Support NeoGAF

[PJV3]

So in what way does it encourage any of the behaviour you suggested was a social good?

In other news, my Facebook feed is alive with people saying "yay it passed but boo half the Tories voted against it, still the nasty party!" So why did it take until a Tory coalition government for it to get legislated? Where was Labour when it had an enormous majority for the last 12(-2) years? The reality that no liberal Labour party supporters seem to want to confront is that the most homophobic part of our society is not the aristocratic fox hunters - who frankly love nothing more than a bit of buggery in the barn - but the same working class Brits that they claim to represent.

You're making a big leap of logic with that statement. Labour made promises that civil partnership wasn't a trojan horse policy for marriage. And quite frankly after living through the 80's and the disgusting shit the tories did, yours is a pretty grotty argument.

Well done to all the MPs who voted for it, whichever party.

 

[War Peaceman]

Also, this bit from the telegraph live blog was great:

17.12 It seems David Cameron can't hope for much support from some of the minority parties. A DUP MP, David Simpson,has just called on the Government to pay the legal fees of any teacher or church that faces a challenge over the legislation in the European courts. He meant to say it was "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" in the garden of Eden - though he actually slightly muddled his words and got them the wrong way round.

 

[CyclopsRock]

But they passed civil partnerships and basically would have passed gay marriage were it not for Blair wobbling. New Labour did shitloads for LGBT rights, more than any other at any point. What are you on about? It was one of their few generally positive social policies.

The difference is that the Tories - that is, the party, not all of its members - did something they thought was right in spite of its unpopularity with their grassroots. Labour didn't do what they thought was right for the same reason. Labour had the power to do all the LGBT stuff it wanted, but it stuck to stuff even the CoE was supporting.

 

[gofreak]

Also, this bit from the telegraph live blog was great:

17.12 It seems David Cameron can't hope for much support from some of the minority parties. A DUP MP, David Simpson,has just called on the Government to pay the legal fees of any teacher or church that faces a challenge over the legislation in the European courts. He meant to say it was "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" in the garden of Eden - though he actually slightly muddled his words and got them the wrong way round.

Epic lol.

Anyways, good news. Great news, even.

 

[War Peaceman]

The difference is that the Tories - that is, the party, not all of its members - did something they thought was right in spite of its unpopularity with their grassroots. Labour didn't do what they thought was right for the same reason. Labour had the power to do all the LGBT stuff it wanted, but it stuck to stuff even the CoE was supporting.

It seems like an arbitraty thing to complain about, though. They all but did it and would have passed it were it not for Tony Blair's wobble. It isn't their fault that their grassroot accept it. Look at how far they took LGBT rights - repealed section 28, equalised age of consent, civil partnershops, the equality act etc.

To complain that they didn't pass gay marriage seems to be nitpicking really. New Labour were bad but this is one of the times when they weren't.

But ANYWAY, well done to all the MPs who voted for it. Either of the MPs I could have voted for did so (both Conservatives).

 

[Yen]

Also, this bit from the telegraph live blog was great:

17.12 It seems David Cameron can't hope for much support from some of the minority parties. A DUP MP, David Simpson,has just called on the Government to pay the legal fees of any teacher or church that faces a challenge over the legislation in the European courts. He meant to say it was "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" in the garden of Eden - though he actually slightly muddled his words and got them the wrong way round.

I honestly think all DUP MLAs and MPs are morons.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWIoULRrvxM

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Well done to all the MPs who voted for it, whichever party.

Yes, this is good news. After reading a lot of US based political threads on here it's nice to know that even with our mainstream conservative party in power, the UK as a whole is progressive enough for something like this to pass comfortably.

 

[CyclopsRock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWIoULRrvxM

Ha, I know the guy that wrote that.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

CFP reform got passed.

New bill is by no means perfect, but it does a lot to mitigate one of the big areas where I feel the EU has been totally useless.

Roll on CAP reform next year please

 

[CyclopsRock]

CFP reform got passed.

New bill is by no means perfect, but it does a lot to mitigate one of the big areas where I feel the EU has been totally useless.

Roll on CAP reform next year please

Do you know much about it? I don't at all, so I just did a quick bit of research. A guy from a Scottish Fisheries body said....

