….and thereby hangs the tale

Think about the party of the blue rinse brigade living off investments pensions and savings and think about who benefits from high interest rates. then try to piece together which government tends towards the economics of high interest.

Totally rich, My email went off before reading your post. Watched the piece, saw a stone cold case of driver cockage, then sat and listened to email after text of uptight **** comments about non insurance/non tax by cyclists presuambly meaning that for completely incorrect reasoning running down cyclists is fair enough.

**** unbelievable.

So you are suggesting comparing the Japense economy from 1945 to date with the Japanese economy from 1925 to 1990? I suspect you may well still find that it has generally been one of the top performers during both of those periods.

Your point caller?

The Japanese economy is distinctly unhealthy.

Compared to what over the last 65 years precisely?

Ok lets try it another way.

Anyone know what the current spend on the Afgahn war is ? (all in ?) the times online suggests that it might be as much as £2,500,000,000,000 the population of Afgahnistan is about 29 million. So in essence we could give them about £86,000 per person to improve their lot, in return for nailing any Al Qaeda type nasty ****, and at the same time save the lives of several hundred troops, for the same money. Halve that, and you.saved a huge amount and still been able to give every man woman and child £43,000 each.

Are you seriously telling me that what we are doing makes finacial, political or moral sense, when we all know that it won't get sorted by force of arms, much less by the possession of Trident??

There is a reason why Germany and Japan have two of the strongest economies in the world, and you don't have to look too far past the bit where they haven't spent the last 65 years funding a mahoosive standing military force.

Economic sanctions don't (and never have) work against North Korea

Presumably that "don't care doesn't hurt" attitude is why they are threatening war if sanctions are imposed then?

Do you know what? Talking is cheaper than fighting every time. Pretty much every conflict ends with the participants sitting around a table and talking. So how about we invest in some more tables and give the rest of it a miss?

Points taken re fingerprints. What I meant was in an investigatory context, i.e. used to fit someone up.

Personally, I think that commercial data gathering is a lot more pernicious and far more likely to lead to abuse. i.e. insurance companies already do it and already discriminate against people they deem to be a risk, which rather defeats the whole point of spreading risk by buying insurance IMHO.

Personally I have very mixed feelings about the current situation. Its basically rooted in "tribal politics" whereby if you believe that a minimum standard of care for all is a mark of a civilised society you must also therefore believe in state intervention in all things. Personally I don't, but I do beleive in the uncommon, i.e. common sense politics.

There are elements of all three major parties policies that are sensible and it has always seemed to me that a middle of the road approach isn't in fact indecisive, it is sesnsible and what the vast majority of people want. So for that reason, I really hope that we are seeing the end of tribalism, dogma and stupidity in our leaders.

So for me I'm standing off to the side with my arms folded saying go on then, show me you can do it. Juries out, hopes are in.

Regarding the OP, I have no problem with technology being used to fight crime. In fact I firmly beleive that if you wish to live safely it is incumbent on the individual to support the forces of Law and Order. However that has to be proportional to the reality. Much of what we have been seeing simply is not, so generally I am glad to see the back of ID cards etc. However, I have no problem with a national DNA database, I mean after all we've had fingerprints taken for over a century, and I don't recall any misuse of that data. It seems to me that the DNA database does have a real impact on serious crime.

Sorry aboiut this, but I'm just going to have to swim upstream about this.

My oldest brother is on benefits and gets a motability vehicle.

The story goes like this.

Well educated, self employed bloke, works VERY hard and builds business up the point where he can’t cope alone. Brings in long time mate to work with him, then gets turned over by mate and loses most of his business as a result. So works even harder to try to recover. Due to working all the hours God sends wife leaves him. He makes sure she is OK, and carries on working harder than ever so he can pay for her, with work becoming the only thing keeping him going. Borrows money from bank, because business isn’t really profitable…..can you see where this is going yet?

Well eventually it arrives at a situation where he collapses with a serious nervous breakdown, debts up to his ears, house in a shambles, health fecked etc etc. My other brother and I then spent 18 months sorting his finances and what have you out. It then transpires that big Bruv’s health is totally shot and hes probably taken 20 years off his life span. Externally he looks fine, but he can’t walk more than 200 yards, and is apparently likely to collapse at fairly short notice and peg it.

