Special K

Nicholas Parsons was good fun, if a little scatty, despite the fact my mate tried to grab his balls is a spate of drunken "banter".

Met Damian Hurst when he was quite "refreshed", but he was very good fun to be around.

Sorry PL, don't know where you live, but if it's in Southampton, give JP Plumbing a try - http://www.checkatrade.com/JpPlumbingAndHeatingConsultants/

If it's in Pompey, then I guess a bit more water won't hurt:p

Pap's little gingerbread tower was no match for the Moderators Airfix Plane of Truth battering into it, especially with that large cargo of sugar on board. I'm sure that was just a plant though, as the Mod's employed Hypo and Batman as Verbal's henchmen to undermine Pap's fragile online persona.

IMHO he had moments of utter f@@kwittery (who doesn't), but was far more interesting and likeable of late. Did seem to take little spats too far though, so i guess that's what has done for him.

Go for it if you like it. Council houses, especially those built in the 1950s and 1960s tend to be well built and relatively spacious and that might well be a better choice for you than something small and grotty but in a 'private' area. Yes the market for them is more limited but someone will always be interested at the right price, just as you are. Obviously houses in small developments tend to be more desirable than in the middle of a big estate. Also check out your potential neighbours - whether their houses are well cared for or rundown / cars parked across the gardens etc. Ive got a feeling you can check with the council to see if there have been any complaints about noisy / problematic neighbours.

'Tis true as the estates built in the post war period tend to have large gardens and good sized rooms, because space wasn't at a premium. My folks bought theirs when i was a lad and still live there today. Built quality wasn't bad at all, although avoid "prefab" structures (sounds like it's not a problem for you anyway). The estate remains quiet and decent today although a fair few of those who bought back in the 80's have passed on and the families have sold to landlords who rent out to students. The only real problems are the number of cars and vans parked up.

As a general note, build quality of newer, private estates wasn't good in the late 80's and 90's, especially those churned out by the big housebuilders. Today, the Building Regulations are vastly improved and, as a general rule, build quality has improved quite a lot over the last 10 years.

Found the Seaview International camp site just outside St Austell to be a cracker. Very nice pitches, good facilities and lots to do in the surrounding area. Personally, I love the Eden Project (very close) and the Coastal walks are superb (the campsite is very close to the sea, strangely enough with a name like that!) Hemmick Beach particularly is a winner. Trip Advisor has some good reviews of the place.

I don't have an issue with describing Tory voters as selfish. I don't really have a problem with selfish people who can admit they are.

 

That said, I do think that is a fundamental difference between voting intentions, especially above a certain income level. I haven't been out of work for over a decade now. I barely use public services, and truth be told, the Conservative government will probably put more money in my pocket than Labour would. And yet, I'd never vote Tory because I know that even though they'll look after the likes of me, they'll do a considerably worse job of helping the less fortunate.

 

That's the real difference to me. Someone who votes against their own self-interest for the benefit of others wouldn't be considered selfish. Someone who says "I'm alright, Jack" would be.

It's rather narrow minded to categorise people based purely on their voting habits. For instance, I know of a few, mainly old timers, who vote Tory and are comfortably off, yet give up their free time to helping others less fortunate, with travel (using their own cars and getting nothing for it) gardening for those whose mobility is impaired and give free time working in, or fundraising for, charity shops. To suggest they are selfish doesn't really hold much water when their efforts to improve the community and the lives of others, is taken into account. Strangely enough, the smug glow of moral superiority is not solely the preserve of left leaning Labour voters!

or, on the other hand...

Lol! for a "spectacularly ill informed" opinion you did quite well, hutch.

Make sure you do those lottery numbers on the weekend!

If by 'everday' you mean excutiatingly middle class;)

Au contraire Goaty, (aspiring) Upper Middle Class, don't you know

That Russell Brand endorsement worked fecking wonders.

For an everyday slurp, Waitrose do a nice Heston Blumenthal Earl Grey and Lemon gin. Good enough.

Ah, election eve. Tomorrow we will be done with this circus. Thank God.

I'm quite looking forward to exercising my prerogative in one of those private booths.

Sounds more a case of agg* than itk.

 

*a good guesser

Another suggestion for non itk. itk = in the know. itc = in the clouds??

I have to say, Special K, that the two hospital PFI schemes I worked on were judged by the Treasury's own PFI unit to have robust business cases (under both governments). Perhaps the naivete was the inability of the Treasury to recognise just how unscrupulous (as you say) the SPVs were. When Labour had settled in, the rules were changed so that the SPVs' renegotiations with their own funders that resulted in cheaper funding was shared with the NHS Trusts.

 

In the main PFI delivered on time and on budget - something that rarely happened with D & B contracts. The main problem was that those specifying from the NHS side were hit with unreasonable RfIs for example. The highly experienced NHS Estates staff that used to deal with contractors had all been made redundant when services were market tested in 1991 and onwards. Ironically, they were snapped up by the developers to lead the private sector bidding!

