politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the media narrative moving against UKIP the Tory prosp

JohnLilburne said:

SeanT said:

NOTHING irritates non-Londoners more than Londoners exulting in the rising value of their properties.

I suspect this underlies most anti-London feeling.

What irritates me most is Londoners complaining about their world-class public transport.

Couldn't agree more. I was at the glamourous National Rail Awards on Thursday where a very drunk attendee had found somone quite senior in TfL and was telling him exactly what she thought of the district line! She should try the Edinburgh trams!

SeanT said:

JohnLilburne said:

SeanT said:

NOTHING irritates non-Londoners more than Londoners exulting in the rising value of their properties.

I suspect this underlies most anti-London feeling.

What irritates me most is Londoners complaining about their world-class public transport.

I agree with that, Londoners are incredibly lucky with the Tube and bus network.

When I go to other cities, in Britain and abroad (especially in America and Asia) and they haven't got anything like the Tube, I realise what a boon it is. I didn't need a car for 20 years (til I had kids).

The Undergrounds in other cities are superior in many respects BUT are also about 100 years younger.
Bangkok's public transport, apart from the buses (ugh) is excellent, BUT has nowhere near the coverage London's Underground provides. London's buses, of course, are infinitely superior

JosiasJessop said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

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.

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.

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 ... ;-)

Two Temple Place in Westminster (only Victorian, I'm afraid, but quite unique - see my avatar as an example!). Sure we can sort something out - if not them we are teaming up with the Museums of Cambridge next spring to do a (free) public exhibition themed around Discovery & Inventions.

Balls contradicts Miliband as he backs third runway over HS2

Asked to choose between a third runway at Heathrow and High Speed 2, Balls replies: "third runway". Miliband would say the reverse.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/balls-contradicts-miliband-he-backs-third-runway-over-hs2

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

anotherDave said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's not the sort of thing you should admit on PB, but I have a passion for early bricks and concrete ... ;-)

St John's church in Newbury is supposed to have very good brickwork. (not very old though.)

http://www.astoft.co.uk/berks/newburystjohn.htm

I *hate* most modern brick churches. No character, no detail, no finesse. The God they venerate must be a rather boring, staid creature, sombre and joyless.

On the other hand, small can be beautiful:
A 1200-year chapel:
http://www.bradwellchapel.org/sphistory.htm

Or a Saxon timber church (from Sunil's neck o' the woods). Perhaps the oldest church in the world, and a wonderful place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensted_Church

I've been to Greensted. Charming and intriguing, but no way is it the oldest church in the world! There are churches dating back to the 3rd and 4th centuries in the Middle East/Armenia. Even Old St Pancras has a better claim.

Greensted is, I believe, the oldest WOODEN church in the world, though there are some boring historians who reckon it is a bit of a fake. Boo!

Taking Americans to Bradwell is a mind-blowing experience.

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

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.

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.

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 ... ;-)

Two Temple Place in Westminster (only Victorian, I'm afraid, but quite unique - see my avatar as an example!). Sure we can sort something out - if not them we are teaming up with the Museums of Cambridge next spring to do a (free) public exhibition themed around Discovery & Inventions.

Thanks, I'd love to take you up on that.

BTW - I went to your 'visit' page, clicked on the 'home' link on the banner, and get a 404. Just thought I'd mention. ;-)

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Alanbrooke said:

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.

And the £290K flat I bought 15 years ago allowed me to trade into something nicer that is worth a little more...

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, old, traditional churches often look fantastic.

Indeed. I'm only an amateur, but I love trying to read old churches, to work out the phasing of alterations. One of the joys of walking around the country was finding, nestled away in some forgotten corner, a wonderful church.

My Aussie ex was an atheist, and flat-refused to go into any churches with me until we visited York. I went walking for the day and, bored, she went into the Minster. She always visited churches with me after that. You don't have to be religious to take a joy in the objects that people created in His name.

Some new buildings can also be spectacular, but have to be very special to make up for the lack of the patina that age gives a structure.

It's why I'm a firm advocate of relaxing the planning laws to allow old buildings to be sympathetically altered in a modern way. Add the best of our world to those of the past.

