Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is brilliant and in the current iTunes charts as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/liar-liar-captain-ska_uk_592c2152e4b0065b20b77e9b?utm_hp_ref=uk

Krugman may have applauded the banking bailout but another Nobel Economics prize winner, Stiglitz, said the govt. should have let the bankrupt banks go bankrupt like any other private business would have been.

This at least would have saved the country many billions of £ of bailout cash, though it might have caused other problems.

To be fair, I do believe that government support of private industry can be useful, even essential depending on circumstances, for example to preserve vital national interests and infrastructure. It's questionable whether banking falls into one of these categories.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Krugman may have applauded the banking bailout but another Nobel Economics prize winner, Stiglitz, said the govt. should have let the bankrupt banks go bankrupt like any other private business would have been.

This at least would have saved the country many billions of £ of bailout cash, though it might have caused other problems.

To be fair, I do believe that government support of private industry can be useful, even essential depending on circumstances, for example to preserve vital national interests and infrastructure. It's questionable whether banking falls into one of these categories.

And that's the problem. Whichever way Blair/Brown had gone would likely have been criticised because both were likely to lead to years of recession. So when some people are overly critical of Brown/Blair it shows a lack of understanding that whatever route had been taken would likely lead to problems of one form or another and it is questionable whether any politician would have done anything that would not have damned them in the eyes of the public.

Personally I generally fall on the side of letting the banks go bust. Yes it would be painful but just like evolution sometimes you need a catastrophic event to remove the big hulking beasts to allow newer more flexible species to evolve and develop.

 Whirlwind wrote:
Yes the wealthy (i.e. £30K + group would have to pay more tax) but is that necessarily a bad thing?)

I would like to know how earning £30k makes you 'wealthy'.

 Whirlwind wrote:

So when some people are overly critical of Brown/Blair it shows a lack of understanding that whatever route had been taken would likely lead to problems of one form or another and it is questionable whether any politician would have done anything that would not have damned them in the eyes of the public

I'm very critical of them, but I base that off of factors other than the crash.

In my experience the definition of 'wealthy' in terms of who should pay more tax is normally along the lines of "£1 more than I earn "

 IGtR= wrote:
In my experience the definition of 'wealthy' in terms of who should pay more tax is normally along the lines of "£1 more than I earn "

I pay ernough road tax, insurance, fuel taxes. And many others.

Umm id rather keep my money thankyou very much.

I was paying 20% of my income in taxes while I was employed. And was before national insurance (and road tax and v.a.t and so on and so forth). If it's good enough for me it's good enough for anyone. Somebody earning 150,000 would still take home 120,000 after 20% tax. They shouldn't dare complain about that.

And now that I'm self employed I'll endeavour to pay my fair share.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Krugman may have applauded the banking bailout but another Nobel Economics prize winner, Stiglitz, said the govt. should have let the bankrupt banks go bankrupt like any other private business would have been.

This at least would have saved the country many billions of £ of bailout cash, though it might have caused other problems.

To be fair, I do believe that government support of private industry can be useful, even essential depending on circumstances, for example to preserve vital national interests and infrastructure. It's questionable whether banking falls into one of these categories.

And that's the problem. Whichever way Blair/Brown had gone would likely have been criticised because both were likely to lead to years of recession. So when some people are overly critical of Brown/Blair it shows a lack of understanding that whatever route had been taken would likely lead to problems of one form or another and it is questionable whether any politician would have done anything that would not have damned them in the eyes of the public.

Personally I generally fall on the side of letting the banks go bust. Yes it would be painful but just like evolution sometimes you need a catastrophic event to remove the big hulking beasts to allow newer more flexible species to evolve and develop.

On paper its wonderfully painful. In the wild I wonder how many would actually be happy with such an event taking place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I was paying 20% of my income in taxes while I was employed. And was before national insurance (and road tax and v.a.t and so on and so forth). If it's good enough for me it's good enough for anyone. Somebody earning 150,000 would still take home 120,000 after 20% tax. They shouldn't dare complain about that.

And now that I'm self employed I'll endeavour to pay my fair share.

Self Employed too. I'll pay my fair share. I'll also make sure that what I take full advantage of breaks, exceptions and allowances.

Anybody been watching the Channel 4 leader's debate?

It was an eye opener to say the least.