Perhaps they were naive, BTF but they were also rather silly in inviting the foxes from firms like Price Waterhouse into the chicken house that was PUK. It surprises me not that PFI schemes were seen to be completed "on time and on budget" as I guess both the programme and the price were favourable as they were being negotiated with the Employer, whose advisers just happened to belong to organisations that were part of the bidding team!

It seems depressing that the NHS has never really got to grips with a lasting procurement procedure. Mainly, it has to be stressed, because of flippin' central government influence and meddling. Procure 21+ no longer offers the work opportunities it used to and is being abandoned in favour of good old fashioned competitive tendering, because that (surprise, surprise) delivers more value for money (this from the CCG's consultants - not me!). It's gone full circle and will presumably start another cycle soon!

This woman

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/01/labour-ed-miliband-question-catherine-shuttleworth_n_7188552.html?1430491967

Does it really matter? IIRC the audience was compiled of a roughly similar number of partisan voters, so if she hadn't have taken Ed to task, someone else would have. Seems laughable to me that the Labour Party are working themselves up into a frothy mess of indignation over this. Are they suggesting Ed couldn't handle an ordinary Tory voting lass from Leeds? If so, then christ knows how he'd handle a fearsome Pict from Irvine!!

That was a little tongue in cheek, to be fair. The real point is that the previous Labour government not only overspent when they were in power, they committed us to horrifically expensive contracts that won't be fully completed until after those who signed them will probably have died

Under Labour, the love in with PFI was underpinned by an unscrupulous private sector who took advantage of both the Labour zeal to embrace PFI and their shocking inability to drive a decent bargain for the taxpayer. Encouraging, at great expense, the private sector into bed under the PUK banner, they let the decision makers come from the very organisations they were supposed to be negotiating with. Result - huge fees, extortionate repayments and unworkable commitments. Totally hopeless state of affairs and a perfect example of the "jam today, sh!t tomorrow" culture of profligacy and financial mismanagement that smeared that period under Labour. Mind you, who is to say the Tories would have been much better! However Labour were responsible for that period and it is no wonder their proclamation of economic safety, should they get in next week, is taken with a truckload of salt.

Agreed but anything that attempts to engage young people is sound by me. We are doing some election stuff in conjunction with the 6th Forms. The apathy and disengagement of the young people is shocking.

Genuine question as you obviously have a lot more contact with first time voters than I do - I understand that young voters can be apathetic to anything outside their sphere of interest (iirc, alcohol, music, friendship, opposite sex, etc) but are they any more apathetic than previous generations? Is there a risk of an older generation confusing something the kids find genuinely uninteresting and dressing it up as a problem, calling it "disengagement" and accusing all the politicos of not taking the young seriously, when in fact, some of the young couldn't care less. I don't want to sound flippant, but IMHO, there is far more availability of political knowledge and ability to debate than there ever has been, certainly from when I was a first time voter. Although I really don't like the word, it seems to me that the young can be "engaged" with politics if they choose too. Some do and can seek it out and become actively or passively involved, but i suspect there are a fair few who just don't want to as they are more interested in other things and no matter how many older people tell them they should, they just couldn't give a monkeys?

Certainly there were more cultural influences for me when I was young. Take music for instance, the charts were full of Red Wedge, Billy Bragg, UB40, etc, all penning anti establishment lyrics, questioning the way things were and influencing young minds to think about how to change things. Angry young men and women who wanted to say something. A quick look at the charts today shows that spirit has gone. Now, i'm not suggesting that music has a duty to do this, it was just the way things were back then. Whilst it might not happen now, there is a lot more available information now - we didn't have social media, political debates, access to university campus to see organised debates from all the candidates for the local constituency, that sort of thing. Politicians and their message has never been more available, so I cannot understand why young people feel disengaged from the political arena.

I look after my cat well. She gets good food, healthcare and a comfortable place to sleep. That doesnt mean I have socialise with her and her cat buddies.

Which is what i was getting at - lazy stereotyping adds nothing, especially when it is tinged with the slightly pious drive for self-promotion.

btw, you are too soft on your cats. They need to demonstrate they at least trying to catch mice and birds in order to get more than value range food.

I agree that conservatives can be perfectly pleasant people (my parents are among them). But they've deluded themselves that what's best for them is best for everyone, often because they don't really have personal contact with those less well off

I can think of a good number of left-wing Labour voters i know who wouldn't even consider associating with those who live in some of the poorer estates of Southampton. Doesn't stop them bloody preaching though.

There are too many variables and unknowns to establish what would happen in equilibrium; but if demand for £2m> properties fell because of the mansion tax; it follows their price also fall, thereby increasing the increase the supply of lower banded properties. Surely the result would be to offset the inflationary pressures you predict?

 

Of course, all this assumes that people only care about avoiding the tax. Never mind that it will be a fraction of their overall wealth and the windfall many have enjoyed over the last decade; never mind that many owners have an inherent preference to live in a nicer property in a more desirable location. Never mind all the other frictions to moving.