So now, rather than put him into care, a package of measures have been put in place to support him at home and keep him as independent as possible for as long as possible. However, there is only ever going to be one outcome. That is that in essence he has worked himself to death.

A casual observer could easily make assumptions about his situation.

All I will say on the subject, is that I would most willing swop my brothers motability privileges for 20 years of Hora’s life. Somehow I can’t see Hora reciprocating.

<Cue: Usual MTFU, uninformed Daily Mail style vitriol>

Out of interest is that really the case in most industries (or even academia)? I've never felt any benefit of it sadly

And I think it need pointing out yet again that many Labour politicians (particularly the more senior ones) hardly match the romantic image of the working class lad/lass done good…

Well that really is the point clubber. What you are saying is that you can't now get on even there without the privilege by and large. Personally, that’s why I've always like Preser, because he was a warts and all guy and clearly human. If you follow his career he was also vilified for it, presumably for being an upstart, (see the comments just today about him “Being caught playing crochet”.)

Personally I’ve got no problems at all with people making their way in life and doing well for themselves, but I do have a problem with inequality of opportunity. In essence my view is that if you limit your recruitment to a very limited selection, say one family for example, it is inevitable that you will not get the best calibre person available for your position. Expand that out across GB plc, and you can clearly see the problem.

What I would prefer to see is bright kids being fast tracked, less able kids being supported, and a clear recognition, that every individual has potential. It is everyone’s responsibility to help them find it. Anything less and you will find in time that we will be the cheap manufacturing base for the world, on low wages and doing low skill labour. Remember we still talk about 50% university attendance as an aspiration, FFS!!!

The Socialist in me is twitching, and looking on in hope more thaqn expectation. Political reform is the biggy, and I still can't see Turkeys voting for Christmas. Pretty sure the bill if it ever comes will be a free vote, and the majority of MPs are LAbour/Tory and therefore stand to lose out. Therefore its probably dead in the water before it starts IMHO.

Out of interest anyone watch BBC breakfast this am? Disadvantaged kids 7 times less likely to get to university etc etc. System gravitates against them blah blah. Thats the real problem. Basically we need to kick out the jobs for the boys, and get on with getting the best out of the best people. Can't see the Oxbridge/Eton crowd going along with that, sadly.

Rolled back into car park after solo night ride with lights off, having browned out a few minutes earlier. Flipped lights back on to find my wheels, only to highlight a couple of the "light on their loafers" persuasion, doing the hands on shoulders thing….. Thought I carried it off well by calling out "evening" and just going about my business, (but quite quickly to be fair).

There is only one true rule and it is good:-

Don't through your actions spoil the enjoyment of others.

From recent experience, shopping aorund for central heating work is the only way forward.

Called in a "reputable" local plumber to look at my boiler which was simply not working. Sharp sucking in through teeth was followed by an estimate for £2800approx to replace said boiler. As luck would have it my wife told a mate at work and it transpired that her hubby was an old school plumber, ie. time served apprentice etc etc. He came round looked, sucked through his teeth, and then said "shall we look at the cheap bits first before we repalce the most expensive bit?" A rapid nodding of my head led to him popping in, taking the pump off cleaning it out, resintalling it and a bill for £45 including VAT. The system has never worked better, and its some months now since he did it.

I checked out the British Gas thing, and it seems that they actually charge considerably more for chargeable work than anyone else. In fact od I remember rightly there was quite a long thread on her about it a while back.

So careful of what you buy into, and don't be afraid to shop around and ask for references from other jobs.

Did anyone ever find BM funny ?

If a Govt couldn't command a majority of the house it would still be out of business lickety-split.

So why bother with the 55% thing then?

Its either meaningless or it isn't. It can't be both.

You may note that a number of Tories and constituional experts are also up in armas about it, so I suspect that my interpretation may very well be correct.

Pro: takes more than 50% of our exports

Con: Give the Righists something to moan about contantly

No it isn't! OK?

That is my whole point regarding a written constitution. It is not for the likes of Cameron, Clegg, Brown or anyone else to unilaterally decide to change the game plan for their own convenience. It is all to easy to do when nothing is committed to the public record, as this debacle amply demonstrates. I would have thought that was pretty obvious frankly.

Can I just point out that the effect of this is that 16 tories would have to rebel against their own leader to bring about a dissolution of Parliament….. for any reason whatsoever!! If that were a necessity the figure would have been pitched at 55% well before Cameron held sway over 47% of the votes! Doesn't that rather defeat the object of an election which didn't give him a majority?