""Rather than a centralised 'one size fits all' policy, we now have a real opportunity to control our fisheries much more effectively on a regional basis where fishermen, government, scientists and other relevant stakeholders can develop effective management regimes."

Which sounds lovely to me, but... isn't that basically how it works between countries that share water borders with countries that aren't in the EU?

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Do you know much about it? I don't at all, so I just did a quick bit of research. A guy from a Scottish Fisheries body said....

""Rather than a centralised 'one size fits all' policy, we now have a real opportunity to control our fisheries much more effectively on a regional basis where fishermen, government, scientists and other relevant stakeholders can develop effective management regimes."

Which sounds lovely to me, but... isn't that basically how it works between countries that share water borders with countries that aren't in the EU?

Yeah, but this is one step towards being in a trading alliance that doesn't do some of the more barmy or wasteful things the eu currently does.

CFP is part of the checklist that people (including me) wave around when asked why we dislike the EU

 

[PJV3]

It brings an end to the awful fish dumping, it's disgusting watching all that waste.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Exactly.

And hopefully this will help some of the under pressure fish stocks increase.

Though better still would be a ban or a limit on giant trawlers

 

[kharma45]

I honestly think all DUP MLAs and MPs are morons.

Arlene is alright.

 

[PJV3]

Exactly.

And hopefully this will help some of the under pressure fish stocks increase.

Though better still would be a ban or a limit on giant trawlers

I'd like to see more of the UK style 'no catch' zones, like they have around Lundy island. The early results were promising.

Are there plans to use the EU parliament in CAP reform?

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Yeah, it'll go through co-decision.

Hopefully Cameron's threat will help impetus on the bureaucratic side, and common sense prevail in the parliment.

Would be nice if amendments took it further then the EC is willing to go, but theres so many self serving interests at play it's hard to tell.

 

[Yen]

Arlene is alright.

Fracking business wound me up.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I'd like to see more of the UK style 'no catch' zones, like they have around Lundy island. The early results were promising.

Are there plans to use the EU parliament in CAP reform?

Ha! Never going to happen. Our threat to leave via a referendum is all about extorting an opt-out of the CAP for us and eventually all the non-agriculture nations (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands). If the agriculture nations want subsidies they will have to pay for them alone. A CAP opt-out would save our economy up to £20bn per year from lower food prices as well as EU contributions savings. French and Polish farmers can go fuck themselves.

 

[PJV3]

Ha! Never going to happen. Our threat to leave via a referendum is all about extorting an opt-out of the CAP for us and eventually all the non-agriculture nations (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands). If the agriculture nations want subsidies they will have to pay for them alone. A CAP opt-out would save our economy up to £20bn per year from lower food prices as well as EU contributions savings. French and Polish farmers can go fuck themselves.

I don't think there are many people in the UK who don't want to see CAP reformed, But I'm not in favour of telling sections of society to go fuck themselves (even French ones).

I'd like to see money used to diversify the farmers and other secondary businesses in the EU. And eventually and gradually withdraw the CAP.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't think there are many people in the UK who don't want to see CAP reformed, But I'm not in favour of telling sections of society to go fuck themselves (even French ones).

I'd like to see money used to diversify the farmers and other secondary businesses in the EU. And eventually and gradually withdraw the CAP.

But the CAP isn't just about giving French farmers money, it's also about levying huge tarifs and import duties on non-EU goods. You say you're not in favour of telling sections of society to go fuck themselves, but that's exactly what we do to foreign agricultural countries that aren't in the EU, especially third world ones that could use our custom far more than France needs it.

 

[Walshicus]

But the CAP isn't just about giving French farmers money, it's also about levying huge tarifs and import duties on non-EU goods. You say you're not in favour of telling sections of society to go fuck themselves, but that's exactly what we do to foreign agricultural countries that aren't in the EU, especially third world ones that could use our custom far more than France needs it.

While I'm sure we're all in favour of ending poverty etc., for purely selfish reasons I think we can afford a CAP who's role is to protect the countryside and domestic, European agriculture.

And frankly, I think the environmentalist in me would rather import from a Gallic farmer fifty kilometres south than someone thousands of kilometres away in Africa.

