all might end up wasting their skills.
Ah but the country is skint - so I'm afraid it is not unreasonable for her to stack shelves in Tesco.
Are there currently several million job vacancies for shelf stackers at Tesco or even all super markets that would reduce unemployment to virtually zero ?
I'm sure plenty on the left think that the state can grow jobs on trees, like they can money.
There are plenty on the right who seem to think that millions of jobs are out there unfilled whereas the reality is there are not . For interest , Tesco currently have just 1 vacancy witthin 10 miles of where I live ( part time ) and 8 within 20 miles ( 6 part time , 1 nights and 2 temporary ) Filling those is not going to impact much on the jobless total .
Something I was thinking about earlier. I actually find it relatively comforting that the PM doesn't know the price of an Aldi value loaf of bread. It would imply that he is wasting time with Lynton Crosby memorising these facts because it is pretty clear that the PM doesn't shop for value items or in Aldi.
I don't see why the public needs its politicians to know inane facts like those. I've certainly not bought a value loaf of bread (not since I was a student anyway) and I couldn't give the price if someone asked me. The Waitrose bakery makes a really nice brown loaf though which is about £1.50 though, as I'm sure the PM will know.
I think it'd be an interesting experiment if PMs tried this line, and many might find it quite refreshing. But at present, they try to pretend they do shop in supermarkets and have photo-shoots showing them bemusedly looking at the stacks of discount cornflakes, wondering what they are. That makes them fair game for inane questions that they could answer if they really did regularly shop in supermarkets.
It's not pure PR, though. There's a case for PMs to do some normal things like travelling on the Tube or shopping at Aldi just to be aware what it's like, otherwise you get serious ignorance which can adversely affect policy. There's a difference between regularly experiencing humdrum life and at least sampling it.
Something I was thinking about earlier. I actually find it relatively comforting that the PM doesn't know the price of an Aldi value loaf of bread. It would imply that he is wasting time with Lynton Crosby memorising these facts because it is pretty clear that the PM doesn't shop for value items or in Aldi.
I don't see why the public needs its politicians to know inane facts like those. I've certainly not bought a value loaf of bread (not since I was a student anyway) and I couldn't give the price if someone asked me. The Waitrose bakery makes a really nice brown loaf though which is about £1.50 though, as I'm sure the PM will know.
The Guardian had an interesting article about this, which points out that supermarkets now change their prices so often these days - allegedly in an attempt to confuse shoppers so that we don't know what a fair price is for anything - that the question is completely pointless.
I'm amused that my current favourite loaf of bread - from Lidl - is 9p more expensive than your Waitrose choice, though.
They could stack shelves in Tesco but I think it's reasonable for them to wait a decent length of time to see if openings show themselves or they all might end up wasting their skills.
Ah but the country is skint - so I'm afraid it is not unreasonable for her to stack shelves in Tesco.
Are there currently several million job vacancies for shelf stackers at Tesco or even all super markets that would reduce unemployment to virtually zero ?
I'm sure plenty on the left think that the state can grow jobs on trees, like they can money.
There are plenty on the right who seem to think that millions of jobs are out there unfilled whereas the reality is there are not . For interest , Tesco currently have just 1 vacancy witthin 10 miles of where I live ( part time ) and 8 within 20 miles ( 6 part time , 1 nights and 2 temporary ) Filling those is not going to impact much on the jobless total .
If my understanding is correct the plan is to provide some form of education place for all those who can't find a job. Which is likely to be much more expensive than paying them benefits.
The drunken poseur tries so very hard to be whacky and zany it's like being forced to watch a constipated obese man trying to strain out an enormous crap, and failing every time.
Comments
Personally I think Milliband's sense of ruthlessness far outweighs his sense of responsibility. He won;t care about delivery.
He'll be in power.
[...continued]
So along comes Yeltsin in 1991, who abolishes the communist party and replaces centrally planned socialism with 'free' market capitalism. All state industries are put up for sale.
So along come the future oligarchs who borrow money in rubles to buy production plant in rubles. Output and stocks are then sold on international markets at global prices (remember up to 100 times the price paid in Rubles). The foreign currency earnt was then invested in upgrading the capacity, productivity and output of the plant. Sometimes even the oligarch's earnt cash was not even used as joint ventures with western operators were established with the foreign party providing the investment capital and expertise in return for sharing in the profits of the output.
Now it doesn't take very long to work out how the oligarchs became very rich very quickly in this environment.
What kept Abramovich rich and out of jail, unlike many of his fellow oligarchs, is that he was prepared to sell his operations back to the state when Putin replaced Yeltsin and got wise as to what had been going on.
And what about Russian consumers you may ask? Well they ended up (eventually) paying world prices for their domestic energy supplies, around a hundred times more than they paid under socialist rule.
Now Ed Miliband may only have taken a single step on his long journey back to a Marxist utopia, but the British consumer (and Southam Observer) should use this cautionary tale to learn that consumers do not automatically benefit from the imposition of energy industry price controls.
Why will Tories stop at cutting benefits for just the under 25's who left school 9 or 10 years earlier?