It's been said before, but I know now why they wanted to keep May away from the public: she's like a rabbit in the headlights

Which begs the question: why the dakka is she involved in politics, given that interaction with the voting public is part of the job description?

Corbyn did himself no harm, but May?

Strong and stable really is a bad joke. She looks very uncomfortable and ill at ease in situations which should be meat and drink to any half decent politician.

I think the problem stems from the fact that there was no Tory leadership contest. A proper, no holds barred, campaign, might have seen her flaws spotted sooner.

To sum up, we have a Prime Minister who is scared of the public, a complete moron for a foreign secretary, and Jeremy Hunt responsible for this nation's health service...and a Marxist waiting in the wings to look after the nation's money should Labour triumph...

How the feth did it come to this?

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
Yes the wealthy (i.e. £30K + group would have to pay more tax) but is that necessarily a bad thing?)

I would like to know how earning £30k makes you 'wealthy'.

Because statistically speaking someone earning above £30k is in the top 35-30% of earners in the country. The percentiles are staggeringly skewed when you get above this amount. Compare to this to someone who is in the bottom 1% (less than about £10.5k). 40% of the population (approx.) needs to work for two years before they earn what someone on £30k (approx.) earns in one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

So when some people are overly critical of Brown/Blair it shows a lack of understanding that whatever route had been taken would likely lead to problems of one form or another and it is questionable whether any politician would have done anything that would not have damned them in the eyes of the public

I'm very critical of them, but I base that off of factors other than the crash.

This time Ketata I wasn't referencing you you'll be glad to know - I do appreciate you have other issues with their tenure!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Anybody been watching the Channel 4 leader's debate?

It was an eye opener to say the least.

It's been said before, but I know now why they wanted to keep May away from the public: she's like a rabbit in the headlights

Which begs the question: why the dakka is she involved in politics, given that interaction with the voting public is part of the job description?

Corbyn did himself no harm, but May?

Strong and stable really is a bad joke. She looks very uncomfortable and ill at ease in situations which should be meat and drink to any half decent politician.

I think the problem stems from the fact that there was no Tory leadership contest. A proper, no holds barred, campaign, might have seen her flaws spotted sooner.

To sum up, we have a Prime Minister who is scared of the public, a complete moron for a foreign secretary, and Jeremy Hunt responsible for this nation's health service...and a Marxist waiting in the wings to look after the nation's money should Labour triumph...

How the feth did it come to this?

Correction. There was a leadership contest properly.
It was genuine.

Only her opposite was caught lieing and had to rightfully give up her campaign.
They chose two candidates, they did start one only well.

May just won it sooner than thought.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Anybody been watching the Channel 4 leader's debate?

It was an eye opener to say the least.

It's been said before, but I know now why they wanted to keep May away from the public: she's like a rabbit in the headlights

Which begs the question: why the dakka is she involved in politics, given that interaction with the voting public is part of the job description?

Corbyn did himself no harm, but May?

Strong and stable really is a bad joke. She looks very uncomfortable and ill at ease in situations which should be meat and drink to any half decent politician.

I think the problem stems from the fact that there was no Tory leadership contest. A proper, no holds barred, campaign, might have seen her flaws spotted sooner.

To sum up, we have a Prime Minister who is scared of the public, a complete moron for a foreign secretary, and Jeremy Hunt responsible for this nation's health service...and a Marxist waiting in the wings to look after the nation's money should Labour triumph...

How the feth did it come to this?

Yeah May looked really uncomfortable especially at the beginning until she managed to get into the nonsense mantra she spouts without substance. She did give some very angry stares at members of the public who asked 'awkward' questions. The public question on the NHS really was a shocker - basically yes we are going to cut the NHS further because we haven't got the economy (allegedly).

Corbyn did alright. His response to the small business (rich by the seems of things given his favouring of zero hours contracts and sends his children to private schools) member of the public question was particularly impressive and passionate. He actually made me believe that he believed in what he was saying and it wasn't party propaganda.

In the end most disappointing person was Paxman though. He jumped all over Corbyn and never really let him finish answering the question, stopped him at times after the first sentence especially at the beginning. With May he was a lot more laid back and just let waffle on and only then just reiterated the same question (though he kept doing that with Corbyn as well). It gave the impression that he was much more favourable to May because he didn't try and talk all over her. Also most of his questions were just dumb. Andrew Neil would have been much better host and asking more pointed questions. The public asked better questions than Paxman.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Anybody been watching the Channel 4 leader's debate?

