buctootim

I thought you got through the match without going insolvent?

Ursula

Its two sides of the same coin. Personally I'd be happy with a one out one in policy immigration policy. The population has increased by 4.5m over the past 10 years, that's a fact, regardless of whether or not it should have been allowed to happen a government has to respond to the reality. For them to put its fingers in its ears and not address the consequences of that influx compounds the problems, it doesn't make them go away. Congestion is only partly population related, much more to do with much higher levels of car ownership That's true, I think I read about half the population increase is immigration related and half increased longevity and birth rate. With more older people you have greater demand on healthcare and pensions - and if you are trying to lower expenditure then you get disproportionate and more severe cuts elsewhere, hence part of wealth transfer from young to old, so it does impact policy. There are no easy solutions. Compulsory birth control and limits on children aka China? no healthcare past 75? Euthanasia if you've had three hospital admissions in the past year? I cant see any of those being vote winners.

I agree that's part of it, myself included. Also people living longer means there proportionately less time when the house was fully occupied with both parents and kids. Average household size has shrunk by around 4% between 2003 and 2013. The main issue is population increase though - 59.6m in 2003 to 64.1m in 2013 - that's 7.5% in 10 years. Combine the two figures and we needed around 2.6m new homes but built only around 1m

I didn't say the housing crisis was solely a Tory failing and yes its caused largely by an increasing population (and to a lesser extent household size becoming smaller). Even if immigration stopped tomorrow we would still have a massive pent up housing shortage. The question is why isn't it being addressed.

Catch 22 though isn't it, damned if you do and damned if you don't. Making clear what your views are but agreeing to compromise on the small stuff seems principled to me.

Obviously there are difficulties, but the 'reasonable person' maxim used in courts would work.

As I said its part of a long term trend although I think its speeded up over the past 10 years - largely because the young don't vote enough and when they do it tends not to be Tory. The major problem is the extortionate price of housing, sort that out and the other problems become more manageable. In 1994 60% of 30 year olds owned their home, in 2004 it was 54%, 34% in 2014 and probably even lower now. That means increasing the housing stock by around 10%, some 2.4 million homes, not 200,000.

Fair enough. Obviously all I know about you is what you post here, so either I've misread or your posts have misrepresented your politics slightly. I find it hard to understand how you view the Cameron government as successful. They have repeatedly missed their own targets for growth and deficit reduction whilst simultaneously engaging in a large transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest, continuing the trend of the past 30 years. I dont agree with much of Corbyn's polcies but he is at least principled and honest. Thats what I see as lacking from the current government. They will talk grandly about protecting the most vulnerable in society whilst doing the exact opposite. The violence and the hatred is a symptom imo of the very divided country we are becoming, created by divisive policies. Reminds me of the early 1980s.

We've been through this. Over the past 20 years there has been a large transfer of wealth from the young to the old and over the past 30 years from the 95% to the 5%. When you add in the housing crisis and student debts then you have a real and sustained loss of standard of living. You can deny its happening, but thats because you dont want to read and prefer to dismiss the stats.

I dont necessarily disagree, its not effective. The people who are in the main being screwed by this government are the young and poor - so you're going to get street protests and marches rather than the slick paid for lobbying, media campaigning and legal loophole get outs deployed by the wealthy and corporates. The majority of the tools to persuade the electorate will always be with the 'haves' rather than the 'have nots'. A Conservative victory should be the norm. Letting Labour in occasionally is a miscalculation on their part about how far they needed to hold their nose and reach out to the middle.

You sound more fixed than floating in your views. In any event you have a selective memory. Opposition, by its nature, is always more fervent / rabid / violent than Government -just as the right wing opposition was when Labour was in power. Violent riots, invading Parliament, blocking roads and dumping dead animals in the street. "Scotland Yard chief Sir John Stevens today revealed police were taken by surprise by the ferocity of the violence during the pro-hunt demonstration outside Parliament. He said 48 police officers were hurt in disturbances at the Countryside Alliance protest on 15 September." http://www.standard.co.uk/news/met-chief-shocked-by-violence-at-hunt-protest-6974030.html Dead horse dumped in Brighton street http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3656524.stm

Don't forget than in the Gulf war more British troops were killed by American 'friendly fire' than by the Iraqis.

Mines bigger than yours

shake

They want a big slice of something belonging to other people without paying for it. See also page 1, 2, 3, ..........2088 etc

I'm not seeing the resemblance. Post up a pic of the table saw for reference

Is that legal opinion or fact?

Judicious chop downs only

Thats true. What I find odd is that public support for gun ownership has been going up even though the murder rate is declining along with all other developed societies. You'd expect the opposite

Ben Bernanke (chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time of the crash) came out a few days ago and said he argued the senior management of the banks should have gone to prison. His argument was that the people who caused the crisis kept the financial benefits of their actions whilst fines hurt the wrong people, the shareholders, mostly pension funds who had done nothing wrong.

What's honest decent and true for ads? you can apply the same principles. It doesnt have to heavy handed or bureaucratic, hundreds of thousands of ads are produced each year but complaints to the ASA are a tiny fraction of that. Agencies know where the line is and by and large stick to it. Politics is a sales game just like any product and its no more difficult to make sure the public isnt mislead than Carlsberg beer or VW cars.

In (like)

Its simple. You have a code along the lines of what adverts must comply with - basically honest, decent and true. Bold, Ariel and Persil all manage to advertise claiming they're the best without saying the Unilever CEO's dad hated Britain. You can and should have diversity of opinion and interpretation of events, policies and facts. Ive no issue with the Telegraph or Spectator, its facts through a right wing prism. Hounding people asnd distorting the truth is a totally different matter. Its not solely a political thing - most people would agree phone hacking, upskirt shots of celebrities and simple crap made up is beyond the norm of reasonable behaviour.

Except they didnt and it wasn't. What goes on inside your head bears little resemblance to what goes on outside it.