 

By the way, I don't resent anyone. That's an odd suggestion. I just don't have any sympathy for those who cry injustice. As a matter of principle, that's not all homeowners -the likes of you and your father-in-law, half clad, sweatily renovating a property do partly deserve any increase in its subsequent value

 

By extension, I would be quite happy to differentiate between those who've made a substantial contribution to the value of the property eligible for the mansion tax rather than those who've just surfed the wave assuming a practical and wieldy mechanism existed.

I see what you did there!

IMHO, a Mansion Tax would be a good policy, but instead of making it a one off blitz against the very, very few it will affect and to protect the poor old Mrs Bufton-Tufton types who supposedly bought their gaff years ago, have but a few coppers under their matress and are going to be penalised by rampant Bolsheviks, then surely introducing it only on property transactions from now on would be a fairer method of implementation? The high end London markets will still be buoyant as those individuals have more money than they care about. And it would presumably protect Her Maj from having to dive into the the grandchildrens diamond fund too.

why isnt labour odds on. Given that we live in such a poor state at the moment (apparently)

Good point. Labour are going into this election against a weak Conservative party that has a mixed record with their last government and whose manifesto sets out policies, some of which are baffling and ill-conceived. They should be odds on for a win and indeed they would be, if only they had a decent campaign, a strong shadow cabinet and a statesmanlike leader. None of which they appear to have in full. Credit to Miliband, he has improved as the campaign has progressed, but will he be able to do enough leading up to polling day to pull off a majority? The Conservative Party seem to be doing their level best to dissuade voters with their negativity and poorly managed campaign.

It has gone up in Tory government, that's for sure, but maybe not by as much as advertised. It was rising up until 2011, and I presume you can only really class it from then due to that being when the policies took effect.

Food banks have also risen in number largely due to the worst economic recession in over 80 years, which, of course, is not the fault of any political party at all, ahem. IMHO, whoever was in power over the last five years would have overseen a rise in the number of food banks.

Of course I wouldn't be happy to sell my house under market value. But we're not talking about me, we're talking about the state. And one of the functions of the state is to redistribute wealth from the more fortunate ("the rich") to the less fortunate ("the poor"). Nobody in any party really disagrees with this (no matter what people think about the Tories!) - the only questions that are really up for grabs are "how?", and "how much?".

 

Is it also "stealing" that the government coerces with my employer to forcibly take thousands of pounds of my money from me annually and then just gives it away to other people who I have never even met?!

 

What about the controlled rent on council houses? By your argument, asking for tenants to pay rent below the market rate is also short changing the tax payer.

 

Regardless of the other rights and wrongs of right-to-buy (and there are some quite interesting arguments and points in this thread beneath all the mud slinging) selling state-owned property at a discounted rate to tenants (who are on average going to be some of society's less well-off) is LITERALLY a redistribution of wealth.

Housing Association stock is not state owned, it is owned by the HA who are not-for-profit organisations designed to provide the housing needs for those with a need for low cost housing. HA's are private / public enterprises that have to borrow money in order to build dwellings. Some of their finance comes from Central Government, but this has been reduced over the years and their business model shows they borrow an increasing proportion (traditionally from banks) to finance their operation. This debt is long term debt and it is expected that rent paid by tenants, even through benefits, will pay off the borrowing over time. There will also be the capital asset of the property, but if this is being sold off at below market rate, then they will have to seriously reappraise the value of their asset base and this, in turn, will result in a reduced ability for them to operate. Incidentally, the pledge by the Tories to sell "one for one" to part finance this has about as much chance of success as I have of a two's up with Kylie and Danni Minogue.

Just out of interest, instead of finding new brownfield sites to build properties on, why don't we make use of the huge number of empty office blocks - renovations of properties would be much cheaper and would increase the housing stock massively. It has been done recently in my local area by private companies (estate agents) and its regenerated the areas as well as providing housing.

The Coalition relaxed the planning laws on converting vacant offices to residential accommodation a few years ago, but the uptake was quite low as, generally, only flats and maybe ground floor maisonettes can realistically be built. There is more of a demand for traditional 3 up, 2 downs and not 1 and 2 bed flats in most areas. Not all, granted, but there are generally enough new build flats from private developers to service the demand. This made propositions to developers less attractive, as returns would be much lower. It also had the wholly unexpected (not) result of suddenly raising the landlords expected value of the existing office block and accompanying land - that wasn't an obvious one at all, no way - putting off a number of interested developers.

On a wider note, there are two main reasons the country is not building what is required, either in terms of number of units or type of units. First is finance availability - still difficult, even for HA's (who will find their ability to borrow even more reduced after the announcement yesterday) and secondly is the archaic, convoluted, expensive and obstructive planning approval system we have in this country. Simply, it is not fit for purpose and not able to serve the demands of the Country. IMHO, if the political message during this election was one of overhauling the planning system, it would make far more sense than simply flogging off a few HA units for a discount as a quick vote winner.

If an ex socialist labour supporter like Martin Freeman has gone to them, then they have steered themselves far left. Not to mention that, they are once again completely beholden to the unions.

They are so middle ground, they can't quite make up their mind if they are "small c" Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. Whether or not anyone thinks they are "large C's", depends on your point of view i guess.