It was an eye opener to say the least.

It's been said before, but I know now why they wanted to keep May away from the public: she's like a rabbit in the headlights

Which begs the question: why the dakka is she involved in politics, given that interaction with the voting public is part of the job description?

Corbyn did himself no harm, but May?

Strong and stable really is a bad joke. She looks very uncomfortable and ill at ease in situations which should be meat and drink to any half decent politician.

I think the problem stems from the fact that there was no Tory leadership contest. A proper, no holds barred, campaign, might have seen her flaws spotted sooner.

To sum up, we have a Prime Minister who is scared of the public, a complete moron for a foreign secretary, and Jeremy Hunt responsible for this nation's health service...and a Marxist waiting in the wings to look after the nation's money should Labour triumph...

How the feth did it come to this?

Correction. There was a leadership contest properly.
It was genuine.

Only her opposite was caught lieing and had to rightfully give up her campaign.
They chose two candidates, they did start one only well.

May just won it sooner than thought.

It was a sham of a leadership contest. One of the worst I've ever seen. Tory grassroots didn't even get a chance to cast a vote for anybody.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Anybody been watching the Channel 4 leader's debate?

It was an eye opener to say the least.

It's been said before, but I know now why they wanted to keep May away from the public: she's like a rabbit in the headlights

Which begs the question: why the dakka is she involved in politics, given that interaction with the voting public is part of the job description?

Corbyn did himself no harm, but May?

Strong and stable really is a bad joke. She looks very uncomfortable and ill at ease in situations which should be meat and drink to any half decent politician.

I think the problem stems from the fact that there was no Tory leadership contest. A proper, no holds barred, campaign, might have seen her flaws spotted sooner.

To sum up, we have a Prime Minister who is scared of the public, a complete moron for a foreign secretary, and Jeremy Hunt responsible for this nation's health service...and a Marxist waiting in the wings to look after the nation's money should Labour triumph...

How the feth did it come to this?

Yeah May looked really uncomfortable especially at the beginning until she managed to get into the nonsense mantra she spouts without substance. She did give some very angry stares at members of the public who asked 'awkward' questions. The public question on the NHS really was a shocker - basically yes we are going to cut the NHS further because we haven't got the economy (allegedly).

Corbyn did alright. His response to the small business (rich by the seems of things given his favouring of zero hours contracts and sends his children to private schools) member of the public question was particularly impressive and passionate. He actually made me believe that he believed in what he was saying and it wasn't party propaganda.

In the end most disappointing person was Paxman though. He jumped all over Corbyn and never really let him finish answering the question, stopped him at times after the first sentence especially at the beginning. With May he was a lot more laid back and just let waffle on and only then just reiterated the same question (though he kept doing that with Corbyn as well). It gave the impression that he was much more favourable to May because he didn't try and talk all over her. Also most of his questions were just dumb. Andrew Neil would have been much better host and asking more pointed questions. The public asked better questions than Paxman.

Yeah, Paxman had a shocker - he's not the Paxman of old. Thing is, though, even with soft soap questions, May was still struggling, which speaks volumes.

I still think Middle England will hold its nose and vote in May, but talk of a landslide is dead and buried.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
Yes the wealthy (i.e. £30K + group would have to pay more tax) but is that necessarily a bad thing?)

I would like to know how earning £30k makes you 'wealthy'.

Because statistically speaking someone earning above £30k is in the top 35-30% of earners in the country. The percentiles are staggeringly skewed when you get above this amount. Compare to this to someone who is in the bottom 1% (less than about £10.5k). 40% of the population (approx.) needs to work for two years before they earn what someone on £30k (approx.) earns in one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

So when some people are overly critical of Brown/Blair it shows a lack of understanding that whatever route had been taken would likely lead to problems of one form or another and it is questionable whether any politician would have done anything that would not have damned them in the eyes of the public

I'm very critical of them, but I base that off of factors other than the crash.

This time Ketata I wasn't referencing you you'll be glad to know - I do appreciate you have other issues with their tenure!

