peemac

We are not trapped in a 2 party system. There are genuine alternatives, however unpalatable some people may find them. I'm still looking for someone to answer my question: Assuming that the original post is to a large extent true, and assuming that the other 2 mainstream parties would offer nothing any different, who should I give my vote to?

So who should we be voting for then at the next election? I'm all ears.

Well, if the site owners have any sense they'll have negotiated fixed-term, fixed rate advertising deals with the relevant parties. A site this big is selling itself well short if it's generating revenue by click-through advertising. A forum I'm associated closely with that doesn't get the amount of traffic this site does switched to this model of advertising a couple of years ago when a new owner took over. It now makes vastly more money than it ever could have hoped with the old click-through method.

For a site with this traffic I doubt the owner is still relying on revenue generated by the number of clicks.

Now be honest, you just made that word up didn't you? Of course there won't be any further referenda on the EU, the ministers know exactly what the result would be.

This should be standard practice for all MPs. They should be paid whatever the national average wage is and have their pay increases capped to CPI. We might see more realistic economic policy then.

He was on the politics show on sunday, an interview I'm surprised didn't get much attention on here as it showed him squirm in his seat when the subject of his BTL in Bristol came up. Anyways he said exactly the same thing on that, high house prices are due to a strong, prosperous economy. The government must now help people get on the ladder, that's the next challenge. Following that to its logical conclusion TB obviously believes a strong economy is one where the populace are reliant on government intervention to satisfy one of their most basic needs. Talk about nailing your colours to the mast.

IMHO the real problem you face is that the people of the calibre you seek are generally not going to want to be wage-slave solicitors, not for £100k, not for anything. They're more likely to be running their own businesses and being their own men. Although (again IMHO) the point you've made about recruitment at your end of the market doesn't really apply to the supply and demand argument that was made. There are a large number of reasonably talented law and accountancy graduates. Enough to suggest that in the job market at least, wages aren't a simple case of supply and demand. Your argument is like saying there are only 24 drivers in the world good enough to race F1, and extrapolating that to saying there is a lack of drivers in general.

Good value, pound shops. Especially for batteries and cleaning materials I find. And toothpaste. And paper plates. I'm a big fan.

Ever thought you might be looking in the wrong place for talent?

I don't believe that for a second. I bet you could find treble that number of suitable graduates. And what about career changers? If you're struggling to fill accountancy vacancies get into the science and engineering postdocs and offer them a decent starting salary whilst they're training.

So it's not supply and demand then is it If it were why would we hear the same old rubbish about skills shortages in engineering every year? Never here about a shortage of lawyers or accountants do you, and they get paid loads. Funny that isn't it. Lots and lots of law and accounting graduates, competetive workplace yet they still get good money. Supposed engineering skills shortage yet wages are still relatively in the doldrums. That suggests that there's no skills shortage at all doesn't it?

Nurse ~25k Mechanic ~16K call centre worker - minimum wage research scientist - whatever is comparable to decent lawyer, accountant etc. reasoning being- call center = totally unskilled Mechanic = trained monkey Nurse = trained dedicated monkey in a demanding job research scientist/lawyer/teacher/accountant = many years of dedicated training combined with a bit of intelligence, aptitude and determination. Actually postdoc wages aren't TOO bad these days, starting wage is £24500 at a decent university. And the lifestyle is good. Anyone doing it who says it's not a good lifestyle has never done REALLY hard work. Having said that it's not what they (we) deserve when compared to other proffesions with similar amounts of training and intelligence required.

Yeah he moved on quickly from that didn't he? Surprised there wasn't more comment on here about this. Blair seemed to say (in fact he did say) that high house prices are the result of a strong economy and the government must now look at ways of getting people onto the first rung of the housing ladder. Shared equity, yadda, yadda, yadda. Interestingly no mention of realistic inflation figures and decent payrises.

That's far too sensible an idea for the government. Besides how would they know which companies to take the directorships of when the contracts are being handed out.