 

[CyclopsRock]

While I'm sure we're all in favour of ending poverty etc., for purely selfish reasons I think we can afford a CAP who's role is to protect the countryside and domestic, European agriculture.

And frankly, I think the environmentalist in me would rather import from a Gallic farmer fifty kilometres south than someone thousands of kilometres away in Africa.

Well of course that's your prerogative, but it's pretty tough to argue that it's in the average British person's interests to not only have more expensive food, but to actively pay the French and other agricultural nations for the benefit of providing it to us. Then we spunk £6bn a year on foreign development and sending special forces to Mali when a part of the problem in these countries is that they have their ability to trade restricted for the sake of Gallic farmers.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

It looks like we finally won one. Cameron has negotiated an EU budget cut for the first time in its history. Insane.

Anyone who thinks we can't get a settlement from the EU over power repatriations and opt-outs of regulations is kidding themselves. At the beginning of this process the UK was almost alone in calling for a budget cut, even Finland said a freeze would work for them and almost all other nations said a small rise would be fine, and there were extreme ones like France who wanted a large increase to fund larger CAP funding.

 

[Walshicus]

Sounds like a German victory on the budget talks then. Fair-do.

 

[WARCOCK]

It looks like we finally won one. Cameron has negotiated an EU budget cut for the first time in its history. Insane.

Anyone who thinks we can't get a settlement from the EU over power repatriations and opt-outs of regulations is kidding themselves. At the beginning of this process the UK was almost alone in calling for a budget cut, even Finland said a freeze would work for them and almost all other nations said a small rise would be fine, and there were extreme ones like France who wanted a large increase to fund larger CAP funding.

Where are you getting this, i don't see anything on the major news outlets yet.

 

[War Peaceman]

Where are you getting this, i don't see anything on the major news outlets yet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21377378


Good work, if it does end up going through. As someone you might call pro-EU, I think this is important. The EU cannot go on increasing in funding as its individual constituencies are cutting. It hurts its legitimacy.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Great work from Cameron. Watch the parliment vote this down though

 

[Bo-Locks]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MartinSchulz

Check out the tweets from the President of the Parliament. He's pissed. lol. European politicians really do not help themselves.

 

[Walshicus]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MartinSchulz

Check out the tweets from the President of the Parliament. He's pissed. lol. European politicians really do not help themselves.

"My signature is required for definitive adoption of budget, I cannot, will not and may not accept what amount to deficit budgets"

Seems fairly sensible. He doesn't want to run a deficit because the EU civil service is being asked to do more with less.




Also, not sure why this is being treated as Cameron's victory any more than Merkel's, Rutte's, Thorning-Schmidt's or half a dozen other's.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Seems fairly sensible. He doesn't want to run a deficit because the EU civil service is being asked to do more with less.

It's a tough old life at the eu

Also, not sure why this is being treated as Cameron's victory any more than Merkel's, Rutte's, Thorning-Schmidt's or half a dozen other's.

a) because we're British
b) because Cameron led the charge and allowed other leaders to be bolder without bearing the brunt of the blame

 

[Walshicus]

It's a tough old life at the eu

Would you rather he be ready and willing to run a deficit?

a) because we're British
b) because Cameron led the charge and allowed other leaders to be bolder without bearing the brunt of the blame

At least that's the spin for us.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Would you rather he be ready and willing to run a deficit?

Do we even have proper accounting records yet?
I seem to recall a whistleblower got hounded by the police a few years back.

At least that's the spin for us.

Because the atmosphere was so full of desire to cut last time round?

 

[Walshicus]

Do we even have proper accounting records yet?

Yes. This comes up often... but it's a bit of a red herring...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeucom/270/27010.htm

"149. Sir John Bourn, Comptroller and Auditor General at the UK's National Audit Office told us that, were he required to issue a single Statement of Assurance on the UK Government's accounts in the same way as the Court of Auditors does for Europe's accounts, he, like the Court, would be unable to do so (Q 192). This is because last year he issued a qualified opinion on 13 of the 500 accounts of the British Government which he audits (Q 190). (paragraph 22)"

It's one of those things that sounds a lot worse than it actually is.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Yes. This comes up often... but it's a bit of a red herring...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeucom/270/27010.htm


It's one of those things that sounds a lot worse than it actually is.

