pap

I think you're responding to a different point than the one I made.

Works for me too. And/or land tax.

I'm saying anyone who buys houses specifically for renting to people on DSS are bigger scroungers than the people living in their sh*thole houses. If it were down to me, I'd review every single buy-to-let mortgage held by a state-owned bank. Where it can be proved that someone is aggressively targeting DSS applicants, I'd probably say something like "Nah, not having that. Not going to let the British tax-payer fund your property portfolio. We'll have them houses back, ta".

I wonder how many of the 2.6 million are having their rent paid for at market rate in a former council property.

Please add "buy-to-let private landlords farming housing benefits" to that list.

Are you suggesting that the introduction of food stamps would be a good idea? What about other essentials, such as utility bills, etc? Or the fact that food stamp fraud is rife in the US, the seeming origin of any Conservative idea. It's not a solution - just a crap alternative which isn't as handy as money. Government thinking on this whole issue is naive and inept. There seems to be an underlying belief that by removing benefits, you push people into work. Not really the case at all. People will just spend more of their time in the black market economy, whether that's theft, dealing or whatever. One of the truest things I've ever heard is "you'd be amazed at how much you can buy with a teenth of weed". On your last point about removing kids from destructive families. Where would you see them going, and what criteria would you see them going for? I ask because we already have social services, foster carers and state care. We're already trying to remove the kids that are most at-risk from harm. How would you widen your criteria to re-house those children that aren't already in the system?

All over the Guardian this morning. David Cameron is to slash benefit entitlements. Under his plans, no-one under the age of 25 will be entitled to Housing Benefit. Families with more than three children may also lose benefits. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/25/cameron-tories-slash-benefits Apparently, the former Bullingdon club PM is sick of a culture of entitlement I can see that this is going to be a very popular policy with those that believe that the poor are responsible for all of society's ills. On a purely abstract level, I can even agree with the principle. I've worked pretty much continuously since 17. I know a couple of people on benefits who will brazenly milk the system, and it does irk me. That said, I worry about the implementation, which is likely to be scatter-gun, and will likely affect people that fall well outside this "culture of entitlement". I've got a friend who has recently split up with her husband after she found out he was playing away. Crapload of kids, which she brought into this world in "good faith". She's the sort of person that would get caught by this legislation. I also worry about whether there are actually enough jobs out there to cover those who lose their entitlements. Are we going to end up putting people on the streets? To put this into some kind of perspective, the amount of money this will save ( 1Bn ) is about an eighth of the tax bill that Vodafone got away with. Most of these proposals are likely to be moot. The Lib Dems are unlikely to agree to many of them. It'll need a Conservative majority government to pass, so earliest time this could be implemented is 2015.

That is now a Tesco Express.

I ken do ye a quick fix, like!

I like Sat Navs, although one should be wary. My mate's "free" sat nav app was employed on the way back from the Derby game. Brilliant drive, but a bit scary. Instead of routing us A50/M6 back to Liverpool, it instructed us to go through the Peak District on some very bendy roads with a couple of large drops! Moral of the story. If you mostly know which roads you need and are in an unfamiliar town, just get your Sat Nav to route you to one of those

Her attitude sums up politicians perfectly, if my mostly daily experience of the Today programme is anything to go by. Most of this crop of politicians, at least the ones important enough to command airtime, are complete scoundrels when it comes to answering a simple question. They all use the trick of presenting one stat as if it is the totality of the situation. Great recent example: "the biggest raise in pensions from any recent government". Yes. That's because pensions are linked to inflation, which is currently out of control. Few do anything more than repeat the prepared statements of their party ad nauseum.

You should know by now that this party political point-scoring nonsense doesn't work on me, trousers. My "support" for the Labour party extends as far as "I dislike them less than the other parties". I don't like the Conservatives because most of them are c***s and not really Conservatives. The Lib Dems are just blatant opportunists. I still wonder whether Miliband means the things he says or is just targeting the squeezed middle with intellectual demagoguery. In short, I'm annoyed with the lot of them. I suspect I'm not alone.

To be fair, our current system of clueless career politicians choosing how to spend taxpayer cash hasn't exactly gone swimmingly. At least the general public would be pragmatic.

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. The problem with lowering the 50% tax rate was that it was seen to be giving a tax break to those who least needed it at a time when we were all being told we'd need to pay more. Those "squeals" weren't tacit validation of a progressive tax system. More about people saying "eh? why are you giving them more money?".

I think Carr's problem is that the scheme he chose was so aggressive that it leaves very little room for sympathy. I don't personally have a problem with certain entertainers going the service company route. Many aren't on regular income. I'd have a bigger issue with someone on a regular gig, but a lot of entertainers aren't guaranteed of regular work. If Carr had gone the service company route, he'd pay 20% corporation tax, higher rate tax on dividends above the threshold, and the administrative costs of running a small company. He'd still be coining it in. Still a crapload better than 1% with the money he makes. I think the extent to which he's avoiding is the problem.

Don't know how many left-wingers you actually know, but as one myself, believe that the progressive tax system is ultimately counterproductive. I would be happy for everyone to pay the same rate. In practice, a lot of the rich aren't even paying the 33% or so in direct taxes that their less well-heeled counterparts are paying.