You could say your granny shouldn't have been so dumb as to set her house on fire. As you say, this is the real world compete or don't. No one else really cares. I have two close friends, both policemen who have both recently saved young lives. That's two fathers who don't have the agony of outliving their sons. Care to put a financial value on that? Maybe you should look at the parents rather than the teachers. Those teachers did give you enough of a start to get to Oxford after all. LMAO. What's that meant to mean. Barely literate, badly thought out playground rhetoric. Not a single good point in sight in your post mate.

Didn't you show earlier on the thread that affordability is the same now as it was in the early 80s? Or have solicitors never been able to afford houses? Or is it (god forbid) your opinion that solicitors somehow 'deserve' more than they can currently buy?

I rather suspect that that is exactly the case. The NHS could do just fine and dandy on its current budget if a huge swathe of middle/senior management was culled and management handed to the practitioners i.e. a matron. The hospitals wouldn't be so dirty if they didn't contract out cleaning to the highest bidder, who subsequently pays agency muppetts minimum wage to have a quick swizz round with a mop. They should be employing hard-workers on decent wages to scrub floors and actually clean the place. Unbridled capitalism is, as far as I know supposed to result in a better value product through competition. Well at the interface between state and private enterprise that seems like a load of old baloney to me as contracts just get dished out between mates who then provide the worst acceptable service at the highest possible price. Using our money. It seems to me that people are all too quick to have a go at the state employee, but these are people just trying to get along in life like everyone else. The real criminals are the so-called benefit underclass and the politicians and judiciary that allow them to exist.

Agreed. If it wasn't for the odd enlightning thread on economics or some witty insight on this forum all that would be left would be a seething mass of rhetoric and hatred.

I should say good luck, but you're wasting your breath. Last bloke who put his head above parapet about shared ownership got slated in all manner of ways. Most of it just jingoistic bull5hit with no basis in reality.

They will. Or some will. These schemes get a lot of bad press, especially on here (but then again this is perhaps THE most negative forum on the internet) but if you do your research you can bag yourself a decent deal. There's also another aspect - if there is (as is widely expected on here) a credit crunch people will be finding it much easier to find the finance for a 50% mortgage than a 100% one.

Fair enough. But there are other issues to consider. He had commensurate wage inflation, meaning that after 3 years he could comfortably trade up. The lower nominal value of the property meant that it was much easier for him to save for his deposit. He had absolutely no debt (not the done thing). Insurance, tax, petrol and utilities were all a much lower proportion of income. And the current interest rate trend is up, meaning that it's suicide (IMO) to stretch yourself in this climate - especially the wage inflation isn't matching real inflation. Maybe we should be looking at the whole picture - it's less sensible to be spending 50% of your income on a house now than it was then.

What nonsense. My old fella was a postman in 1982 earning the princely sum of £4000p.a. He bought a 2 bed mid-terrace in an OK area for £14500 and could afford to keep a family. Fast forward 25 years. I'm a young academic earning £27k p.a. (public sector runs in the family ) 2 bed mid terrace in a poor area £110k. That should tell you something ain't right. My dad has never passed an exam, nor has he ever tried (he's still a postman) yet he now owns a house bigger and nicer than anything I'll ever be able to afford if I carry on down my current career path (which to be honest I don't intend doing). Houses are currently, by all historic standards unaffordable. However that doesn't mean to say I think they will fall. I've come to the conclusion that houseprices will only fall in the event of a credit crunch. Until then banks will happily lend whatever it takes to whoever will take it, dress it up and stretch it out as 'affordable'. I'mm looking to move from our current place and have been offered 6xjoint salary, IO over 34 years. Now that's absolutely bananas.

That is deliberately ironic isn't it.

Got to say that whole piece was bizarre. I couldn't quite work out if I'd heard it right. A whole 5 minutes on the dangers of debt then the final sentence: 'and remember don't borrow too little' eh?