• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.

J

Jackpot

Banned
Guido Fawkes seems to have a bit of a grudge.

http://order-order.com/2013/08/14/why-not-holiday-in-gaza-this-year/

Why Not Holiday In Gaza This Year?

The IDF are good at lot of things, not least social media. This week they are releasing new images of ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and just how bad the conditions are in the “open prison camp”:
Click to expand...

Sadly, it’s not all swimming pools and beach volleyball, there is a darker side to Gaza too. As the IDF put it:

“Many Gazans have money, food and even luxuries that much of the world goes without. What is missing, however, is a stable, democratic government. The moment any Gazan speaks against Hamas or Islam in even the smallest way, they are punished severely with torture and death.”
Click to expand...

Even the notoriously judgemental Trip Advisor says it’s “nice for a short stay”. Don’t tell the Beeb… [emphasis his]
Click to expand...

Aside from the obvious problem of reposting cherry-picked photos from the IDF blog that supposedly make it impossible for bad conditions in Gaza to exist, just how did the Beeb respond?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23716796

An Israeli military blog reportedly used a photo of a shopping mall thousands of miles away in a post designed to prove that Gaza was not an "open-air prison".
Click to expand...
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
CyclopsRock said:
The thing with QE - and the reason I've come round to it a bit - is that it only affects the private sector, really. I know it makes UK Bonds cheaper to buy for the treasury but ultimately that just leads to inflation anyway - so we're at a point whereby low inflation is being tolerated in exchange for the private sector being boosted. One of the big problems with the austerity measures on the continent is that there's nothing to fill its place. Government spending is going down but, without control over their own monetary policy, the European nations are just waiting for a recovery to come with very little power to help it occur. We, however, are able to continue to "stimulate" the economy (even though it is, as you say, somewhat artificially) whilst government expenditure goes "down" (it's not going down, as we know, but it's rising less quickly!) meaning we have something to fill that void, maintaining consumer demand and seeing the private sector to grow whilst the public sector shrinks; Whilst the inflation will be painful and it's not exactly ideal, the rebalancing of private vs public re: contribution to GDP is a step towards more sustainability and only possible thanks to QE, I think.
Click to expand...

It's not even really contributing to inflation very much. While the quantity of money in circulation is a direct factor of inflation, quantitative easing doesn't necessarily increase the quantity of money in circulation. At the moment, banks are attempting to reduce their reserve-deposit ratios to decrease risk (and also because of various government policies), which means much of the money generated by quantitative easing is simply sitting on bank balance sheets and not actually entering circulation. Thus, it doesn't really have much of an effect on inflation. Now, once banks stop reducing their reserve-deposit ratios because they feel that they have an adequate insurance against risks, then the inflationary effects of quantitative easing will start becoming much more noticeable, but the Bank of England intends on beginning to sell back the bonds it has purchased using Q.E. at that point to reduce the effect that'd have on the quantity of money in circulation anyway.

I mean, if you exclude the rise in inflation that resulted directly from the V.A.T. increase between 4th January 2011 and 4th January 2012 (it'd have contributed slightly less than a 2.5% rise in inflation, because a fair number of the goods in the CPI bargain obviously don't have V.A.T. applied to them) and thus take about 1.5% (being very pessimistic about the effect of V.A.T. here) off inflation over that period, we've never passed above 4% yearly inflation. Given there's an extremely strong argument to be made that 2% inflation was never a great target and was always on the rather stringent side (personally I'd favour targeting a nominal GDP rate of say 5% instead), that's a tiny sacrifice for all of the good Q.E. has done in turning the economy round.
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
The best news is not just the upwards revision, but that the growth from consumption has been revised down from 0.3% to 0.2% and investment/trade has been revised up to 0.5% from 0.3%, good news all around.

