snowflux

You said that much of his income comes from EU migrants. The distinction is important, since the entire context of the discussion revolved around the benefits enjoyed by EU migrants. You obviously can't substantiate that claim. A simple apology will suffice, and we'll leave it at that.

Personally, I prefer the relative social cohesion, better healthcare and longer life expectancies that Europeans enjoy over Americans. I certainly have no desire to live in the sort of Mad Max hell-hole that the US would tend towards if the Tea Party were to gain control there.

Sigh. I'm still waiting for you to give some sort of evidence to support your claim. Where did Charalambous say that many of his tenants are EU migrants? Link or it didn't happen.

Yes, I suppose UKIP's ultra-nationalism and xenophobia is more like that exhibited by today's right-wing US Americans. I certainly get the impression that UKIP's vision of the UK is that of a mini-USA.

You claimed that much of Charalambous's income came from EU migrant tenants, but you're obviously unable to substantiate that claim. You were talking crap, weren't you? As you usually do. BTW, dishing out insults and playing the internet hard-man just makes you look a fool.

I don't deny that most of those receiving housing benefit in London are likely to be in work, nor do I dispute the unfairness of the system that is making Charambulou rich. I totally agree tha housing benefit needs a major rethink. My dispute was with Corruption's unsubstantiated claim that a large proportion of these claimants are EU migrants. As far as I can see, there is no evidence that that is so.

What tight immigration policy? Australia currently has over twice the net migration rate per 1,000 population (5.74) than that of the UK (2.56). As does Canada (5.66). So no, I wouldn't call them xenophobic at all.

Cat got your tongue, Bruce?

Not at all. "Corruption" made a specific claim that many of Charalambous's tenants are EU immigrants on benefits, but has thus far failed to back this up with any concrete evidence. This leads me to suspect that he is simply making it up as he goes along. The comparison with Hitler was not mine. I merely pointed out that past experience has shown us that the election of nationalistic, xenophobic leaders by European countries (take your pick) does not usually lead to a happy outcome for that country.

That's not evidence. Let's see some links or figures, just so we know you're not talking crap. What proportion of Charalambous's tenants are EU immigrants on benefits?

What evidence do you have to indicate that much of the housing benefit paid out goes to EU immigrants? Or to indicate that many of Andrew Charalambous's tenants are EU immigrants on benefits (as gf3 appears to have interpreted your slightly ambiguous post)?

Exactly, though I'm not sure I'd agree that the quality of politicians has actually fallen over the past 40 years. I reckon they were just as bad, if not worse, then; it's just that we never got to hear about a lot of the underhand goings-on in those days (when it was much easier to keep a secret). Things are, indeed, a long way from perfect in the UK, especially in relation to housing. But there is plenty of scope for making our situation a lot worse if we make the wrong choices for the future.

That's about the level of argument I'd expect from a UKIP supporter. Thanks for your contribution.

Yes, in times of economic hardship and civil discontent, what could possibly go wrong with putting a nationalistic xenophobe in charge of the country? It's not as if any European country has done such a thing before now.

Just a couple of points. The FDP (business-friendly liberals) were already on the way out before AfD (anti-euro) came on the scene; the FDP's vote has largely been absorbed by the CDU (Merkel's centre right) and their fall has little to do with the AfD. The AfD wins have all been in the east of Germany, with most of their votes coming from the CDU, die Linke (ex-communist hard left) and far-right nationalist parties. I doubt that they'll do anywhere near as well in the western states, but it'll be interesting to see. WIth such a heterogenous supporter base, another question is whether the party can hold itself together in the long term.

I don't have a dog in this race. If anything, I'd probably prefer a No vote, but this really is scraping the barrel: Scottish independence: 'Our soldiers lost their lives trying to preserve the UK. What will their families say?' It's hard to tell if this is actually intended to rally support for a No vote or to piss off enough Scots to achieve a Yes!

IIRC, credit card providers are legally obliged to offer a facility for paying off the entire borrowed sum by monthly direct debit so as to avoid incurring interest charges. You have to ask, though, since they naturally tend to keep quiet about this! Like all good HPCers, I also take full advantage of this facility. It really is a no-brainer.

The main contribution to high marginal tax rates comes from the 41% withdrawal rate of tax credits. My marginal tax rate, for example, is 70% (41% tax credit withdrawal + 9% NI + 20% income tax). A flat tax would be unlikely to fix this. A better solution would be to stop means testing text credits and call them a citizen's income.

That's coal and nuclear for you - inherently unreliable.

Oh, get a grip. Regulating the power of vacuum cleaners in order to reduce energy consumption and hence reduce environmental impact is hardly "treating people like cattle". Your statement really epitomises the image of the spoilt westerner whinging about minor alterations to their lifestyle.as through they were being forced to walk over coals.

They don't just do this sort of thing on a whim to annoy Daily Mail and Telegraph readers. Of course they have proper studies done beforehand: Work on Preparatory Studies for Eco-Design Requirements of EuPs (II) Lot 17 Vacuum Cleaners TREN/D3/390-2006 Final Report

I'd make more sense to discourage the use of energy-intensive appliances through taxation rather than banning them, but this is politically impossible because of the usual suspects screaming about green taxes. So banning it is, unfortunately.

It's a concisely capitalistic and logical position that, in a democratic society, would probably result in very few new roads or railways ever being built. It already results in few new houses being built and, consequently, high house prices.

That sounds reasonable, but you're obviously still going to have problems with the uninsured when it comes to construction time. I think I'm inclined to agree with you though. What we need, then, is a government that has the balls to say, "Ok, no more compensation. Buy insurance if you're worried about new roads / rail / housing" and is prepared to enforce construction whereever necessary. Can't see it happening, myself. Edit: Thinking about it a bit more, though, I'm not so sure. It'd be a massively confrontational approach leaving a lot of people feeling very hard done by, and we'd probably end up in a situation where no more roads, railways or houses are built due to politicians fearing the boot. I think the carrot approach used in Germany, where the whole community is rewarded for allowing development (of housing), has got to be better.

While removing compensation for nearby roads or railways would reduce the cost of such projects, it would make them extremely difficult to build due to the massive public opposition that would then arise. You'd need a very authoritarian government to push such projects through. Looking from the other direction, you'd imagine that compensating property owners for nearby housing developments would make it much easier to realise such projects and would result in more houses being built and thus lower house prices. Mr and Mrs Nimby might get £10k in cash, but they'd see £50k knocked off their property value, partly due to "blight" but mostly due to increased supply of housing). What's not to like?