I'm sure that publicly, Cameron will not be fully supportive of his Dad's exploits. Really don't think he can afford to be. That said, I can't see him condemning his late father either. The two top stories on the Guardian at the moment are Jimmy Carr and how the Cameron's built their fortune. Fancy that, as Private Eye like to say

I've never really liked Jimmy Carr. Even before all this nonsense, the man has made a career of being a corporate whore. No business function too small for Jimmy to appear with. The late great Bill Hicks informs a lot of my views on this:- That said, it's very funny to see Cameron talk about the moral repugnance of tax evasion when his dad made a huge chunk of the family fortune finding tax havens for fellow avoiders. We're all in this together, indeed.

Mohammed El Zari. He's not at Bobby Davro levels of fame, I grant you. http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition Amnesty covered this case in detail:- http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR42/001/2006/en/99c3ecdc-d3d2-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/eur420012006en.html I know what you're getting at. Assange is too "big" to take down via extraordinary rendition. Perhaps you're right, but I'm not convinced. I'd hoped that the prospect of US extra-judicial action would have died with the Bush administration, but Obama seems just as keen. Any country that allows the extradition of Assange to the US is going to be seen as the one that has sent him to his death. In a perverse sort of way, extraordinary rendition seems a lot cleaner. Sweden would shrug their shoulders, the Yanks would be bold as brass and most governments would breathe a collective sigh of relief.

What are you basing your assessment of "highly unlikely" on? Sweden were complicit in extraordinary rendition and torture at the behest of the Bush administration. If asked, they will co-operate again. That just leaves us with the US. Do you honestly think they'll care about the means as long as the ends are achieved? How many governments would actually condemn them for it?

I'm very paranoid about government and big business, and with good reason. They're always up to something. While you generally have to wait six months to see if a Private Eye article is corrected out of existence, most of it holds up - and its just a never-ending stream of ongoing malfeasance across public and private sectors. They bang out an issue every fortnight practically full of the stuff. You should check it out. I think the real problem is that people are starting to realise what their governments are capable of. Never mind the tinfoil hat stuff for now. Let's focus on stuff that's out in the open. We know that Blair's government created a war out of a cock and bull story that resulted in over a million deaths. We've tortured people, or locked them up without charging them with any crime. What about all this business with Leveson? Senior Conservatives, including the PM, utterly joined at the hip with high level Murdoch executives, and from all appearances, using their power to legislate to promote a corporate interest. I think people have a right to be paranoid about governments and big business. There's plenty of evidence out there to suggest they're up to all sorts of hi-jinks. Doesn't mean you have to fall in line with every contrarian to step into the limelight.

I appreciate the correction and I'll suffer a dressing down for my rampant sexism, but I'm not entirely sure that invalidates my point about Assange's potential extraordinary rendition. There are no guarantees that the US will follow due process once he has left Britain. The other thing that people seem to be missing is the fact that he has spent the best part of the last five years poking the biggest dogs in the world. It is not an exaggeration to say that people want him dead. What chance does he stand in a Swedish prison or American concentration camp? Not really surprising that he's made the decision to try to escape to Ecuador if he genuinely fears for his life. I do actually believe that, btw. In custodial terms, he is not facing a long sentence if found guilty. FWIW, I'm reasonably indifferent about Assange. The release of information is a double edged sword. Shines a light onto a lot of things we shouldn't be doing, but a lot of people are endangered in the process. I will be watching this story with interest, though.

"And he dances like a tw*t". Serious journalism. At least 70% of that is a hit piece. Still, it's nice to read something that backs up your opinion. He's completely wrong about Assange's safety, by the way. He's making the massive assumption that the US will play by the rules and not just throw a bag over his head and bundle him in a plane.

I'm reluctant to get into any debate which trivialises sexual offences, but I do think we need to be clear about the nature of the alleged complaints and Assange's response. 1) Unlawful coercion, allegedly holding one of the complainants down with his body weight (complainant 1) 2) Not using a condom when asked to (complainant 1) 3) Deliberately pressing erect penis into complainant (complainant 1) 4) Condom-less sex with complainant 2 while asleep Assange claims that both sexual encounters were consensual. Like I say, I don't want to trivialise this - but half the married men in the world would be guilty of 3). These are not violent sexual assaults, and there is consent for "general sexual congress" from both women. The case rests on aspects within that congress. e.g. "I said you could do that but not that". I wonder how many other people accused of similar crimes have European Arrest Warrants out for them. I sat on a jury for a "rape within relationship" trial. They are notoriously difficult to prove when it's just one persons word against another. This is why it is interesting that Assange has two complainants making similar accusations. The weight of their collective evidence could sink him. It comes down to one of two scenarios:- a) he did it, and the women are telling the truth b) he didn't do it, and the women are telling lies to discredit him

Which would all be very well, but history is littered with people that have been falsely accused of crimes because of other things they've done. In 2006, Sweden was written up by the UN for allowing extraordinary rendition and torture to take place on its soil. Make no mistake, this is a country that will "play ball" with the US.