Social responsibility towards the older worker?
I feel like left wing UK PoliGAF is seriously underrepresented.
At least in this thread, yeah.
-
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.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
At least in this thread, yeah.
I'm looking more at what the priority MP's of each party in my ' constituency' have offered /can offer, then take it from there to a party level then to the EU party level in terms of overall idealogical goals. Since the priority MP's are the most likely to get the 'win' due to the PR system in place, its best to look at what they are going to do.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27203433#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa
0.8% GDP growth for the first quarter. Economy continues to do well, it seems.
0.8% GDP growth for the first quarter. Economy continues to do well, it seems.
anonymous_abc
Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27201397
Nothing too surprising in the new BBC review report.
Nothing too surprising in the new BBC review report.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well I'm glad to see their output thoroughly being investigated by themselves.
Nicktendo86
Member
manufacturing up as well, BBC says a more balances recovery seems to be emerging.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/29/patrick-mercer-suspended-house-of-commons
I hope Farage runs and loses.
I hope Farage runs and loses.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Just looked up candidates for the EU elections. Very disappointed that the Conservatives have four out of their six candidates from outside the South West constituency - sounds like they are taking the piss rather.
And only one candidate (the sixth-place LibDem one) from Gibraltar, which for some strange reason counts as part of south west England for this election.
The other parties have at least made a decent attempt to have most of their candidates have addresses in the area.
And only one candidate (the sixth-place LibDem one) from Gibraltar, which for some strange reason counts as part of south west England for this election.
The other parties have at least made a decent attempt to have most of their candidates have addresses in the area.
So yeah, Stormont voted 51-43 against Equal Marriage. The DUP had already launched a Petition of Concern blocking it regardless. This sucks. This issue won't possibly be sorted until the 2016 NI Assembly Elections, but even then, what indication is there that people would vote the DUP out of office? Unionist politicians continue to either: a) be nutjobs or b) be influenced by nutjobs, and despite this people continue to vote along the same lines as always.
Should also be noted that the UUP are clearly on the way out, being led by an inept former TV presenter, and they'll surely merge into the DUP (officially or unofficially) in the near future.
TLR, the NI Assembly is dominated by bigots and we're fucked (basing this on the fact there is no effective governing, but that's a rant for another day).
Should also be noted that the UUP are clearly on the way out, being led by an inept former TV presenter, and they'll surely merge into the DUP (officially or unofficially) in the near future.
TL
R, the NI Assembly is dominated by bigots and we're fucked (basing this on the fact there is no effective governing, but that's a rant for another day).For the sake of balance, after this rant, I feel it's worth pointing out I am not a nationalist, just in case you get the impression I am only furthering the 'us v them' nature of NI politics.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Hmm, I don't think he'll try it. No amount of boost from the European Elections is going to net them an extra ~14,000 votes in one constituency. I imagine he'll be waiting until next year's General Election.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Don't want to be dubbed a failure right around a time when you are expecting to triumph. Especially when Farage is UKIP.
QuicheFontaine
Member
anonymous_abc
Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27218615
Somewhat ironic that the UK is trying to block something via the ECJ that other EU countries are doing amongst themselves.
[edit]
more at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27218615
Jezbollah
Member
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't really understand why they're doing that at an EU level.
anonymous_abc
Member
what level would you suggest? The higher/bigger the level the better. I see no chance of this happening at any larger level so we are currently stuck on EUro level.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
That's a shame. Newark is an anagram of wanker
I went to Newark once and the smell was just awful, I've never experienced anything like it.
CyclopsRock
Member
But there are 28 countries in the EU and only 11 are adopting it. There's no - no - virtue to adopting a tax that doesn't stop the behaviour you're intending to curtail whilst hurting you financially. Especially when it doesn't even include the financial capital on the EU. All it does is make it harder for banks to trade with each other and force them to give more money to governments even before they have made a profit - for example, RBS lost over £8bn last year. A FTT would have seen them paying tax when they aren't even making any money.
Actually, Georgey boy himself does a bang up job of ruining it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYye0zZ3fH4
Edit: This is actually a good example of Osborne looking and sounding vaguely like a human.
anonymous_abc
Member
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't understand how you think that taxing transactions rather than profit is a good idea in any way. The list of negatives of this tax is absolutely enormous, and it's main benefit appears to be "Grrr, bankers!" The fact it's being applied across only 11 countries is just the farcical cherry on top.
anonymous_abc
Member
from the first page I opened, none other than the FT
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba8e4232-c79b-11e2-9c52-00144feab7de.html#axzz30MxZtd33
Kind of looks like it *will* work if old Giddeon is opposing it. Speculators can speculate elsewhere; good on the 11.