Sure, but I sure as heck wasn't wealthy when I was earning above £30k. I would argue that it doesn't even scrape whatever is considered to be middle class (it really doesnt). Ask the average earner at that level and they have some security, but they have the same financial worries as anyone below them on the wage scale.

30k would be comfortable if you lived like you earned half of that.

 Ketara wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

The fact that they only tried cuts? They also cut taxes,

https://fullfact.org/economy/have-conservatives-brought-70-billion-worth-tax-cuts/

Almost guaranteeing that the defect will continue to rise. What exactly are they trying to do here? Because to many it would seem they are robbing the poor, to feed the rich.
If they really wanted to bring down the debt, they certainly could have done, but their ideology of tax cuts scuppered any chance.

That was an interesting link. But....did you read it? Because it actually contradicts the figure. It points out that whilst the figures are technically accurate, they omit a lot of other very relevant information. So for example:-

As an illustration, if you add up the estimated cost in 2021/22 of every cut to the main and small profits corporation tax rates since 2010, as Labour does, you get a £13 billion forfeit that year.

If you add in all the other changes to corporation tax you get a much smaller revenue reduction of around £0.6 billion.

So......yeah. With that in mind, are you now claiming that the national operating deficit would have been eliminated if they hadn't made those tax changes? Even given that your own link points out that the figures for that claim are misleading? I'll be honest, I'm having trouble nailing down precisely what your counterargument is here that means slamming the Tories over the fact the national debt increasing is justified. It seems to keep changing.

I'm not claiming the defect would have been eliminated, simply that the conservatives don't appear to be attempting to reduce the debt in any meaningful way apart from in ideologically driven cuts. They haven't utilised tax rises to tackle the defecit, which that link shows, and in fact have slightly lowered taxes. It strikes me that having high debt, whilst doing nothing to actually tackle it plays into their ideology about cutting welfare and state controlled infrastructure.
If they really wanted to do something about the debt, they could have done, but they haven't and it plays to their audience, because all we hear is how we can't afford anything, as if the UK is somehow broke.

 Ketara wrote:

They've brought expenditure down, but also reduced the ability to pay of the outstanding debt because they have willingly reduced the government's income. Most conservative friends and colleagues I know argue that handling the debt and fiscal responsibility is why they vote conservative.

I suppose you have to look at these things in comparison to the alternatives. The Tories may well note be amazing at economics, but if the opposition are terrible (and looking at New Labour and Harold Wilson before them, there seems to be quite some justification for that), then 'mediocre' is still better than 'bad'.

It depends on whether you believe the economy is the only reason to vote, besides, there is a myth that surround Labour that it is more fiscally profligate than the conservatives, and that is not true,

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/taq30tk04ljnvpyfos059pp0w7gnpe

 Ketara wrote:

There's no fake rocks in my pile. The conservatives have failed on the economy,

Did they? Inflation is under control. Interest rates aren't exactly skyrocketing.The pound is still quite valuable on the international exchange, businesses are still opening, growth is happening. Far as I can see, looking out the window, the economy is holding together reasonably well at the moment. Considering we're not even in recession, precisely what measure are you using to declare their 'failure'? Is there some metric? How much better does the economy need to be doing to not count as a 'failure' to you?

 Yodhrin wrote:
That is important. That is the narrative that needs to be front and centre: if you vote Tory, you are an accessory to murder.

Continue making remarks like that and I'll vote Tory just to spite you.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
That is important. That is the narrative that needs to be front and centre: if you vote Tory, you are an accessory to murder.

Continue making remarks like that and I'll vote Tory just to spite you.

<Edgelord.gif>

How's about we all chill a bit? Corbyn isn't gonna usher in a the Glorious Communist Republic of Britain, and May isn't gonna turn all the poor into Soylent Green.

Chill? You're telling me to chill? I'm not the person in this thread ranting that anyone who dares to vote for a party that I dislike are murderers.

If you voted labour after 2003 then you supported the iraq war and all the death and destruction and instability it caused. See how stupid statements like that become?

 feeder wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
That is important. That is the narrative that needs to be front and centre: if you vote Tory, you are an accessory to murder.

Continue making remarks like that and I'll vote Tory just to spite you.

<Edgelord.gif>

How's about we all chill a bit? Corbyn isn't gonna usher in a the Glorious Communist Republic of Britain, and May isn't gonna turn all the poor into Soylent Green.