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

anotherDave said:

JosiasJessop said:

It's not the sort of thing you should admit on PB, but I have a passion for early bricks and concrete ... ;-)

St John's church in Newbury is supposed to have very good brickwork. (not very old though.)

http://www.astoft.co.uk/berks/newburystjohn.htm

I *hate* most modern brick churches. No character, no detail, no finesse. The God they venerate must be a rather boring, staid creature, sombre and joyless.

On the other hand, small can be beautiful:
A 1200-year chapel:
http://www.bradwellchapel.org/sphistory.htm

Or a Saxon timber church (from Sunil's neck o' the woods). Perhaps the oldest church in the world, and a wonderful place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensted_Church

I've been to Greensted. Charming and intriguing, but no way is it the oldest church in the world! There are churches dating back to the 3rd and 4th centuries in the Middle East/Armenia. Even Old St Pancras has a better claim.

Greensted is, I believe, the oldest WOODEN church in the world, though there are some boring historians who reckon it is a bit of a fake. Boo!

You are, of course, right. I should have claimed 'wooden church'. It's still a spectacular place.

I thought Old St Pancras's claim was more the site of the church, rather than the substantial church structure itself?

St Wystan's church at Repton has an early 8th-century crypt. I used to go to services there as a kid, as well as learning to swim in the outdoor pool nearby ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Wystan's_Church,_Repton

Have you ever visited any of the chapel's carved from caves in Cappadocia? Quite spectacular, especially if you go out of season when they're covered in snow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Göreme,_Turkey

Sean, St Peters, Bradwell seems on the edge of the world. Allegedly St Cedd built it where he first landed, after he'd come to Essex from Northumbria.

Ed Miliband: I'm bringing socialism back to Britain

Ed Miliband has said he is "bringing back socialism" to Britain as he unveiled new plans to strengthen the minimum wage ahead of the Labour Party conference.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10325076/Ed-Miliband-Im-bringing-socialism-back-to-Britain.html

FrancisUrquhart said:

Wow I never realised the two Eds were this popular,

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

The rear of Two Eds are better than One gromit is a joy to behold, if your name isn't Edward Balls.

MarkSenior said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

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

"actively voted against"??

How many actively voted against LD then?

re Churches - passed St Thomas's church in Monmouth c. 6.00 pm yesterday. The sun lit up the open west door and highlighted the stained glass above the alter. It was a wonderful sight.

SeanT said:

JosiasJessop said:

You are, of course, right. I should have claimed 'wooden church'. It's still a spectacular place.

I thought Old St Pancras's claim was more the site of the church, rather than the substantial church structure itself?

St Wystan's church at Repton has an early 8th-century crypt. I used to go to services there as a kid, as well as learning to swim in the outdoor pool nearby ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Wystan's_Church,_Repton

Have you ever visited any of the chapel's carved from caves in Cappadocia? Quite spectacular, especially if you go out of season when they're covered in snow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Göreme,_Turkey

Yes, I have been to Repton! The crypt is wonderfully atmospheric. Not done Cappaddoccia yet, it's on the list.

Of course I have - *cough* - been to the oldest temple on earth, Gobekli Tepe. Indeed it bought me a flat.

Cornwall has some lovely churches: Zennor is great, with its moody clifftop location (the stone hedges nearby are said to be the oldest human artefacts still being used for their original purpose).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Senara's_Church,_Zennor

St Just in Roseland has a lovely name, and an absolutely exquisite location.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/St_Just_in_Roseland.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/551183205_3045dac421.jpg

I've been to an Easter Sunday service there. fab.

Been to Zennor on a couple of occasions, and even stayed in the backpacker's hostel there. A lovely place.

I think I've mentioned it before, but just down the inland path to St Ives from Zennor, I came across an old ruined chapel, all overgrown. It freaked me out when I tripped over an old gravestone.

https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/75286036

And I've been in St Just in Roseland church as well:
http://www.britishwalks.org/walks/2003/340.php

@Francisurquhart

Ed Balls' visage appears about 3 inches below Gromit's upturned tail.

Has anyone else spotted the little imp who appears about 1.08 into BBC News clip of Ed M in Brighton?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24184473

TGOHF said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Ed Miliband: I'm bringing socialism back to Britain

Ed Miliband has said he is "bringing back socialism" to Britain as he unveiled new plans to strengthen the minimum wage ahead of the Labour Party conference.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10325076/Ed-Miliband-Im-bringing-socialism-back-to-Britain.html

CCHQ must be pleased with Agent Milibands work so far...