Manufacturing growth was also revised up, but total production remained static as oil and gas extraction came in below expectations for the final month of the quarter. Basically it's time to start fracking. The total GDP growth lost from oil and gas output falling since 2009 is almost 2% now, and there has been nothing to replace that lost output, our factories are close to capacity and it will require new construction or to reopen mothballed facilities which is still expensive. Still, it's a nice problem to have I suppose.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I wouldn't be happy an attempt to start large-scale fracking processes in the United Kingdom until legislation allowing non-disclosure of proprietary chemicals is removed, and there's a stronger regulation of disposal. The sites would also need to be chosen very carefully. I understand it's probably a necessary step to help prevent dramatic fuel price increases, but I'm uneasy about how difficult it is to conduct large-scale studies on fracking when it's so difficult to get information about particular parts of the process. It's the same deal as with some of the large pharmaceutical companies, which have non-disclosure agreements which can make reviewing and verifying particular studies difficult.
 
phisheep

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
About time they got on with building this Severn Barrage thing. It just seems stupid that my shop is 100 yards (* see note) from the second-biggest source of tidal power in the entire world and it is not being exploited at all.

(* note) that's at a high spring tide. More than a mile at low tide.
 
8

8bit

Knows the Score
coates.JPG
 
J

JonnyBrad

Member
phisheep said:
About time they got on with building this Severn Barrage thing. It just seems stupid that my shop is 100 yards (* see note) from the second-biggest source of tidal power in the entire world and it is not being exploited at all.

(* note) that's at a high spring tide. More than a mile at low tide.
Click to expand...

Its pretty much been nixed until Hafren Power get their shit together. They were made to look like fools in the recent select commitee hearing about it. They're also up against some incredibly powerful opponents in Friends of the earth - who also oppose fracking - and Nimbys)

As a Penarth resident it would bring in a shit load of money to the area but I don't count on it happening.
 
PJV3

PJV3

Member
Sir Fragula said:
Seems like the Syria stuff is a HUGE win for Miliband...
Click to expand...

Rumour of a weekend recall, it's going to happen anyway. Milliband did Cameron a favour by slowing things down, I think he got over excited by Obama.

"The public is deeply skeptical"= do not want.
 
J

Jackpot

Banned
Sir Fragula said:
Seems like the Syria stuff is a HUGE win for Miliband...
Click to expand...

I'm finding it really hard to get a read on how it's being viewed. Can't tell if it's being viewed as a plus for completely throwing Cameron for a loop or a con for appearing indecisive over a critical issue.
 
W

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
I think so many have been loathe to praise Milliband. He is trying to do it the proper way - as he should. Rushing into wars is absolutely not what should be done, nor what the public wants.
 
Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86

Member
vcassano1 said:
I think so many have been loathe to praise Milliband. He is trying to do it the proper way - as he should. Rushing into wars is absolutely not what should be done, nor what the public wants.
Click to expand...
The vote went belly up due to Tory rebels though, 30 Labour MPs couldn't be arsed to turn up. The Tories should get the 'credit' for the bill failing, not Milliband.
 
Jezbollah

Jezbollah

Member
It is quite an interesting situation to look at (through my very much uneducated, naive point of view).

Ed Milliband has attempted to distance himself from the mistakes Labour and Tony Blair made with Iraq in 2003.

David Cameron has recalled Parliament early, to put forth a motion and seems to have misjudged (or should I say, miscalculated) the impact the wording of his motion would have to so many in the commons. Specifically failing to convince some 50-60 Conservative and Lib Dem MPs.

The Commons vote and defeat the motion, showing the biggest shunning of US foreign policy since the 1950s

David Cameron states that he will abide by the commons vote, thus showing that he himself has distanced himself from the mistakes Labour and Tony Blair made with Iraq in 2003.

The winners from this are the majority of the population, who are not quick to forget the lessons learnt from 10 years ago, Ed Milliband who was basically in a win-win situation anyway and to some extent David Cameron for showing that he is far from the US lap-dog that Tony Blair was.

Losers from this are Cameron, for the egg on the face, and President Obama who must be ruing the day he removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval office in his first day in the job.

Political bollocks aside, the real losers continue to be the people in Syria. I have not heard much of them mentioned this evening...
 
F

f0rk

Member
Dan27 said:
The winners from this are the majority of the population, who are not quick to forget the lessons learnt from 10 years ago
Click to expand...

On this issue yes, but now it seems Cameron is a weak PM and I can't imagine what Ed would be like. It doesn't make me feel good about our country's leadership in the future.
 
PJV3

PJV3

Member
f0rk said:
On this issue yes, but now it seems Cameron is a weak PM and I can't imagine what Ed would be like. It doesn't make me feel good about our country's leadership in the future.
Click to expand...