Oh how I wish, but no its not correct his first wife was called Corinne and his second was Graziella.

Buzzlightyear – Member
There's a problem with the 55% for dissolution policy. But it's needed to prevent the risk of a lib/lab ambush against a minority of Cons. I don't think they'll get it through though. It might even get dropped before the Queen's speech.

Given that they've got a majority and have already agreed it whatever makes you think that?

The liklihood is far greater that their pals in the Lords might derail it. Incidentally, whilst we all know why they are doing it, (i.e. so they can't get kicked out), how on earth can it be right, fair or constituional?…… Sorry strike constitutional, we haven't got one have we ?? 😉

It can be whatever I want it to be becuase its unwritten and therefore cannot be contradicted, so at the moment my point is that I'm right and you are wrong. 8)

The Japanese are very polite (except when you are their prisoner apparently)

Charles Walker, Conservative MP for Broxbourne, said: "This is perhaps just a little too much for our unwritten constitution to bear."

He added: "We have a quasi-presidential system here, without the checks and balances. This would be the loss of an enormous check."

Great quote from the BBC Website this morning.

(except where legislated otherwise – eg the forthcoming 55% no confidence proposal).

Proof of my point I think you'll find.

But what if he didn't, and what if there wasn't a cohesive vote of no confidence, how about if Say Sinn Fein or the BNP held the balance of power and chose to be mischevious with it? Most importantly how does the ordinary Joe in the street figure it out?

So given the fact that you beleive that its all written down in a manual somewhere I ask again what good reason is there for not having it out in the open? After all its our system of Government, so why shouldn't we know?

Could it possibly because it suits the system not to have it written down and open to scrutiny, as its so full of anomalies and throw backs to a past which is not longer relevant?

Well how about what happens in the event of an election such as the one just gone and where the incumbent government decides to stay put with a minority, but the opposition has in fact got more seats than them.

What are the options open to the PM ?

aracer – Member
You think a constitution would explain all that? See if you can find the bit about hanging chads in the US constitution.

Is that the same as I can't?

Which would simply write down the way it currently works.

Given that it is so obvious and clear, could you please explain to me in detail how the system works then or even how I am supposed to find out? And how are the electorate supposed to know in advance of an election, when even the commentators and politicians aren't clear on it?

Any chance that might impact on how people chose to vote?

OK, so explain to me what's wrong with my analysis, Junkyard.

Isn't this precisely why we need a clear written constitution??

Incidentally anyone know any good reason not to have one?

molgrips – Member

Berm Bandit – Member
Personally, I am bitter

More sad that folk such as yourself cannot see through the con that has been perpetuated in this country for generation upon generation rather than bitter. Curiously I really hope that Clegg and Cameron deliver, but I am sorry to say that is hope rather than expectation.

Its also why a "none of the above" box on the ballot paper would be a very meaningful addition. Personally I live in a tory very safe seat, and generally spoil my ballot paper, because I want to register an interest in the process, but cannot bring myself to vote for any of the candidates. Frequently my preferred option do not even waste money on putting up a candidate.

geetee1972 – Member
Berm Bandit – what would you propose as an alternative to the existing political system?

A modern democracy, preferably with an elected Head of State, no hereditary peers and a limitation on how long any one person can be an MP.

Pretty much seeking to bring the best brains in the country into the government.

Oh yeah and PR obviously.

Personally, I am bitterly opposed to the ridiculous political system in this country. It is steeped in out dated principles and symbolism and gravitates against progress. In particular I utterly reject and despise the class system as personified by the aristocracy and Royal Family……..

However, I am prepared to hold fire on the revolution and give the current situation a chance. It is just possible that we might be seeing the beginning of something new, although I would be much more likely to believe it were the vested interests that are so obvious on the PM’s side of the fence not so entrenched in that aristocratic background of his.

Jury out, sitting on fence commenced

Ah that'll get you every time…..

PS: Molgrips if I knew what you were talking about I would, but as I haven't got a clue can't help. soz

So what did it then?

Re Tax: Common myth Rich get taxed more than poor folk. Incorrect!

We actually all get taxed in the same way except the rich.