Perhaps Miliband meant Operation Socialist:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/20/gchq_belgacom_hack_link/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/british-spy-agency-gchq-hacked-belgian-telecoms-firm-a-923406.html

Just got back from the UKIP conference (as a non-partisan stallholder), chatted to a lot of delegates. Trying to give a fair impression:

- Demography wasn't as lopsided as one might expect. Plenty of women, some young people, some black people. pensioners group slightly above average, young middle age below average.
- Most people perfectly pleasant (including those who already knew my political background, or asked, and including JackW (who looks very well)). No different to any other conference in that way.
- Slightly more nutty cases than average - e.g. a chap who was haranguing the Campaign for an English Parliament lady on the "fact" that Britain had had a series of National Socialist governments because they supported the National health service: "Um, I'm not sure I'd go that far", she murmured politely. And a couple of other obsessives who you wouldn't want to share a long train journey with.
- But very few obviously weird people overall. Rather, a predominance of wistful nostalgia - people saying yes, they weren't against progress, but weren't we giving up too much of our old values? Not very many people I'd call seriously political in the hardcore sense of years of campaigning on this and that, and only a tiny number of the slick organiser type who are quite visible at the other conferences. A few were intensely into anti-EU sentiments, others just vaguely unhappy with how things were going. Lots of support for animal protection.
- Delegates were disconcerted by the Bloom business, but hoping for the best. Mixed feelings on wehther he should have been stamped on or ignored; nobody actually defended him.

Overall, confirmed my feeling that I disagree with UKIP on almost everything, but I don't see any reason to detest them as I detest the BNP. The people I met generally meant well, and there are worse things than that.

TwistedFireStopper said:

I've just been reading the various articles on the McBride book. It looks to me that it won't be much of a game changer, as it doesn't tell us much that we didn't know or suspect already. Blair and Brown were too busy fighting to pay much attention to the running of the country and Brown was positively barmy.
Unless the Labour Eds get implemented a bit more, I think they'll ride it out, even though Ed Balls really is a 'horrible b'stard.
Still, it's fun to read, even though it's slightly scary that someone as unsuited to being PM as Gordon Brown, actually got the job.

This didn't make a jot of difference to Ed Balls position either..he just rides it out, the same with this "Mr McBride" business.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8566987/Labour-coup-The-Ed-Balls-files-database.html

UKIP is the political equivalent of ITV3.

@MrTFS –“it doesn't tell us much that we didn't know or suspect already. Blair and Brown were too busy fighting to pay much attention to the running of the country and Brown was positively barmy.”

Two points. Political nerds may be familiar with the plots and intrigues that took place within Downing St – However, it will have come as a bit of a surprise for the vast majority I suspect – and it’s also amusing for the nerds to see speculation, finally confirmed and in print.

JosiasJessop said:

Thanks, I'd love to take you up on that.

BTW - I went to your 'visit' page, clicked on the 'home' link on the banner, and get a 404. Just thought I'd mention. ;-)

Sure - send me a PM and am sure we can figure out something. I'm not there much myself (no one lives there any more) but sure that one of the team from the foundation can show you around. Worst case we'll let you know when the next Friends tour is, although they may hit you up for £10...

surbiton said:

Charles said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Alanbrooke said:

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.

And the £290K flat I bought 15 years ago allowed me to trade into something nicer that is worth a little more...

And, the house I bought in 1990 for £135k, with 1.5 years mortgage to pay is worth....

The wealthy foreigners have done me good ! The shade of money they have brought in is of dubious quality sometimes. Terrible for many, particularly first time buyers, I do accept.

Recently, I have ventured into the commercial property market in West London. There you will come across a big surprise comparing 1989/90 to now.

We prefer SW London for commercial property ;-)

But yes: for those who bought early they have gained a lot from the inflow of foreign money and lower interest rates. I'm better placed than most of my generation (I bought in my early 20s thanks to a Help to Buy scheme from my Dad - he underwrote the loan, but it didn't cost him a penny) but there is no way we could afford a house in the area we live in now

Andy_JS said:

Clive Palmer leads in Fairfax by 36 votes:

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-160.htm

Holy closeness but I'm more surprised that the Aussie Labor Party has won the backing of Batman:

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-199.htm

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

Thanks, I'd love to take you up on that.