Hmmm, I'm sure I remember some rather more serious claims in Private Eye. Will check when I get home.

 

[Walshicus]

Hmmm, I'm sure I remember some rather more serious claims in Private Eye. Will check when I get home.

There's corruption in any tier of government - town, county, national and European. And they should all be investigated and the perpetrators gaoled. But the idea that the EU is unique or almost more flagrant in this just doesn't tie up to reality.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

There's corruption in any tier of government - town, county, national and European. And they should all be investigated and the perpetrators gaoled. But the idea that the EU is unique or almost more flagrant in this just doesn't tie up to reality.

Yeah, but most countries don't have 50% of their budget ringfenced to support farming. It's the whole mix that's disliked, not any one thing in particular.

This and the CFP decision are the first positive things to happens in donkeys years that address these long held concerns - Blair simply did not fight our corner in eu summits.

 

[Walshicus]

Yeah, but most countries don't have 50% of their budget ringfenced to support farming. It's the whole mix that's disliked, not any one thing in particular.

And most countries have budgets thirty or so times larger than the EU's in terms of relative GDP, *and* have far wider areas of responsibility to manage. If the EU were required to manage healthcare across the Union then health would be the biggest portion of it's budget. If it were responsible for military procurement then defence would be the biggest portion.

This and the CFP decision are the first positive things to happens in donkeys years that address these long held concerns - Blair simply did not fight our corner in eu summits.

I don't particularly like Blair, other than a begrudging admiration for the man's ability to win elections - but I don't think that's a particularly apt assessment. A lot of British-led initiatives were developed under his tenure. The Common Foreign Policy drive for instance, greater judicial cooperation.

Not dragging any and all policies back to Westminster isn't the same as acting against the interests of the "United" Kingdom.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Maybe there's a third option that is neither "no budget" nor "running a deficit" - given that administration takes up 6.3% of the EU's budget, and CAP takes up 46.7%, how about they fiddle in the margins?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Does anyone else think it's a bit odd, given the MPC's primary aim is CPI stability at 2%, that the governor says that inflation will rise and remain above the target for at least 2 years, yet still has the base rate at the lowest it's legally allowed to be? I don't even necessarily think it's a bad idea, but their responsibility is not to encourage growth or employment or lending, its target is 2% CPI and it seems to me that this target is not guiding their current decisions. I do understand that they have a secondary responsibility to "support the government's economic policy", but when are we going to acknowledge that any intended independence is basically meaningless and just gobble them back up into the treasury?

 

[Little Old Man]

Does anyone else think it's a bit odd, given the MPC's primary aim is CPI stability at 2%, that the governor says that inflation will rise and remain above the target for at least 2 years, yet still has the base rate at the lowest it's legally allowed to be? I don't even necessarily think it's a bad idea, but their responsibility is not to encourage growth or employment or lending, its target is 2% CPI and it seems to me that this target is not guiding their current decisions. I do understand that they have a secondary responsibility to "support the government's economic policy", but when are we going to acknowledge that any intended independence is basically meaningless and just gobble them back up into the treasury?

I can see where you are coming from, but there are more exogenous factors leading into the inflation rate than the current Bank base rate. The fact that it has fell from highs of 4% over the last 18 months (with a constant low rate) shows that the base rate isn't telling the full story. There's certainly no advantage at the current time to raise rates- the panic it would create would cause jitters in the economy from firms and consumers.

Getting rid of independence wouldn't be a good step forward at all- it compromises the integrity of the Bank. Labour's biggest mistake was giving regulatory powers to the new body they created, the FSA. Independence of monetary decisions was a good step forward (though the BoE made mistakes during the lead up to the financial crisis too).

However there is an internal debate at the Bank with the new Governor Carney over whether the Bank should focus primarily on inflation targets, or move to growth targets which I'm led to believe he implemented at the Canadian CB.