I can't see Milliband getting into Downing St, even if he did he will be almost the same as Cameron and Blair.


Actually I don't feel good either now I think about it.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
I think Ed has a real problem with decisiveness. This isn't a revolutionary thing to say, and I know he's in opposition which doesn't help, but right now there are huge "dividing lines" that we're unsure of which side he sits. Cameron, for all his flaws, doesn't suffer from this. He was for intervention, he got slapped back by parliament which makes him look weaker, but he was nonetheless decisive. Re: Miliband, where will he be in 2015? You would have said that they'd cut slower, but now Balls has said that they'll match Tory spending plans for 2 years. He's never said he'd scrap tuition fees or the "bedroom tax", he's not equivocally for or against activity in Syria (this scuppering was about deferral to the UN), he's even shied away from saying he'd reverse any health reforms, and schooling changes. One of the benefits of being in opposition is that you don't have to have an alternative but this a) doesn't mean it's a good idea to, especially for a leader who polls so poorly on leadership qualities and b) does actually make being an effective opposition to the government pretty tough.

Dave got this one totally wrong. That said, a few people in our office, during our talk about it, said they appreciated the fact he actually listened to parliament. We all agreed it was sort of a shame that we've arrived at the point at which we're pleasantly surprised that a PM has done such a thing, but nonetheless it's good that he did.
 
PJV3

PJV3

Member
CyclopsRock said:
I think Ed has a real problem with decisiveness. This isn't a revolutionary thing to say, and I know he's in opposition which doesn't help, but right now there are huge "dividing lines" that we're unsure of which side he sits. Cameron, for all his flaws, doesn't suffer from this. He was for intervention, he got slapped back by parliament which makes him look weaker, but he was nonetheless decisive. Re: Miliband, where will he be in 2015? You would have said that they'd cut slower, but now Balls has said that they'll match Tory spending plans for 2 years. He's never said he'd scrap tuition fees or the "bedroom tax", he's not equivocally for or against activity in Syria (this scuppering was about deferral to the UN), he's even shied away from saying he'd reverse any health reforms, and schooling changes. One of the benefits of being in opposition is that you don't have to have an alternative but this a) doesn't mean it's a good idea to, especially for a leader who polls so poorly on leadership qualities and b) does actually make being an effective opposition to the government pretty tough.

Dave got this one totally wrong. That said, a few people in our office, during our talk about it, said they appreciated the fact he actually listened to parliament. We all agreed it was sort of a shame that we've arrived at the point at which we're pleasantly surprised that a PM has done such a thing, but nonetheless it's good that he did.
Click to expand...

Miliband has had the greatest impact of any opposition leader I can remember, news international and Murdoch, and now essentially slapping down a US president and preventing or delaying UK military action in the middle east, and an added bonus of a stronger parliament challenging the executive.

What did Cameron do in two terms of opposition, sledging with huskies and hugging a hoodie.

It doesn't matter, Ed isn't getting in to number 10 anyway, he couldn't get his investment message across effectively, and the new policy isn't any different to the current lot. So I agree with you to an extent, but he's not as weak as the media are desperate to portray him.

I predict the coalition to continue, with an outside bet on a slim tory majority, which will produce mucho laughter.
 
W

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
At the current state of affairs I can't see the Tories gaining by anywhere near enough for a majority. There just doesn't seem to be a compelling angle by which they can gain those voters they will inevitably lose.
 
PJV3

PJV3

Member
vcassano1 said:
At the current state of affairs I can't see the Tories gaining by anywhere near enough for a majority. There just doesn't seem to be a compelling angle by which they can gain those voters they will inevitably lose.
Click to expand...

They might pull it off if the economy carries on improving and the still planned cuts don't cause too much strife. I just don't see Miliband convincing enough people come the general election, and Clegg/Orange book brigade are closer to Cameron. So I still see him being PM but with an increasingly unhappy party behind him.
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
Another massive manufacturing PMI figure today, 57.2, we expected 55.5 at the bank.

We'll wait and see what the Services figure comes out to in a couple of days but if it's anything like the 60.2 figure recorded last month we could see an acceleration from the 0.7% GDP growth last time to around 0.9% this quarter, giving us 1.9% growth for 2013 so far, which is well ahead of expectations, even a slowdown in Q4 as production goes down a gear would yield around 2% growth for the year. That's a turnaround worth talking about. I also don't see how the BoE can continue their QE programme with these figures. If wage inflation starts to rise then interest rates will have to go up to contain inflation to below 4%.

