Johnny Bognor

Or "rapist" (don't worry, I havent forgotten)

There are two sides of the coin. Wealth creation and wealth Distribution. If you focus on distribution and not creation, it is pointless, as there is less to share. If you focus too much on creation and not distribution, it's unfair. Unfortunately the two main parties look to represent either side of the coin. My ideal politics would be to have both and no party seems to be able to deliver on this. So I look at policies from different parties and apply rules of common sense as to whether I agree with them or not. Take the minimum wage. When it came in, I was worried as many were that it would be a disaster. As it happens, it has worked very well. Fair play to labour. But there is definitely prejudice, particularly from the lefties on this forum. I don't know if this is driven by envy or some outdated 1970's class warfare. Your comment was said as if having blue noses was a bad thing. Surely as saints fans we have something in common? I am a St holder, go home and away, bleed red and white and supported your team through thick and thin. Yet because of your perceptions as to my political allegencies, suddenly that's a problem? That is prejudice plain and simple. Would you show the same disdain if I was black or gay? I hope not. Most lefties would be the first to call out fascist or homophobic, pretending that they are on some moral high horse, when in fact they display similar prejudices themselves. Can you not see how hypocritical that is?? (for not wanting to be called a hypocrite, I am prejudiced against hypocrites, although I don't always pretend to be caring and sharing so it doesn't really matter anyway)

Interesting article but it does omit some very obvious truths. In 1997, labour inherited an economy on the up. There was a small deficit, but labour stuck to Tory spending plans for the first two years, after which the deficit was all but eliminated. There were a few years of surplus and the argument to invest in health schools etc was a strong one. But this article doesn't take account of off balance sheet borrowing which was substantial. Yes the global financial crisis was not all labours doing, but there was plenty that could have been done to minimise the effects. Consumer debt at the end of his tenure was as bad as national debt, something that brown actively encouraged with his declaration of no more boom and bust. The consumer debt bubble was only ever going to cause a bust.... And it did. So I am afraid that whilst there are interesting points in that article, it is by no means the whole picture and the prudent one, won't be remembered as prudent in the history books. As as for your last comment, that is what really irks me about politically active lefties. The disparaging, sneering, looking down their nose attitude shows the exact traits of what you would expect from a text book Tory. Or someone of a right wing persuasion. You could go as far as saying that class prejudice is not to far away from other irrational prejudices based on gender, sexuality or even race. The difference is that lefties try to mask this irrational prejudice, with the caring sharing ********. It is just ******** really. It is a case of caring and sharing for your own and **** everyone else. Not too different from your average Tory really. Just a lot more hypocritical. As it happens, my politics are fairly central and neither of the big political parties fully represent my views. I prefer to take a common sense approach to things, which is something no major party can seem to do. But if I spot a hypocrite, I will call them out on it.

I know, but he's a typical arrogant career politician and this will damage him (I hate all smarmy career politicians from any party)

No, I am on a one-man anti-leftie crusade. If you remember the political map that was done a few years ago, I was slap bang in the middle. Out of some 40 people posting on political issues, I was the most balanced. So the voice of reason has returned....

A joke is a joke. Here's one for you... I hear Ed Milliband might be our next Prime Minister. So with a **** leading the UK and Balls right behind him, it'll be like the whole country's being ****ed. At the end of the day, he is standing for election and will probably land the 2nd most powerful job in government, that of running the countries finances. If I want to hear jokes, I'll watch Michael McIntyre or Lee Evans or some other crap TV comedian. If I want someone to take the finances of the country seriously, I want a chancellor that perhaps might take things a bit more seriously. As deluded and inept as Gordon Brown was, you cant accuse him of not taking the job seriously.

I don't find leaving the country in a financial mess a laughing matter. I am sure anyone who has lost their job or struggled over the last few years have found it funny either. If you do, bully for you, but don't complain about austerity, as it's only a bit of a laugh afterall.