BTW - I went to your 'visit' page, clicked on the 'home' link on the banner, and get a 404. Just thought I'd mention. ;-)

Sure - send me a PM and am sure we can figure out something. I'm not there much myself (no one lives there any more) but sure that one of the team from the foundation can show you around. Worst case we'll let you know when the next Friends tour is, although they may hit you up for £10...

Have done, thanks.

surbiton said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10318072/Ed-Miliband-is-proving-himself-to-be-a-brave-and-adroit-leader.html

"Remember this: had Mr Cameron got his way, Tomahawk missiles were due to hit Damascus within 48 hours of that Commons vote. Ed Miliband’s level-headed demand for evidence, and respect for due process in the shape of the United Nations, bought the world time to think again. As a result, Assad has agreed to destroy his chemical weapons peacefully, thus creating the space for possible talks in Geneva that (let us pray) may bring an end to the conflict. "

I couldn't say I am an admirer of Peter Oborne but he puts it straight here. whether you like it or not.

This is complete counterfactual nonsense, Surby.

The role of the UK was to support the US apply the maximum pressure on Russia, Syria and Iran in order to secure a negotiated resolution of the CW issue through the UNSC.

This goal, which at the moment looks likely to be achieved, was only secured through the US's threat of military intervention being perceived as credible. And to be credible you have to have the political will and military capability to participate in military action as a last resort.

Obama was never going to launch a strike on Syria prior to or during the G20 meeting in St Petersburg, whatever the outcome of the UK Parliamentary vote on Syria.

What Miliband did by splitting the HoC vote was to undermine the UK's diplomatic role in the eyes of Russia, Syria and Iran and in the international community. It also weakened, but not fatally, the position of the US, our country's closest international ally, at a critical point in the negotiations.

It was a dishonourable and unstatesmanlike action which subverted the country's foreign policy interests purely for domestic party political gain.

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

NOTHING irritates non-Londoners more than Londoners exulting in the rising value of their properties.

I suspect this underlies most anti-London feeling.

How do you get your hands on that money though Sean ?

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.

SeanT said:

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.

Each to their own of course.

I was joking. You were banging on about how you like to wind up Londoners, I responded with a jibe/fact that, I know for sure, winds up non-Londoners. As your reply attests.

Anyway I have property-envy of my own. I want a two bed in this same area. Cannot possibly afford it.

On the contrary Sean you didn't wind me up at all.

But if it gives you pleasure to believe so then believe on.

But my point about the irrelevance of price rises if you want to stay in the same area seems to have hit home. In fact for those who want to 'trade up', such as yourself, then rising house prices is a bad thing. That two bed flat would have been an extra £50K more than youre one bed flat two years ago, now its an extra £100K.

And at the end of the day I've still got the nice detached house and you've still got the one bed flat.

But curious you felt the need to stress that your comment was a joke - are you sure I didn't wind you up Sean ;-)

I flagged up my suspicion recently that OGH maths in adding the 'rock bottom' Lab vote of 2010 + the red LibDems = 35% for Ed at the next election...

saying I believed that you couldn't assume those who voted Lab in 2010 would all do so again, perhaps 'fear of nurse for something worse' played a part in that vote...

I'd suggest this research might support my view?

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/09/21/exclusive-uncut-poll-over-1-in-4-2010-lab-voters-have-been-lost-here’s-what-can-be-done-to-win-them-back/#more-17194

As it happens, I have a London property decision to make. Do I sell one of my flats or rent it out for a year or two?

I don't like the hassle of being a landlord, but the market seems to be going only one way for the next year.

FWIW, I have always thought that UKIP will come 3rd in 2014. The fact that they came 2nd in 2009 is misleading, because the Labour vote was unusually low in unusual circumstances. The percentage vote (17%) is a more realistic indicator than the position (2nd).

another_richard said:

Rising London property prices should also be a concern to anyone who values the future wellbeing of the City.

Higher property prices means higher costs for the business located there, not just directly but also through having to pay their employees extra so that they can afford to live within commuting distance. Not to mention having their employees gowing increasing complacent because their flats are increasing in value.