CyclopsRock
Member
That article seems odd. Firstly, doing many transactions are not somehow more volatile than doing less; Au contraire, in fact, it's the other way around. Financial trading is "undertaxed" compared to VAT because it isn't like any other good or service that attracts VAT (which, in fact, is exactly why VAT isn't applied to it now). There are already levies on share trading which is akin to VAT, because they're typically held for the long and medium term. I don't think a tax can be justified on the grounds that other things are also taxed; There needs to be a justification for why it is taxed, not why it isn't. Disincentivising certain behaviour really isn't good enough, because...
... they will do it elsewhere, and the UK won't be any more protected as a result. When Lehman fell over, it was of no comfort to the UK that few of their customers were in the UK. What we will be, however, is down a number of jobs and all the other various secondary benefits of having rich people and companies in the country. We aren't France - we shouldn't dislike people for having money, especially when they're spending it here. Canary Wharf (and all the architects and construction workers and barristers and prostitutes and coke dealers and train drivers and all the other people whose jobs only exists because of the sector they service, not to mention the tax revenue on the profit they make (And the profit derived from all these secondary activities)).
But don't take my word for it! If have a gander at the George video (I do assume neither of you watched it - you should though, it was hosted at EU offices! Exciting!) and the European Commission itself thinks this will harm to the EU economy to the tune of almost 2%. That's not nothing. And given the volume of this sort of activity that occurs in the UK, you have to assume that this average will fall more harshly in the UK. What part of this is a good idea, again?
Nicktendo86
Member
Labour should be ashamed of themselves
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...to-fight-tory-with-the-same-name-9305102.html
Evening Standard said:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...to-fight-tory-with-the-same-name-9305102.html
Nobody knows how to deal with UKIP lol.
This article on the Guardian is pretty damn hollow, has over 2500 comments and I'd say that over 90% of them are supportive of UKIP and heavily critical of the article.
With all the recent slam pieces about racist posters, candidates, misleading posters etc, the polls have them increasing their lead to 38%.
This article on the Guardian is pretty damn hollow, has over 2500 comments and I'd say that over 90% of them are supportive of UKIP and heavily critical of the article.
With all the recent slam pieces about racist posters, candidates, misleading posters etc, the polls have them increasing their lead to 38%.
WayneMorse
Banned
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Paxman is quitting Newsnight
Although I like him, his reputation is largely undeserved. Quite often he's obstructive to the interviewee and rarely do I enjoy his interviews.
That Michael Howard interview is fantastic but he's coasted on it a bit.
WayneMorse
Banned
Cameron actually had a legitimately good criticism of Labour today in PMQs that I agreed with. That being for as much as Miliband will whine about how much of a disaster the Royal Mail privatisation was (which it was) he'll most likely not re-nationalise it if they get a majority in 2015, like Blair with the railways.
To be fair there's a very good reason behind that - the railways were basically smashed when privatised, and re-nationalising them was almost impossible at the time due to the way privatisation had been done. Much of what's happening right now with the NHS bears the same hallmarks - the changes being implemented are such that reversing them becomes incredibly difficult for the next party in.
Given that even Major has said privatising the railways was a disaster, I don't hold much faith in the post office's future!
i think he's just being a good opposition leader - making sure the government faces real scrutiny and is forced to properly justify its policies and can't get always away with sloppy governance
which is a separate role to leader of the labour party seeking government, in which he has to concern himself with whether its worth expending the significant political capital (and real capital, for that matter) to bring back the royal mail under government control compared to their other priorities. which i think is a perfectly decent question and he isn't just misleading the electorate by promising it then ignoring it (yet).
CyclopsRock
Member
I made hundreds out of the RM privatisation, so I think it was jolly good.
Meanwhile, this week Labour have been hovering around 5-6 points above the Tories in national (not European) polls.
Meanwhile, this week Labour have been hovering around 5-6 points above the Tories in national (not European) polls.
Nicktendo86
Member
So labour put out a press release saying the rics supports their rents ceiling, rics has says they don't and in fact think the opposite. Wtf is going on?
CyclopsRock
Member
Rent controls are absolutely barmy. The problem isn't that rent is too high just because, it's because supply isn't keeping up with demand at all. Delist some greenfields, loosen up regulation on what you can build (or otherwise incentivise local councils to give them the nod) and allow a flood of new builds to bring down rents AND housing prices (or, at least, stop them growing so fast).
London is the only major western city without rent controls, even the states has them. To call them balmy seems to dismiss out of hand a lot of what goes on elsewhere.
Building new houses isn't the instant win option either - firstly the sheer amount of housing that would be required for London is impossible to provide. Secondly, even now councils run into big problems trying to provide affordable housing - look at the failure of multiple authorities to be able to provide decent housing due to the builders getting round the planning laws.