But the daily mail told me... Corbyn is communism reborn and will usher in a age where we unite with thr great communist nation North Korea.

 r_squared wrote:

I'm not claiming the defect would have been eliminated, simply that the conservatives don't appear to be attempting to reduce the debt in any meaningful way apart from in ideologically driven cuts. They haven't utilised tax rises to tackle the defecit, which that link shows, and in fact have slightly lowered taxes. It strikes me that having high debt, whilst doing nothing to actually tackle it plays into their ideology about cutting welfare and state controlled infrastructure.

So to clarify, your problem isn't that the Tories have accumulated debt? It's that they've accumulated debt whilst cutting the areas you disagree with and not taxing the areas you think should be taxed?

See, I have no issue with that if it is the case, because that's ultimately an opinion, which is perfectly valid to have. But frankly, it's an opinion to which the national debt level itself is almost irrelevant, it's more a protestation at general Tory fiscal policy than any sort of commentary on the operational deficit/national debt.

If everyone who keeps saying 'National debt has continued to accumulate under the Tories', actually said, 'The Tories aren't reducing the operational deficit by fiscal measures I approve of', I'd quite happily pass over it. It's perfectly possible to disagree on what should be cut to pay for the deficit.

My own personal opinion is that the cuts which could be made and taxes levied which would have been politically palatable to the majority are really quite far and few between, would never have accumulated even close to enough dosh to cover the operational deficit, and we'd have ended up here regardless. But that's just my opinion at the end of the day, I haven't costed it, I'm just working off what I know of economics. I could be completely wrong. Conversely, everyone who says the opposite could be wrong. C'est la vie.

It depends on whether you believe the economy is the only reason to vote, besides, there is a myth that surround Labour that it is more fiscally profligate than the conservatives, and that is not true,

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/taq30tk04ljnvpyfos059pp0w7gnpe

With all due respect, the author looks to be a Labour stooge who's spent the last few months campaigning for them online. A brief scan through that link showed it to have the structural composition of a very holey Swiss cheese.

For example, he jumps straight off comparing the average deficit/surplus to proudly announce that Labour has had on average a higher surplus in any given year than a Tory institution. But anyone with half an ounce of contextual economic knowledge is fully aware that that's because the Tories handed Blair a massive smegging surplus with an economy primed for excellent growth the minute he came into power. All of Thatcher's cuts and economic repositioning drove the New Labour boom of 1997-2002. Brown was rolling in surplus tax receipts before he'd learnt what room his office was in at the Treasury. (I exaggerate slightly, but not as much as you'd think)

But naturally, the author doesn't mention that bit, because it might detract from his (slightly poor) rhetoric.

He also very conveniently moves his dates around depending on the data he's examining. For example, he starts assessing the level of net debt as a share of GDP well after Wilson had to go cap in hand to IMF, but drags it further back to incorporate that period when it suits him. He mentions how debt level interest repayments peaked under a Tory government in '79, but omits the fact that the Tory Government had literally just got into power at that point and was dealing with the debt accumulated by the prior Labour administration.

Seriously, that article is a masterpiece in cunningly spun statistics to give impressions that aren't true. If you haven't a huge amount of contextual knowledge, it looks very convincing, but it quickly falls apart once you apply that knowledge and can see the holes.

Labour Governments have always stood for a large state apparatus which is far more involved in every aspect of their citizen's lives, and inevitably costs more money to run than a smaller government who just wants to sit back and count the taxes. Both have flaws and both have advantages, but anyone who tries to tell you a much larger more active government costs the same as a smaller inactive one to run is twisting the truth somewhere. All those highly involved Nordic states require much higher general taxation for a reason, y'know?

By their own actions, the pound has been devalued, inflation is rising and interest rates are currently being held artificially low by the BoE but will eventually have to rise,

You mean Brexit? I know Cameron agreed to hold the referendum, but I'm not sure you can blame him for the way people voted. That is, ultimately, what caused Brexit and the subsequent currency issues.

wages are stagnant, meaning lowering of standards in real terms

The economy can be doing perfectly well and still have wage stagnation. Those are two separate concepts, really.

If the economy is OK, why are people having to get free food from charity?

Because economics and people with no money have surprisingly little in common.