It's all a bit backwards at the moment...
 
V

Volotaire

Member
Reading about Labour's possible refocus on the welfare and the living wage for their message because they can't get the message across that the economy could have picked up more if they didn't engage in such a large deficit reduction plan. It really sounds like they are in quite a bad time. I suppose the Syria vote helped with the perception of some of the public, but I don't' think it would be seen as an ideological move by him, but more of a pragmatic one.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Volotaire said:
Reading about Labour's possible refocus on the welfare and the living wage for their message because they can't get the message across that the economy could have picked up more if they didn't engage in such a large deficit reduction plan. It really sounds like they are in quite a bad time. I suppose the Syria vote helped with the perception of some of the public, but I don't' think it would be seen as an ideological move by him, but more of a pragmatic one.
Click to expand...

I think - and it makes sense - that they'll pursue the cost-of-living argument. The economy is too important to voters for them to just leave it off the table (and lord knows the Tories will be banging the gong) and the truth is that a) GDP is still lower than it was at the pre-crash peak and b) that the average wage has gone down, even during the growth (as problem accentuated by this being a QE lead growth period which increases the value of assets - which doesn't really affect wages that much. And I think that'll resonate BUT it's a big gamble to take because if that trend has reversed come polling and wage increases are outstripping inflation and unemployment is sinking, they'll left looking very silly indeed.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Nicktendo86 said:
More slightly good news for the Government, unemployment has gone down anotehr 0.1% to 7.7%, amount claiming JSA now lowest since Feb 2009.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24045546
Click to expand...

Good news, though of course well within the margin of error. It shows a positive trend, though.

The thing I found interesting, though, was that it said that the number of people in part time work had doubled since 2008, yet that only a third of men and an eight of women in part time work wanted to be in full time work. This suggests one of two things - either that there were quite a few people in 2008 that were working full time but actually wanted to work part time (which seems very unlikely) or that trends have changed and now people are happier to work part time. It must be the latter, but I wonder why?
 
Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86

Member
CyclopsRock said:
Good news, though of course well within the margin of error. It shows a positive trend, though.

The thing I found interesting, though, was that it said that the number of people in part time work had doubled since 2008, yet that only a third of men and an eight of women in part time work wanted to be in full time work. This suggests one of two things - either that there were quite a few people in 2008 that were working full time but actually wanted to work part time (which seems very unlikely) or that trends have changed and now people are happier to work part time. It must be the latter, but I wonder why?
Click to expand...

I know they have got a lot of hate, especially from Labour, but perhaps 0 hour contracts are actually useful for some people and are just what they needed for their circumstances? I saw on the telly the other day during a news piece that some people they interviewed said they were a god send as they could work when they could/needed to.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Nicktendo86 said:
I know they have got a lot of hate, especially from Labour, but perhaps 0 hour contracts are actually useful for some people and are just what they needed for their circumstances? I saw on the telly the other day during a news piece that some people they interviewed said they were a god send as they could work when they could/needed to.
Click to expand...

I've heard that quite a bit. My brother used to have one when he was at school and loved it, because it allowed him to work when he wanted and not work when he had to revise etc. They aren't for everyone, for sure, but they have their place in a flexible labour market imo. That said, they've existed for ages.
 
L

Little Old Man

Member
Nicktendo86 said:
I know they have got a lot of hate, especially from Labour, but perhaps 0 hour contracts are actually useful for some people and are just what they needed for their circumstances? I saw on the telly the other day during a news piece that some people they interviewed said they were a god send as they could work when they could/needed to.
Click to expand...

Zero hours contracts either work brilliantly by allowing flexibility for both the employer and employee, or completely leave the employee vulnerable and still reliant on the state. Anecdotally, I've witnessed two examples:

1) Friend at university, zero hours contract for giving campus & room tours. Worked perfectly for him given there were tours every single week, each took a few short hours to do for him, and he could drop them if his degree workload picked up. Of course he had access to his usual student loans and grants for money otherwise.