Building new houses isn't the instant win option either - firstly the sheer amount of housing that would be required for London is impossible to provide. Secondly, even now councils run into big problems trying to provide affordable housing - look at the failure of multiple authorities to be able to provide decent housing due to the builders getting round the planning laws.
CyclopsRock
Member
Not really of the sort that Miliband is planning, though - they don't have price ceilings, and they rarely apply to all properties. Most are just limits on how much they can rise, and even then the cost of improvements can be passed onto the tenants. Furthermore, countries like Germany also have far more liberal planning laws in the first place. The problem we would have is that rent controls - which even Krugman says are widely understood to negatively impact the construction of new houses - would simultaneously decrease supply (or rather, diminish its ability to meet demand) whilst actually increaseing demand (because rents would be lower than otherwise, at least initially). The cause of the high rent is not enough houses, and this attempt to fix a symptom would actually increase the original problem.
Well, "required" is a bit of a grey area, right? I mean, how much does London require? It supports as many people as it has, obviously - else it wouldn't have them. It's already supplying them, it's just that the properties are more expensive and, typically, smaller than most people would like. So any increase (and thus lowering of rent compared to without that additional supply and/or increase in size) is to be encouraged. I think the idea of affordable housing is a little dodgy, though, because any increase in supply will lower costs. The people that move into the new builds have to move out of somewhere else. The people that replace them in their old homes have to move from somewhere else too, etc. Again, a lot of this is eaten up by immigration (and I don't just mean international, but from other parts of the UK to London) but again, we have to compare it to what it'd be like without the new houses rather than a magical land where the population is stagnant. Finally, it's also worth noting that "affordable housing" is only affordable for one generation - as soon as someone buys the property, it's theirs - there is no ceiling on what they can sell it for, or set rate at which its value changes, because its value is defined by what someone's willing to pay.
QuicheFontaine
Member
London really is another country, I guess!
CyclopsRock
Member
If I have my way.... Imagine, the Principality of London, with our glorious army of busses lead by Der Vater Prince BoJo.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I can't really think of any downside tbh.
On the subject of housing, how about making London a double-decker city? Like Shanghai in Deus Ex: Human Revolution:
Problem solved
Bagsy top bunk
CyclopsRock
Member
Oh no. There might be a Sector-7-plate-crash incident over the majority of South London. Whatever will we do... Damn you, Avalanche!
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Rent Controls should be a very popular policy for a lot of people, particularly younger professionals. It is a no-brainer, really. Hell, even Tim Stanley in the Telegraph is praising Labour for it.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm not at all sure about it.
Trouble is, it is a big disincentive to anyone entering the rental market. Those same young professionals, when their parents die, will have a choice as to whether to sell their parents' property for a quick buck or to rent it out for a continued income. If renting is sufficiently profitable then all of a sudden there's a another rental property on the market, but not if there are rent controls - or even the threat of rent controls. And people dying is a big source of property on the market.
Rent controls incentivise large-scale "slum" landlords and a squeeze (at least in popular places like London - less so in, say, Bridgwater) on the number of properties available to rent. The absence of rent controls incentivises small-scale private letters and competition between them.
I'm lucky here, we have a thriving rental market. Suits me just fine. I don't want someone to spoil it.
Most landlords own more than one property though. Bloke I know was running 15 houses. There are very few 2-3 house landlords.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Firstly, I think your example of dealing with properties when parents die is a minor issue that will not affect a significant amount of people. More properties need to be built anyway and I think Labour have explicitly said that they would look to do so (of course they have nothing set in stone, yet).
Secondly, I think focusing on the effect of rent controls on the supplier of properties is missing the point significantly. Most people - rightly in my view - do not care about who owns the property that they are renting so long as it is good value and the landlords are reasonable (small or large scale). If something can visibly keep pricing reasonable then that is enough. Obviously what 'rent controls' actually are instituted need to be regionally adapted.
Lastly, I didn't actually say they were a good idea, but that they should be popular. Rent, like tax, is a very visible and obvious way in which people see their money disappearing every month. Therefore I would speculate efforts to limit it would be popular (in the same way that lower taxes are popular).
Affordable housig usually applies to shared ownership (I think!) and there are all sorts of rules in place to do with selling when you've had enough, in order to make them 'affordable' for other buyers.
The fact that most of the stuff labelled as 'affordable' in London can be upwards of £500k shows how ridiculous the system is.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yeah well I'm getting drunk in my hotel bar in Sevilla because it's the only bit of the hotel with free WiFi. It's 27 degrees right now, and it's half 10 at night on the first of May. This is madness. No wonder everyone south of Calais is so bloody lazy. Seriously what the fuck. Definitely shorts and flip flops at work tomorrow. I wonder if my room has air con? Also, hotel literature suggests that we have a pool on the 1st floor but I've seen head nor tail of it. I found the gym though, greeeaaat.