It might not be abject failure, but it's definitely not a success. They've had 7 years, and we're being constantly squeezed so much we've forgotten what it's like to not live under this pressure. You might be lucky enough to not feel the effects, but many in this country are.

I'm from a working class family, and until a few years ago, was at the very bottom of the wage pile(minimum). So I'm fully aware of what it's like down there.

I think to be honest, as I said a few years ago, this Tory Government have effectively played caretaker. Nothing particularly imaginative. They screwed some vulnerable people over (the disabled) but some other vulnerable people (the pensioners) have done quite well out of them. The economy isn't in recession, but it isn't growing very fast either. In truth, I'm not sure that's even necessarily a Tory problem, Japan hit it a long time ago. So I'd agree with that. They haven't been a failure particularly, but nor have they been overly successful. Mediocrity is the watchword.

 feeder wrote:
How's about we all chill a bit?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Chill? You're telling me to chill?

Uh - no. He was asking us ALL to chill. Which is fair comment. Keep it friendly, for Gork's sake.

 Mr. Burning wrote:


Sure, but I sure as heck wasn't wealthy when I was earning above £30k. I would argue that it doesn't even scrape whatever is considered to be middle class (it really doesnt). Ask the average earner at that level and they have some security, but they have the same financial worries as anyone below them on the wage scale.

30k would be comfortable if you lived like you earned half of that.

Strictly speaking at £30k you are at the upper ends of the middle class in terms on 'pay'. 70% of the population earn less than this amount. Everyone thinks that they are struggling because most people live to 95% of their wages. My brother complains he has no money and the cost of football tickets etc. yet he earns over double this amount. He ignores the fact that after his pay rise he bought a new house (that's already needs repair work after a year...) got a £275k mortgage that swallows a fair chunk of the salary each month and still wants to buy designer clothes for him and his family etc. But because they find it hard to make ends meet doesn't mean they aren't wealthy, just that they aren't very sensible with money. By living to 95% of the income any slight increases in costs can have larger perceived impacts because one of those luxuries have to be dropped (for example a short holiday break each year). The same goes for those on £30k. Yes you can't afford as many pleasant things as you would like but you still get a choice as to where you live, that going to the pub for a few drinks isn't going to destroy you financially and that (in moderation) you can afford it. So at £30k you can afford to choose a decent part of your lifestyle (even if it isn't champagne parties every weekend). At 30k you are bringing in approx. £2,000 per month (excluding pensions). Assuming a decent house rent of say £700 (decent semi-urban semi detached house) + bills and decent food (say another £700) you still have a fair sized element of your salary left. You might choose to put some into a pension so you have a decent retirement, some savings for a house or a car, broadband and so on and then a small amount for personal luxuries. However it's far from being uncomfortable even if you do have to still balance the books.

Now compare this to someone in the bottom 1%. At £11,000 (and that's the top of the bracket) you are bringing in £900 per month. So the type of house you can afford to rent is much lower (lets say a terrace somewhere at £400 per month). Then bills/rates, lets says £300 per month (noting poorer houses are usually less energy efficient and so on). That leaves a about £200 for everything else including food. You might just be able to scrape by but it's far from luxurious living and if you are only part time (or living in the zero hour contract world) then really things are a struggle hence the increasing need for food banks and so forth.

If you earn £30k you are wealthy, it's the perception that you can't afford all you want that makes you feel as if you aren't compared to those earning 'more'. But simply put those in this bracket and above can easily afford to pay more tax, they might just have to make some more personal luxury reductions (so less 40k models for example). To take an example if everyone above £30k was taxed the value of one Stormsurge model each year then we would raise another £1bn in taxes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

I think to be honest, as I said a few years ago, this Tory Government have effectively played caretaker. Nothing particularly imaginative. They screwed some vulnerable people over (the disabled) but some other vulnerable people (the pensioners) have done quite well out of them. The economy isn't in recession, but it isn't growing very fast either. In truth, I'm not sure that's even necessarily a Tory problem, Japan hit it a long time ago. So I'd agree with that. They haven't been a failure particularly, but nor have they been overly successful. Mediocrity is the watchword.

I think stagnation is probably the best word for the UK economy now, with increasing personal debt I also don't think it will be too long until be hit recession again. Japan has the issue of an aging population, high wages and anti-migration policy and has been for some time. The UK has been able to mitigate and have considerable growth because the population has grown due to migration offsetting our aging workforce. That appears now to be in reverse as more people flee the shores (both UK and EU citizens according to latest figures) and it's starting to show in some sectors (building and farming especially).