 

[defel]

Does anyone else think it's a bit odd, given the MPC's primary aim is CPI stability at 2%, that the governor says that inflation will rise and remain above the target for at least 2 years, yet still has the base rate at the lowest it's legally allowed to be? I don't even necessarily think it's a bad idea, but their responsibility is not to encourage growth or employment or lending, its target is 2% CPI and it seems to me that this target is not guiding their current decisions. I do understand that they have a secondary responsibility to "support the government's economic policy", but when are we going to acknowledge that any intended independence is basically meaningless and just gobble them back up into the treasury?

As far as Im aware the Bank of England does at least have an implicit aim to target growth (or specifically unemployment). There are two different models on central banks. "Hard-nosed" central banks, as in Germany or the Current ECB, explicitly target only low and stable inflation and that is built into the culture of the bank by design. The other type are "wet-nosed" central banks which pre-Euro would have been countries like Italy. The BoE and Fed fall somewhere in the middle of these. We dont have the same history with hyperinflation that Germany has and therefore we dont have the same intrinsic caution about rising prices.

Its definitely a problem though. The appointment of Carney by Osbourne hints that the government wants the Bank to place a greater emphasis on growth.

The BoE will never be truly independent but its incredibly important to at least be as independent as possible and "keep up appearances" that its the case. Government explicitly running the central bank is a road to disaster.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I can see where you are coming from, but there are more exogenous factors leading into the inflation rate than the current Bank base rate. The fact that it has fell from highs of 4% over the last 18 months (with a constant low rate) shows that the base rate isn't telling the full story. There's certainly no advantage at the current time to raise rates- the panic it would create would cause jitters in the economy from firms and consumers.

Getting rid of independence wouldn't be a good step forward at all- it compromises the integrity of the Bank. Labour's biggest mistake was giving regulatory powers to the new body they created, the FSA. Independence of monetary decisions was a good step forward (though the BoE made mistakes during the lead up to the financial crisis too).

However there is an internal debate at the Bank with the new Governor Carney over whether the Bank should focus primarily on inflation targets, or move to growth targets which I'm led to believe he implemented at the Canadian CB.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but not quite all. Yes, the base rate isn't what is causing inflation, but it's one of the few tools the bank has to respond to inflation. The only other, really, is printing money. Having the base rate at the lowest they can whilst simultaneously acknowledging that inflation is going to remain above their target for the next two years suggests to me that they are far more concerned with their secondary goal of aiding government economic policy than stabilising prices - which suggests to me they are scarcely independent now, they just lack the accountability that comes with government.

Which one they target - inflation or growth - shouldn't really be up for the bank to decide, imo. Especially when their independence was quite clearly done with the inflationary target. If parliament ammend the Bank of England 1998 act to re-target their goals towards growth, I'd have no problem with it. But it's the independent-but-not-independent bit I have a problem with.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

As far as Im aware the Bank of England does at least have an implicit aim to target growth (or specifically unemployment). There are two different models on central banks. "Hard-nosed" central banks, as in Germany or the Current ECB, explicitly target only low and stable inflation and that is built into the culture of the bank by design. The other type are "wet-nosed" central banks which pre-Euro would have been countries like Italy. The BoE and Fed fall somewhere in the middle of these. We dont have the same history with hyperinflation that Germany has and therefore we dont have the same intrinsic caution about rising prices.

Its definitely a problem though. The appointment of Carney by Osbourne hints that the government wants the Bank to place a greater emphasis on growth.

The BoE will never be truly independent but its incredibly important to at least be as independent as possible and "keep up appearances" that its the case. Government explicitly running the central bank is a road to disaster.

No, the Bank's remit does not cover increasing employment. The Fed does in the US, but over here the Bank has only one target, and that is to keep CPI inflation at 2%. I'm not saying they aren't doing it, they are, but it is outside of their current remit. I think the new governor will ask for permanent powers to boost growth and employment though and expand the Bank's economic power.

 

[defel]

No, the Bank's remit does not cover increasing employment. The Fed does in the US, but over here the Bank has only one target, and that is to keep CPI inflation at 2%. I'm not saying they aren't doing it, they are, but it is outside of their current remit. I think the new governor will ask for permanent powers to boost growth and employment though and expand the Bank's economic power.

Which is why I said implicitly. Im actually pretty skeptical about the banks ability to actually improve employment through monetary policy at all. Funnily enough Ive got 4 lectures coming up tomorrow covering exactly that so maybe Ill have changed my mind by next week.