Inevitably this brings forward the day when City business relocates to cheaper and hungrier rivals.

Had to prune back all comment from my previous post to get the table in within the character limit.

Even though London prices have increased over the last year by 6.9% and 22% since the beginning of the coalition, their starting point was lower.

With the ONS index based at 100 in February 2002, London prices had grown by 60% in the last eight years of the noughties compared with 105% in Wales and 120% in Scotland and 75% in England (including London so distorted down).

What has happened over the past three years in may just be London catching up with the rest of the country. I realise there are other arguments for London prices rising - like cash purchases of prime London properties by foreign nationals - but the ONS index is 'mix adjusted'. This means that it is based on a representative basket of property types and therefore is less sensitive to prime property rising at a faster rate than the rest.

Sorry to post again. Have corrected one line in table: average annual growth rates in first two years of the Coalition government.

================================================================
ONS HPI (07/13)          UK  London England Wales Scotland N.I. 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labour     1997 Q2     61.2   52.8   59.7   65.6   82.4   63.5  
Index      2002 Feb   100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  100.0  
           2007 Q3    183.6  170.2  178.5  216.9  222.5  278.6  
Peak       2007 Oct   184.4  171.0  179.2  221.6  225.2  276.7  
Coalition  2010 Q2    175.5  160.2  171.5  205.6  219.2  179.6  
           2012 Q2    175.7  182.8  172.7  198.0  213.3  141.3  
Last Qtr.  2013 Q2    180.8  195.4  177.9  205.4  212.3  141.7  
----------------------------------------------------------------
LABOUR                   UK  London England Wales Scotland N.I. 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Growth                                                    
   1997 Q1 - 2010 Q2  186.8% 203.4% 187.3% 213.4% 166.0% 182.8% 
Average Annual Growth                                           
   1997 Q1 - 2010 Q2    8.5%  10.0%   8.5%   8.9%   7.6%   6.3% 
- Pre peak                                                      
   1997 Q1 - 2007 Q3   11.0%  11.8%  11.0%  12.1%   9.9%  15.1% 
- Post peak                                                     
   2007 Q3 - 2010 Q2   (1.6%) (2.2%) (1.4%) (1.9%) (0.5%)(14.8%)
----------------------------------------------------------------
COALITION                UK  London England Wales Scotland N.I. 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Growth                                                    
   2010 Q2 - 2013 Q2    3.0%  22.0%   3.7%  (0.1%) (3.1%)(21.1%)
Average Annual Growth                                           
   2010 Q2 - 2013 Q2    1.0%   6.8%   1.2%  (0.0%) (1.1%) (7.6%)
- First 2 Years                                                 
   2010 Q2 - 2013 Q2    0.1%   6.8%   0.3%  (1.9%) (1.4%)(11.3%)
- Last Year                                                     
   2012 Q2 - 2013 Q2    2.9%   6.9%   3.0%   3.7%  (0.5%)  0.3% 
================================================================

The table now "makes sense"!

tim said:

Rexel56 said:

Can anyone explain to me in simple terms how the child benefit changes lead to 70% marginal rates of taxation?

You mean you don't know yet you pronounced Bobajobs comment the most ridiculous you'd ever read?

Well I can see that if you have several kids and you are paying child care and claiming associated tax credits then an effective 70% marginal rate (and higher) is achieved. It's the idea that this will cause Londoners to stop their career progression when earning £50k rather than push on and get beyond the high marginal rates that makes me laugh. Having said all that, I take the point that withdrawing tax credit and child benefit in the same earnings band is dumb. The thresholds for the former should be much lower.

Not seen anyone comment on the marginal rates caused by the student loan arrangements. With two kids at Uni, if we were to increase our earnings from the £22k we have to about £40k we as a family would lose nearly £7k in maintenance grants. On top of PAYE and NI that gives a marginal rate of about 50%. No doubt loss of tax credits would make it worse if we had younger kids too.