.. I really do worry about the British public at times

Still least there's the ever reliable DM to




... huh, must be time to provide more tax breaks for foreign domiciled newspaper owners then.

http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/general-election/media-coverage-2017-general-election-campaign-report-2/

Executive summary

The second week of the formal campaign saw a shift in the relative prominence of the two main parties in media coverage. In week 1, the Conservatives gained slightly more TV exposure and considerably more press coverage. By the end of week 2, Labour had accumulated a 7 percent advantage in TV appearances and gained parity in press coverage.
This marked shift is probably explained by the leaking and then formal launch of the Labour manifesto in the second week of sampling.
Overall, the Conservatives and Labour have commanded 71 percent of the appearances on TV and 85 percent in the press in coverage so far. The ‘two party squeeze’ in press and TV coverage tightened in week 2.
This dominance of the two main parties far exceeds their position at the same stage of the 2015 General Election. The Liberal Democrats, SNP, UKIP and the Greens have received consistently lower levels of coverage in the 2017 media campaign so far.
A further measure of Labour’s centrality to the news agenda in week 2 is Jeremy Corbyn’s appearance at the top of the list of most frequently reported political figures. Several other Labour representatives also climbed up the chart.
Our measures of the direction of press reporting of Labour show that a considerable majority of this coverage has been critical of the party and its manifesto.
The greatest proportion of this negativity occurred in the national newspapers with the largest circulations.
Aggregate levels of positive and negative press coverage of the Conservative party have nearly cancelled each other out.
Our breakdown of the levels of coverage in individual newspapers reveals nuances in their partisanship. The Sun and The Express have particularly emphasised attacking Labour. The Mail has been similarly hostile to Labour but has had more positive emphasis in their reporting of the Conservatives. The surplus of positive coverage in The Times for the Conservative party, exceeds the amount of negativity to Labour.
As a general trend, newspapers have focused more coverage on attacking the parties they disapprove of, than reporting positive issues connected to the parties they support.
Brexit has received lower levels of coverage in this second week.
The issue agendas of the press and TV remain very similar.
The issues upon which the Conservative party would prefer to campaign remain at the foreground of media debate.
The Labour party were more successful in getting their strong policy areas on social welfare and health onto the news agenda.

.. seems about right.

It's not going well at all for May at the moment is it. She's starting to look seriously out of her depth and simply doesn't have answers for direct questions. Given her ability to not be able to debate successfully issues I would have serious doubts about her ability to get any useful agreement with the EU and that she'll just leave completely throwing the UK to the winds.

It's starting to look like that we are going to end up exactly where we started but with Corbyn looking much more credible overall because he has seriously improved his game over the last couple of weeks.

Still all these are good for a laugh

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-gifs-paxman-interview_uk_592d1d50e4b0df57cbfcfee9?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

Middle England marginals, that always decide General elections, know that May is hopeless.

Alas, you guys are underestimating decades of anti left, anti-socialism doctrine being pumped out by our right-wing media on a daily basis.

No matter how well Corbyn does, 10 days won't be enough to crack 10 decades of anti-left hostility.

Middle England will hold its nose, and reluctantly vote for May, giving her a comfortable working majority, but not the landslide predicted.

Edit: As somebody who has lived and worked in all parts of the UK (except Northern Ireland) I know what political differences and attitudes are like when comparing one part of the UK to another. The Scottish Highlands is light years away from the shires of England in political beliefs and attitudes.

I'm not saying shire folk are bad or anything, but they couldn't understand my political views, and I couldn't understand why they voted the way they did.

Casual loathing, and in built suspicion of anything remotely left-wing runs through these people like words in a stick of rock. Corbyn won't crack that. Never in a million years.

A decent left wing leader would be nice, but I can't call an IRA supporting scumbag like Corbyn 'nice'. Especially because the beardy prick seems to jump into bed with every anti-western anti-British faction there is regardless of how loathsome they are. Remember, he called Bin Ladens death a tragedy. There's no coming back from that.

My prediction is that May will "win" with a reduced majority, maybe even another Hung Parliament.

And she'll be banging her head of the desk over it for the next five years.