 

[Little Old Man]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but not quite all. Yes, the base rate isn't what is causing inflation, but it's one of the few tools the bank has to respond to inflation. The only other, really, is printing money. Having the base rate at the lowest they can whilst simultaneously acknowledging that inflation is going to remain above their target for the next two years suggests to me that they are far more concerned with their secondary goal of aiding government economic policy than stabilising prices - which suggests to me they are scarcely independent now, they just lack the accountability that comes with government.

Which one they target - inflation or growth - shouldn't really be up for the bank to decide, imo. Especially when their independence was quite clearly done with the inflationary target. If parliament ammend the Bank of England 1998 act to re-target their goals towards growth, I'd have no problem with it. But it's the independent-but-not-independent bit I have a problem with.

Not necessarily. As you say there are a limited range of tools the Bank can use in regards to monetary policy. As it stands the Banks primary focus is on inflation targeting, but growth is also an objective, and feeds into the first. Given the unprecedented events since 2008, the Bank has a balancing act to go for low and stable inflation, but also try to promote growth (whilst working alongside government fiscal policy). Inflation over target is an issue, but the tools they have are limited in power due to a weak economy, and a cautious banking system.

The fact is the rate of inflation has been falling for some time, and I doubt things will return close and stable around 2% until the whole economy is growing at a stable level again. Hence the argument for the Bank focusing on growth in the short run, with pressure to do so long term under Carney. Remember the target is a long run one, and adjustment of the economy to inflation shocks can take years.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Not necessarily. As you say there are a limited range of tools the Bank can use in regards to monetary policy. As it stands the Banks primary focus is on inflation targeting, but growth is also an objective, and feeds into the first. Given the unprecedented events since 2008, the Bank has a balancing act to go for low and stable inflation, but also try to promote growth (whilst working alongside government fiscal policy). Inflation over target is an issue, but the tools they have are limited in power due to a weak economy, and a cautious banking system.

The fact is the rate of inflation has been falling for some time, and I doubt things will return close and stable around 2% until the whole economy is growing at a stable level again. Hence the argument for the Bank focusing on growth in the short run, with pressure to do so long term under Carney. Remember the target is a long run one, and adjustment of the economy to inflation shocks can take years.

This is all true, but then you have to ask exactly what they are there for? If the general consensus is that inflation won't remain stable and low (but not too low) until we have reliable, stable growth, what difference would it make if they were under the control of the treasury - whose primary target is reliable, stable growth?

 

[Little Old Man]

This is all true, but then you have to ask exactly what they are there for? If the general consensus is that inflation won't remain stable and low (but not too low) until we have reliable, stable growth, what difference would it make if they were under the control of the treasury - whose primary target is reliable, stable growth?

They have a political incentive to manipulate the base rate in order to win favor from the public (e.g. lower rates in the lead up to elections). Markets begin to mistrust rate decisions, and expect the Bank to pull the rug from under their feet. In summary anyway, no time to write a full explanation.


Edit: right, I'll expand on what I said, though not much as you could write a book on this stuff (as has been done many times).

Basically by not being independent and at the whim of government, Ministers may be tempted to exploit the trade off between employment and inflation- the Philips Curve. Bank cuts rates despite saying they will keep inflation at a target level, economy improves, jobs market improves, unemployment falls, inflation rises government well chuffed. Happens as it was unexpected. Except in the long run, the Philips Curve doesn't hold, and the market expects the Bank to go against its target for inflation. Therefore the higher inflation rate caused by the rate cut ends up becoming the 'normal' rate of inflation, which then has to be corrected, made difficult as the reputation of the Bank is damaged. This is very simplified, and I've missed bits out as it's been two years since I studied it (and of course being theory it's based on assumptions and a model). But hopefully it makes sense.

 

[War Peaceman]

This is disturbing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/13/london-council-relocation-benefits-cap

 

[Nicktendo86]

This is disturbing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/13/london-council-relocation-benefits-cap

I don't get it though, Camden is a pretty well off area (certainly compared to where I live, Bow in Tower Hamlets) and I couldn't afford to live there, why are these families being offered other places in London? Feels like a political move by the Labour run council to me.