This is shocking from the shadow chancellor, who may be in control of our finances in a few weeks time!!!! Ed Balls dismissed a Labour note saying there was no money left as a "joke". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11541290/Ed-Balls-Labour-note-saying-money-had-run-out-was-a-joke.html Yeah, ****ing hillarious. Perhaps you want to tell that to the people queuing outside the food banks. How can anyone want this joker near our finances ever again? It just shows the contempt these no-good career politicians have of the hard working electorate. I almost yearn for the days of the Chancellor who officially ended boom and bust... just before the bust

If people are really going hungry now and under a scheme like this, they're not, it is hard to see why they would be against it, surely?

To be fair, I do recognise the problem and in a modern developed country, it shouldn't happen. However, despite the nasty wasty tories, the situation in the rest of Europe, including in countries being run by left wing parties, is far worse. So the nasty wasty tories don't seem as nasty wasty as it first appears. Rather than using the use of food banks as a political weapon, I would like to see a cross-party consencus on dealing with the problem, because it is a problem and it needs to be tackled. Simply throwing more money at people also may not be the answer. People have touted the idea of food vouchers in the past. This scheme in Canada, where there has also been a massive rise in the use of foodbanks, shows there are innovative ways to tackle the problem: http://rabble.ca/news/2013/08/hungry-hearts-grassroots-alternative-to-food-banks-small-town-ontario I like the idea of a food debit card, where the most needy are guaranteed that they will have enough food, because that is a basic right. They are given money which can only be spent only on food. This system could solve the problem and minimise abuse of the system.

Figures published in 2014 by the OECD, show that the UK total of 8.1 per cent of people saying they can't afford food is far less than the EU average of 11.5 per cent and the OECD average of 13.2 per cent. In fact, the UK came 24th out of 34 – far behind our near neighbour France on 10 per cent. Countries hit by the eurozone crisis fared badly, with Ireland on 9 per cent, Spain on 12 per cent, Italy on 13 per cent and Greece on 17 per cent. The highest need in Europe was in Hungary, where 31 per cent went hungry. With the growth in the use of food banks in germany doubling in the last 10 years (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/07/11/germany-foodbanks/)... ... it's no wonder everyone ****ing hates the tories!!!

So I guess they are victims of their own success

Interesting article, but as with all political dogma, the financials associated to RTB only focus on the downside of RTB (Such as loss of rent for local authorities, housing benefit being paid to private landlords etc), however very little is made to the upsides. And there are some upsides... Forgetting the benefit of the sale of the house in the first place and the money it generates... - Private landlords pay stamp duty when they purchase those properties - Former tennants pay stamp duty on the new houses they purchase - Private landlords pay capital gains tax when they sell those houses - Maintenance of those properties is taken into the private sector, thus reducing LA costs - Tax is paid on rental profits by the private landlords (after MITR) - If funds are re-invested in new/more stock, there will be capital appreciation of that stock and rental income from said stock Now it may be the case that these upsides don't cover the all of downsides, I accept that, but I dont accept the losses without the upsides. To simplify the argument and claim that the taxpayer loses out full stop is a tad misleading, as new income streams for the taxpayer are clearly created. I would really love to know the NET financial effect of RTB on the taxpayer, as opposed to the politicallly skewed but inaccurate ascertation that the tax payer loses full stop, because taking the above into account, the loss cannot be as great as some people like Tom Copley are making out. If managed correctly, particularly taking my last bullet point into account, it could actually have a NET positive effect.

Why not have a fireman and appliance based in every house? Instant response. The would keep the FB unions and lefties happy?? Hey, we could see if Gordon Brown's magic money tree is still in his back garden. Now there's a fully costed and funded policy. You know it makes sense. Or why dont we educate people and do more on fire prevention to reduce the number of incidents, so that the need for fire services are reduced. Oh, wait a minute...

