billfunk

Or you enshrine sustainability in a constitution and give people the right to kill whoever breaks it.

It seems to me that your position is basically that there should be an inequality between social and private rents because at least then the social tenants will be paying a "fair" rate. But by continuing that course of action we would be shielding that group of people from the full force of the overpriced market. In which case many of them would be unaware that the market was in fact very overpriced. As they are unaware and/or shielded from high rents they do not have the political will to change them. Hence the bubble remains inflated and rents remain high. The alternative would be where no one is shielded from high rents and all are equal. This way everyone is fully aware of the high rents and there can be political consensus to change the system for everyone. To my mind the former scenario is most hypocritical because it perpetuates the system of high rents by shielding those most vulnerable and effectively covering up the fundamental problem.

I still don't follow how this makes people who acknowledge that there has been a property bubble hypocrites for wanting equality in the rental market? Your position seems to be that because someone wants an end to high property prices they must necessarily also accept inequality between social and private tenancies, or else they are hypocrites?

Are you suggesting that because there is a property bubble there can not be inequality between social and private rents? Are these two things mutually exclusive? If so how and why?

I assumed it was so as not to look defeatist before the fact. If he came our as pro independence his legacy would be as the PM who told the Scots to fck off. Plus he would alienate any Tory scottish voters in the meantime. It's only words.

I think the majority of the private sector would also like to see an end to crony capitalist companies. Of course, a large part of the private is comprised of SMEs who for the most part do not get government contracts and can not afford to bribe the politicians in order to get them. Is that what you meant when you said "private sector" or do you think it is a monolithic whole?

Yes.

Hague has a funny head, uses long words and rational arguments. How on earth could anyone think he is electable?

It would depend on how much a particular corporation reflected the labour of its workers, the demands it put on our infrastructure and its social good. Not black and white at all in my book. The lone operator painter-and-decorater I would say was among the shafted tax payers. Starbucks I would say are not. They are currently squatting on our infrastructure. A starbucks worker is, however.

I would have thought that the battle cry of the common man is "why do I have to subsidise other people's pensions when I can't even afford one of my own?" and in the same breath "why do I have to subsidise large multinationals through tax credits when they already make hundreds of millions of profit and pay next to no tax?". I would hope that the former battle cry was used in a discussion on public sector finances and the latter battle cry in a discussion relating to tax evasion. I would find it bizarre if each battle cry was used in response to the non-corresponding discussion. Nurses are not involved in corporate tax evasion and Starbucks are not involved in the NHS pension scheme. I honestly can not understand why you think the two issues are necessarily conflated. They are two seperate ways in which net tax payers are being shafted.

Oh yeah, and while I'm here and slightly drunk... Why haven't these government cnts organised the public building of a few nukes yet? Dave is happy to talk random sht about energy tariffs but conveniently forgets about the impending energy crisis? Bizarre.

I thought a central tenet of Keynesian economics was saving your surplus in the good years to spend in the bad. Modern democracy seems to dictate that we spunk it all down the river a few years before we even have it so in reality true Keynesianism isn't possible.

What evidence is there that your pay level of 3 years ago was appropriate?

Yes booed when he said that some austerity was needed. The level of political discourse in this country is abysmal.

Specifically, what are they doing?

Do you think it is in any way possible that private sector workers have been screwed by both the bankers AND elements of the public sector? The way you phrase it suggests that the two things are mutually exclusive.

It is a mistake to lump all public sector workers together, just as it is to lump all private sector workers together. As your wife has noticed local council workers have the easiest life - I temped for a council for a year and people were on the whole indolent. The other end of the scale might be NHS workers. I know a few midwives who have been put on 14 hour shifts with each midwife having to look after 10+ women each. In inner city areas with high birth rates the strain on staff is incredible. To add to the problem, management tends towards Stalinism/Maoism.

So the main bone of contention is not pay and conditions for ordinary staff but exec pay and vanity projects? If the government were to agree to cut exec pay and stop projects for their cronies you would be happy?

Police reports suggest 100,000 turnout.

Looks like the demonstrations are orchestrated by the unions. I wonder what the foot count will be? Estimates for the strikes earlier in the year were between 150,000 (government) and 400,000 (union). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20007496 Link to the twitter page which looks quite active. https://twitter.com/search?q=%23oct20&src=hash

edit...rubbish

Could they not have just sent a crew of workmen around, with plod if necessary, to take the boards off, put a new window in and give the outside a lick of paint. Send the guy the bill afterwards? All this litigiousness just makes me think the whole affair is a make-work scam for the legal system and the local council.

I have never voted. Votes have become devalued almost to nothing. I tend to think people should be bound by a constitution which enshrines a free market and a tax system that both encourages wealth generation or "income through one's own labour" and penalises the hoarding of wealth. This would tend to equalise wealth distribution. Modern British "democracy" is where a large minority of selfish people inflict economic pain on the rest, who are also largely selfish people. You get the system you deserve. The poor bemoan the selfishness and avarice of the wealthy when many of them would, if the tables were turned, be just as selfish and avaricious. Fundamentally, people are cnts and want what they can get.

Wouldn't surprise me. Powerful people tend to gather more information than they give out. Excessive gobshtism is usually a sign of having very little power.

I would think that the experts are great investors like Buffett, Tepper etc.