2) Woman I met at a job interview- contracted on zero hours at an Asda store. Except she wasn't contracted to the store, but one particular department within it. Thus the chances of her getting a shift in a given week was very small. She had went at one time two whole weeks without a shift, giving her little in the way of financial security, nor any ability to move off job seekers. This type of abuse of the system really needs to be corrected.

The other thing to acknowledge with these statistics is that they mask underemployment of the labour force. Part time workers have increased massively in the past several years because that is all too often the only type of contract offered by employers. Given that in the current economy something is better than nothing, many will accept this situation. But more broadly it has a detrimental effect on living standards, as well as wage security if hours vary greatly.
Sadly as ever, the regional variations are still large.
 
W

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
CyclopsRock said:
I've heard that quite a bit. My brother used to have one when he was at school and loved it, because it allowed him to work when he wanted and not work when he had to revise etc. They aren't for everyone, for sure, but they have their place in a flexible labour market imo. That said, they've existed for ages.
Click to expand...

Yes they are useful for, for example, PHD students who want to fit in work where possible. That said, I'd rather get rid of them because the benefits can easily be dealt with in other ways while the exploitation of them is inexcusable.

I love this government's attitude towards evidence. Michael Green complains about the UN human rights report without any actually criticisms except that they are biased. Iain Duncan Smith - well established to be both incompetent and a huge cunt - blasts a report on his many failings in his department (more of which is emerging: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/11/iain-duncan-smith-cost-it ) but doesn't actually offer any riposte beyond it being wrong.

This is not even a criticism of what they are trying to achieve and whether what they are doing is wrong. They are just plain ignorant and incompetent.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Little Old Man said:
The other thing to acknowledge with these statistics is that they mask underemployment of the labour force. Part time workers have increased massively in the past several years because that is all too often the only type of contract offered by employers. Given that in the current economy something is better than nothing, many will accept this situation. But more broadly it has a detrimental effect on living standards, as well as wage security if hours vary greatly.
Sadly as ever, the regional variations are still large.
Click to expand...

I think it's tough though, because you're right to say that part-time work lowers living standard - but only for those who would otherwise have a full time job. Short of any sudden rise in the demand for productivity, any rise in full-time work would likely lead to a reduction in part time work of roughly the same number of hours. Ie, the addition of a 40-hour-a-week full time job would likely remove the need for two 20-hour-a-week part time jobs. Well, likely not quite that cleanly, but broadly speaking, there's be a reduction in the number of people working. So whilst such a change would benefit the living standards of the person with the 40 hour a week full time job, it would decrease the living standards of whoever ended up back on benefits.

It's a similar argument to increasing the minimum wage (within certain boundaries - too low and it won't stoke any more demand for labour, too high and no one will be employed anyway) where you have to choose between less people earning more or more people earning less. I don't think there's an obvious answer for which is preferable, really.

You're bang on about regional differences, though. Ed actually mentioned in PMQ's yesterday that half of all the regions in the UK were still shedding jobs. The regions mentioned were those most heavily relying on the public sector so I suppose it makes sense, but there needs to be more done to encourage the private sector to pick up the slack there. Clearly labour costs in such areas will be low, but with all the smart boffins moving away to the areas that are growing (and not just in the UK of course), it'll need to be quite an offering to attract them. Slashing corporation tax regionally will only go so far, because it only deals with companies already making profit - I think they should also enlarge the employer-side NI wavering for new businesses based on region.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
vcassano1 said:
Yes they are useful for, for example, PHD students who want to fit in work where possible. That said, I'd rather get rid of them because the benefits can easily be dealt with in other ways while the exploitation of them is inexcusable.

I love this government's attitude towards evidence. Michael Green complains about the UN human rights report without any actually criticisms except that they are biased. Iain Duncan Smith - well established to be both incompetent and a huge cunt - blasts a report on his many failings in his department (more of which is emerging: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/11/iain-duncan-smith-cost-it ) but doesn't actually offer any riposte beyond it being wrong.

This is not even a criticism of what they are trying to achieve and whether what they are doing is wrong. They are just plain ignorant and incompetent.
Click to expand...

In fairness, the UN human rights thing is an absolute load of bollocks. The idea that reducing the amount of money that a government gives someone whilst subsidising their housing as being against their human rights is laughable. Her language in the report - namely repeatedly calling it the erroneous name of "bedroom tax" - doesn't exactly suggest a professional and unbiased approach.
 