"The spectre of the far Left":

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2013/09/german-election-diary-5

DavidL said:

NickPalmer said:

Just got back from the UKIP conference (as a non-partisan stallholder), chatted to a lot of delegates. Trying to give a fair impression:

- Demography wasn't as lopsided as one might expect. Plenty of women, some young people, some black people. pensioners group slightly above average, young middle age below average.
- Most people perfectly pleasant (including those who already knew my political background, or asked, and including JackW (who looks very well)). No different to any other conference in that way.
- Slightly more nutty cases than average - e.g. a chap who was haranguing the Campaign for an English Parliament lady on the "fact" that Britain had had a series of National Socialist governments because they supported the National health service: "Um, I'm not sure I'd go that far", she murmured politely. And a couple of other obsessives who you wouldn't want to share a long train journey with.
- But very few obviously weird people overall. Rather, a predominance of wistful nostalgia - people saying yes, they weren't against progress, but weren't we giving up too much of our old values? Not very many people I'd call seriously political in the hardcore sense of years of campaigning on this and that, and only a tiny number of the slick organiser type who are quite visible at the other conferences. A few were intensely into anti-EU sentiments, others just vaguely unhappy with how things were going. Lots of support for animal protection.
- Delegates were disconcerted by the Bloom business, but hoping for the best. Mixed feelings on wehther he should have been stamped on or ignored; nobody actually defended him.

Overall, confirmed my feeling that I disagree with UKIP on almost everything, but I don't see any reason to detest them as I detest the BNP. The people I met generally meant well, and there are worse things than that.

Typically excellent post Nick. The natural UKIP supporter is a casualty of modernity who no longer feels comfortable in their own country.

The interesting thing is most of their supporters and activists are not elderly people born in the 1920s and 30s. They're mostly people who didn't have any problem with the changes Britain went through in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

NickPalmer said:

Just got back from the UKIP conference (as a non-partisan stallholder), chatted to a lot of delegates. Trying to give a fair impression:

- Demography wasn't as lopsided as one might expect. Plenty of women, some young people, some black people. pensioners group slightly above average, young middle age below average.
- Most people perfectly pleasant (including those who already knew my political background, or asked, and including JackW (who looks very well)). No different to any other conference in that way.
- Slightly more nutty cases than average - e.g. a chap who was haranguing the Campaign for an English Parliament lady on the "fact" that Britain had had a series of National Socialist governments because they supported the National health service: "Um, I'm not sure I'd go that far", she murmured politely. And a couple of other obsessives who you wouldn't want to share a long train journey with.
- But very few obviously weird people overall. Rather, a predominance of wistful nostalgia - people saying yes, they weren't against progress, but weren't we giving up too much of our old values? Not very many people I'd call seriously political in the hardcore sense of years of campaigning on this and that, and only a tiny number of the slick organiser type who are quite visible at the other conferences. A few were intensely into anti-EU sentiments, others just vaguely unhappy with how things were going. Lots of support for animal protection.
- Delegates were disconcerted by the Bloom business, but hoping for the best. Mixed feelings on wehther he should have been stamped on or ignored; nobody actually defended him.

Overall, confirmed my feeling that I disagree with UKIP on almost everything, but I don't see any reason to detest them as I detest the BNP. The people I met generally meant well, and there are worse things than that.

And there would have been dispropotionate number who were on PTAs, were willing to clear footpaths or pick up litter. Not necessarily compared with other parties, but compared with the general population.

Conference attendees should be given more respect than they usually receive----for sure, they all care.

Mrs Thatcher "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money"

Telegraph - Ed Miliband: I'm bringing socialism back to Britain

tim said:

another_richard said:

Rising London property prices should also be a concern to anyone who values the future wellbeing of the City.

Higher property prices means higher costs for the business located there, not just directly but also through having to pay their employees extra so that they can afford to live within commuting distance. Not to mention having their employees gowing increasing complacent because their flats are increasing in value.

Inevitably this brings forward the day when City business relocates to cheaper and hungrier rivals.

But the state subsidises all this through housing benefit otherwise there wouldn't be a workforce.
As we've seen on this thread the people who think they are benefiting like Sean will always be trumped by the old money like Charles who's dads pony up as soon as they come down from Oxbridge.
And hot money from around the world gets a return of course knowing that politicians will never let the house of cards collapse

My Dad didn't pony up anything. He used a little bit of theoretical financing capacity in underwriting a loan (with a third party building society). Helpful, but essentially cost free (his core banking relationship is quite flexible on lending ratios for him). It just made Portman feel happier.