To force people to hunt for work why not make it under 55's and cut the welfare budget by huge amounts?
So the under 25 in my view is merely a start and may be tweaked to get those lazy 30 year olds out too. I might be wrong but this is another policy not in the manifesto which will be supported by Lib Dems who made pledges and reneged across the board to chase the coalition dollar.
The left seem to be complaining that the scheme might be too successful too early.
"Too fast too soon" perhaps ?
Here's another: I attended a fund-raising evening for a charity which does very good work helping youngsters who have left school with virtually nothing in the way of qualifications by mentoring them, providing remedial training, helping them apply for jobs or training places, and so on. They seem to be very successful, but one of the huge obstacles is that the jobs and training places are not in places easily accessible to the youngsters: they gave one example where the bus fares for one young lad who'd found a job in a town not too far away amounted to nearly £15 a day.
So why are we subsidising bus fares for pensioners rather than for such youngsters?
Cameron is trying to direct this anger towards those on welfare, and that will work to an extent, but if he fails then the anger will be directed in another direction.
"What Miliband has tapped into is the very strong feeling amongst the public that they are being taken for a ride. The feeling that modern society is essentially an enormous fleecing operation with them as the mark in every case.
The people cited as doing the taking are many and varied. Big companies, energy firms, railway networks, senior civil servants, Bankers, benefit cheats, charity bosses, Union leaders, politicians of all stripes, estate agents, the EU, councils, the beneficiaries of foreign aid, the tax man, oil companies and many more."
Spot on!
And they're right. My shares in the utility companies have soared and I get a dividend of nearly 6% when the bank rate is near zero.
At the same time the MD of Centrica is giving himself £5,000,000 PA from a once nationalized industry. The saps who pay their ever increasing energy charges are right.
It's a rich man's world. There are just too many greedy bastards creaming off the top and people are becoming mightily pissed off.
1. Labour couldn't create jobs in areas with surplus housing ?
2. Labour didn't build houses in areas with surplus jobs ?
3. All of the above.?
It's a pretty shit record when you look at it.
We could be in for a Lansley reforms type disaster of Seth O Logue omnishables proportions.
Still, it's quite something to have invented and popularised a new genre of book, the military technothriller.
Indeed, the Hunt for Red October (cue Sunil) was so odd that it was actually published by the US Naval Institute Press.
Since you're a rich man, why not dump the shares or give them to a charity?
Oh, but wait, then you'll be complaining that that you're not getting the returns you expect on your investments. What a dilemma for you.
Long-term the policy is not particularly wise, but it's a bit more complicated than planting trees.
Unlike politicians, however, I didn't need to bother trying to woo them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtzgBJ13vro
Or to subtle...?
Moreover, it would be like rolling stones downhill. Once more of the public had got used to the idea of moving for work, the additional incentives required to get others to do so would be minor, since people would see the benefits for themselves.
- IDS is putting enormous effort into reforming the welfare system to help people out of a vicious cycle of worklessness
- Gove is doing more than any Education Secretary has done since 1945 to help the bottom 25% by income out of the 'soft bigotry of low expectations'
- Osborne has done more to get the low-paid out of the tax trap than any Labour Chancellor; it is shocking to think that Labour were taking £1,700 tax from someone earning just £10,000.
Possibly an Arsenal suporter...?
Because pensioners tend to vote Tory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxyOx3hbR5I
1. EU immigration is not the largest source of people coming in to this country
2. The EU allowed transitional controls as new member s joined and Labour chose not to exercise them.
Labour controlled nothing and made a difficult housing situation a crisis.
"A simple response:"
...and from me. I'd have returned your 'troll' message but I like Genesis
Thinking like yours is why Labour are rooked.
In all seriousness, what is the justification? When I left home to go to university my parents converted the top floor of our house into a flat that they could rent out. I did not get a job immediately on graduating so signed on and got some housing benefit too. That enabled me to stay in Birmingham (where I studied) and find a job, before coming down to London again a few months later. As I understand it, under these plans that would not be possible. Or am I missing something?
I think you have a point.
If I was David Cameron I'd be going into the next election promising that nobody who derives money directly or indirectly from the public purse can earn more than me. By law and on threat of prosecution.
Doctors, BBC 'talent', NHS chief executives, Civil servant mandarins, legal aid barristers. That means you, you greedy f8ckers.
Sorry, isn;t 140 grand enough to 'serve the public'?
"Thacher's Tories were emphatically not on the side of the privileged elite. You could not say that of the Tory party today."
I'd say if anything the other way round though both generations of Tories are viewed that way by the public. Because of our austere times this lot seem the most contemptuous of the poor but it's really splitting hairs
1. Reduce the defecit 2.pay down the national Debt 3.Create growth 4.Improve education and the NHS 5. Will he aim for a budget surplus? 6. Give us a say on our future in the EU
All we have heard from him is vacuous, opportunistic, empty bribes and jumping on every populist bandwagon that rides through town.
We don't want young boho types to have to say - get a bar job - to pay the bills whilst waiting for their dream job to come around...
Aunty has become decomatosed! More cocoa please...!