L

Little Old Man

Member
CyclopsRock said:
I think it's tough though, because you're right to say that part-time work lowers living standard - but only for those who would otherwise have a full time job. Short of any sudden rise in the demand for productivity, any rise in full-time work would likely lead to a reduction in part time work of roughly the same number of hours. Ie, the addition of a 40-hour-a-week full time job would likely remove the need for two 20-hour-a-week part time jobs. Well, likely not quite that cleanly, but broadly speaking, there's be a reduction in the number of people working. So whilst such a change would benefit the living standards of the person with the 40 hour a week full time job, it would decrease the living standards of whoever ended up back on benefits.

It's a similar argument to increasing the minimum wage (within certain boundaries - too low and it won't stoke any more demand for labour, too high and no one will be employed anyway) where you have to choose between less people earning more or more people earning less. I don't think there's an obvious answer for which is preferable, really.

You're bang on about regional differences, though. Ed actually mentioned in PMQ's yesterday that half of all the regions in the UK were still shedding jobs. The regions mentioned were those most heavily relying on the public sector so I suppose it makes sense, but there needs to be more done to encourage the private sector to pick up the slack there. Clearly labour costs in such areas will be low, but with all the smart boffins moving away to the areas that are growing (and not just in the UK of course), it'll need to be quite an offering to attract them. Slashing corporation tax regionally will only go so far, because it only deals with companies already making profit - I think they should also enlarge the employer-side NI wavering for new businesses based on region.
Click to expand...

There's certainly no realistic way as you say that a business can (roughly) turn two 20 hour jobs into two 40 hour full time positions without a need for increased productivity.
Plus going by the latest data from this Telegraph article, the trend is turning, and more people are entering full time work and less in part time work, which is obviously great to hear: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10301545/The-UK-jobs-market-seven-key-charts.html
My problem is however is with politicians who like to use these figures to mask the fact that a lot of these part time workers are seeking either a) full time work or b) more hours on their part time position (i.e. the number of part time workers is above trend). They see it as job done, economy on the road to recovery, and become complacent with the situation (again also ignoring regional variation).

Of course aside from the personal financial problems underemployment can cause for households, it will also go some length to deteriorating the skill sets of this element of the workforce (because let's face it, this glut will be made up mostly of low paying work with minimal job complexity or prospects, taken by people who are capable of working in much more productive roles). I do wonder if that will store up issues for the future.
 
Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86

Member
CyclopsRock said:
In fairness, the UN human rights thing is an absolute load of bollocks. The idea that reducing the amount of money that a government gives someone whilst subsidising their housing as being against their human rights is laughable. Her language in the report - namely repeatedly calling it the erroneous name of "bedroom tax" - doesn't exactly suggest a professional and unbiased approach.
Click to expand...

It was a joke and the amount of bias was obvious. I fucking hate the term bedroom tax, it is not a tax in any sense.
 
phisheep

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
vcassano1 said:
Also, this is disgusting. Turns out the docking of welfare if you have a spare bedroom is largely a punitive act on the poor. Nobody could have seen that one coming. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/families-bedroom-tax-in-debt
Click to expand...

Yeah right, Out of a small sample - of the people I know that are in this position - something like 80% of them are privately renting out the extra space for undeclared income. That number is in tens rather than hundreds or thousands so it is not the greatest sample in the universe.

Of course that may not be, and probably isn't, the full story. But it is an aspect that is completely missing from the article quoted.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
I don't think anyone was under any illusions about what a scumbag McBride was already. One of the few of Guido's campaigns to get more or less universal, cross-party support (his other being Chris Huhne, because christ, he's such a shit).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tell me about your favourite game ever.
2 3
119
4K
ReyBrujo replied
[VGC] Keighley weighs in on debate over Dave the Diver qualifying for Best Indie Game
Opinion News 2
86
6K
calistan replied
Shameless Bragging Thread. Tell me about your greatest gaming achievement.
2 3
146
3K
StreetsofBeige replied
Long live Tango Gameworks! 'Appreciation Thread'
2
63
5K
Hudo replied
Prozac made me go nuts (triggered a manic episode) and the resulting explosions ruined my relationship
0
1
Puscifer replied
Top Bottom