So in theory I get a tax free allowance, and so does a rich person
I pay different rates on my income, ie X for the first £10,000, then Y for the next and so forth…. and so does rich person
If I earn what they earn I will also pay what they pay.

But in fact that is not the case at all. What actually happens is that most people pay their taxes without any real input on the subject. Rich people employ vastly expensive accounting snakes to find ways to weasel out of paying their dues, then they offset that cost against…. yes thats right tax! Generally the annual discussion with the accountant will be along the lines of "how much do we need to pay to keep the taxman off my case?"

No one ever paid 95% on their entire income. It was a top rate of income tax of 83% on earned income over £20,000. In 1974 £20000 was worth something like £249,000 now. So only earnings over the 1/4mill would get taxed at that rate. If you were also getting unearned income over that level, i.e. interest or dividends for example then there was an additional 15% surcharge on those only. Same for me when I earned over that level!

However what the Trons of this world singularly fail to understand is that those people rarely, and only if stupid pay that tax. There are a 1001 ways to avoid it.

So fair for everyone …..Right?

Bit quiet round here…..

Anyone hear Daves mate Anna Pasternack on 5 live this am?

Coffee on dashboard moment as she explained how although Dave and his Mrs were both aristocrats that meant that actually they were brought up properly and therefore able to relate to anyone….. Then carried on to tell how they had been to parties in marquees in the grounds of each others parents homes and so on and so on.

The best bit being that she phoned in voluntarily and was doing this to show the human side of Dave the man of the people and why us serving classes shouldn't be worried.

Ah so we're now onto the bit when the government is not responsible for its actions and its down to us losers to sort out eh?

So can I take it from that that you won't be blaming labour for the national debt, or as per usual is it merely selective use of facts to suit your own arguments.

What complete cack. Are you saying that none of those things were under your control at all?

Yep thats right, they weren't. Tory induced recession causing two separate outfits to go under. Definately not due to any problem on the part of the business or me.

Did the government literally come and say, sorry, we are taking your house? No they didn't.

No but they did take off all sensible controls on lending encouraged people to over extend themselves and run the economy in a fashion which caused both negative equity and thousands of people to lose their jobs and thus their homes. You may note that the last governmnet chose a different tack and that has not happened this time, alongside keeping interest rates to an all time low instead of an all time high. However, I accpet the crticism, I am obviously responsible for the recession at the end of the 80's.

If it wasn't under your control then how come my parents didn't lose their house?

Their rather different circumstances perhaps?

Were you not reponsible for your own health in any way?

Yes I certainly was, however, I wasn't responsible for the health service, and its inability to perform due to the cuts in funding.

Did someone come and empty your savings account without your permission?
No is the simple answer.

No, but they did deregulate allowing their theiving chums to rob people like me blind. Refer to compensation being sort for losses incurred through savings in endowment policies. Seen at the time as "safe savings vehicles" and sold as such. Obviously I made that happen too.

Oh, but you must be one of those people who expect the government to hold you hand over everything you do and grant you your every whim.
Get real and take some responsibility.

I am actually a Company Director, have worked since I was 17, was General Manager of a company by the time I was 21. Have contributed all my life at the top end of the tax scale and suspect have taken and may continue to take rather more responsiblity for myself and others on a daily basis than you are ever likely to aspire to. Not only that I set aside savings for my old age, my childrens education, my families health care, and also that of my parents. I was also raised in a Tory household, with a strong work ethic and emphasis on self reliance. Mind you why let facts get in the way of predjudice and ignorance?

Theres a lot of members on here who are determined to rip into the Cons, at any opportunity, regardless.

**** A! But then they were only responsible for loss of :-

1) My Job (twice)
2) My Home
3) My Savings
4) My Pension
5) My Health
6) My parents dignity in their old age

Whilst at the same time feathering both their own and their cronies nests.

So fair enough, it is totally unreasonable on my part and it surely must be time to forgive and forget despite the fact that the latter half of my life, and the products of the former half have been totally ruined by them.

What a self centred unreasonable twunt I am. Please forgive me!

Long live the Baron and all who sail in him

WTF are you all taking about re unemployment? The current situation is nowhere near as bad as it has been in previous recessions. The figures currently are a more accurate reflection than was previously the case, and even then is still well short of the Tories record levels, even with suspect counting methods.. It is also why I suspect you will either find them getting up towards the 4 millon mark in the not too distant future, OR the counting method will get changed.