:awaits-fun-with-css-comments:
There are still over a million young people not in education, employment, or training.
Today it is still possible to leave school, sign on, find a flat, start claiming housing benefit and opt for a life on benefits.
It’s time for bold action here. We should ask, as we write our next manifesto, if that option should really exist at all. Instead we should give young people a clear, positive choice: Go to school. Go to college. Do an apprenticeship. Get a job. But just choose the dole? We’ve got to offer them something better than that.
And let no one paint ideas like this as callous.
Think about it: with your children, would you dream of just leaving them to their own devices, not getting a job, not training, nothing? No – you’d nag and push and guide and do anything to get them on their way… and so must we. So this is what we want to see: everyone under 25 – earning or learning.
Its not the government's money - its ours - and the voters don't want to pay for youngsters to have their own pad without working for it.
The housing policy of the Coalition government is a reversal of the decline in house building experienced under Brown/
The current building rate of private sector housing (at 30-35,000) per quarter is about 60% of peak under Labour at a time when demand is only 30-40% of peak. The incentives provided by the Help to Buy scheme should accelerate the recovery of private sector housing construction to pre crisis levels.
There is no evidence of a housing bubble being created, This has been reviewed by the Bank of England and both Carney and Paul Fisher (Exec Director for Markets) have stated that they see no cause for alarm at all from current lending and house price levels:
Bringing forward HTB2 was probably done more to avert stagnating lending and sales and potential price falls as it was to inflate house prices. If you believe there is a bubble then it is up to you to post supporting evidence in the form of lending figures or actual house price rises.
As to social housing, you are continuing to avoid answering my comments on the business model for rapid expansion as set out in my previous comment to you downthread. Ready yet to comment sensibly on the issue?
20 months to go.... such fun.
"So you think its ok for u-25s to turn down a job or education and sponge off the state ?"
You live in such a black and white world. I have a young relative who got a first in 'multi media' (an assortment of the arts) and naturally she wants a job in the media together with the other 25 pupils in her class but these jobs are like gold dust and only a couple in her year have so far got fixed up.
They could stack shelves in Tesco but I think it's reasonable for them to wait a decent length of time to see if openings show themselves or they all might end up wasting their skills.
SO is basically saying : "manual & service sector jobs were beneath me - I wanted sit around to hone my CV until I got my perfect graduate job - and the taxpayers should pay me to do so "
Except I did a manual job when I left university, but it was the mid-80s, Brum was not booming and it took a few weeks to find one. Apart from that it's a great point you make.
Obviously, you want to believe that everyone without a job is a bone idle scrounger. But that is not the reality. And the under 25s not only get a vote, their parents, grandparents and other family members do too. The Tories need to be very careful with this.
I think I'm right that he said - again - in his speech today that they were making progress on "paying down the deficit", which gives a seriously misleading impression compared to the reality.
You do not pay down a deficit - you reduce it. You pay down debt, but we are a long way from that.
One of mine qualified in Modern Languages in the summer and is back with us. She's applying for jobs but I suspect its rather more selective than it might be, because she can stay at home indefinitely.
No shelf stacking for her....!
So, no, the Tories are not doing exactly the same thing: not taking something away is not the same as introducing it.
Having said that, I think the bus pass in particular is pretty silly. It doesn't even benefit the most needy pensioners - those who benefit most are younger, fitter pensioners, not the very elderly stuck in their homes because they're not very mobile.
I've been working ever since. I don't think it's too much to ask for support for six weeks, given that your fantasy of being able to walk into a job instantly was far from the reality in 2001, let alone in 2013.
I don't see why the public needs its politicians to know inane facts like those. I've certainly not bought a value loaf of bread (not since I was a student anyway) and I couldn't give the price if someone asked me. The Waitrose bakery makes a really nice brown loaf though which is about £1.50 though, as I'm sure the PM will know.
Why does anyone think that Heseltine somehow speaks for the model Tory party? I bump into him occasionally in Waitrose; his wife more frequently - both simply lovely people. But as relevant as Tony Benn is to what the modern Tory party thinks and decides.
Bill Clinton was famously good at remembering the prices of household items, but that was because he was a naturally inquistive person. Nobody seriously thought it made him any better qualified to be POTUS. He was just like that.
New thread - Marf's and other reaction.
It's not pure PR, though. There's a case for PMs to do some normal things like travelling on the Tube or shopping at Aldi just to be aware what it's like, otherwise you get serious ignorance which can adversely affect policy. There's a difference between regularly experiencing humdrum life and at least sampling it.
Wee-Timmy: Seeking 'D'Oh'! Lewisham: Home of the only Ginger Baker*
* Some Scots' nuts were involved in this production....
I'm amused that my current favourite loaf of bread - from Lidl - is 9p more expensive than your Waitrose choice, though.
"There's a case for PMs to do some normal things like travelling on the Tube ..."
That would be interesting. How long do you think it would take Cammo to find the Buffet car?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rj1SFtxRTg
The drunken poseur tries so very hard to be whacky and zany it's like being forced to watch a constipated obese man trying to strain out an enormous crap, and failing every time.