I don't think that is as relevant as fire prevention, which is far better (e.g. more use of smoke alarms, better fire resistant materials, less people smoking, better electrical safety for instance) Here are the changes over the last decade... Overall attendance at incidents is down 40 per cent Attendance at fires is down 48 per cent; Building fires, down 39 per cent; Minor outdoor fires, down 44 per cent; Road traffic collisions, down 24 per cent; I am sorry, but how can anyone expect to have the same numbers of firefighters and pay them more money, based on the above stats?? That doesn't stop the FB unions (flying in the face of common sense), to continue bashing the nasty wasty tories...

Don't be daft, it's about pay. Always is. Anyway, if there is 40% less work to do, with the same number of firefighters, surely that money could be better spent elsewhere?? When 42% of call outs are false alarms, by reducing these, response times and budgets could be cut. But let's not even think of applying some common sense to the situation, let's just bash those nasty wasty evil tories.

If you consider that 20% of all properties are owned by private landlords, why should it be different with ex council house properties? And as your point illustrates, it is unlikely that the unscrupilous nasty evil landlords would have hoovered up the properties. The nasty evil landlords would have more likely paid market rate to buy properties off the former tenants (who would have done quite nicely in the process). It's funny how the nasty evil landlords are castigated, whilst the former tenants cashing in and making huge profits are let off the hook.

Interesting info regarding the fall in the number of incidents. I used to be sympathetic to fire fighters, but if there is a 40% reduction in fires over the last decade, then surely it is logical that funding should be reduced and perhaps spent elsewhere? Had the number of incidents stayed the same, then maybe the FB would have a valid point about the tories being nasty wasty

It is sung at virtually every home game played against a northern team.

The Northern Party? Really? Should that be T'Northern Party? Since they eat off the floor, at least they won't need tables and chairs in their parliament

Don't forget, there is usually a swing to the incumbant as an election approches. However, what I find fascinating about this election is many of the local battles, with national consequences. Take Nick Clegg's seat, which is looking very vulnerable to Labour. If he loses his seat, then it could scupper a libdem tory coalition (as I think Nick was the main driver in this). So we have Labour going hell for leather to try to unseat Nick, making a tory-lib colation more difficult to achieve. Meanwhile the tories are going soft on Sheffield in the hope that Nick can hang on, should they need to form a coalition.

And there's me thinking that lefties were supposed to be caring sharing types...

I am sure he said left and not inept, although that is a valid point

Interesting comment regarding the hypocrisy of the Greens. Watching Caroline Lucas on the Last Word last night, criticising politicians for having second jobs, stating that she spent every waking hour working for her constituents. Then the discussion moved on to her new book about politics... presumably she wrote it in her sleep???

Some big assumptions there. First of all the overheads for Pizza Express will be a lot higher with prime high street locations as opposed to cheaper out of town retail outlets for Burger King. Then you have to look at volumes. The average Pizza Express outlet will serve far less pizzas than BK can serve burgers. If BK serve 1000 burgers in a given period, PE would only serve up 100 pizzas. BK put £3000 in the wage pot (using your assumptions) compared to £500 from Pizza express. Therefore, switching to PE would make less money available for the average worker. However, I dont see why the average BK customer would switch to PE. If anything, they are more likely to switch to McDonalds, who serve £4 meals, pay minimum wage and have people on zero hour contracts. Meanwhile BK would lay off staff as a result of the switch. Would the worker on the street really be better off???? Not really. Then If McDonalds put their prices up to pay higher wages, you could bet your bottom dollar that more people would stay at home, as opposed to switching to PE or back to BK. Therefore you would be putting more people on the scrap heap. The biggest problem of all, is that if BK charge more for their burgers, in order to pay higher wages, those customers will have less money to spend elsewhere. Say in the pubs or on cars, therefore leading to job cuts elsewhere. All you would be doing is to move money to fast food workers, away from those working in pubs or in car factories. Taking from one group, in order to give to another isn't the answer. The answer is to create more wealth (through innovation) and use the tax system to re-distribute it more fairly. It's quite simple really and neither political party seem to get it.