Social responsibility towards the older worker?
I feel like left wing UK PoliGAF is seriously underrepresented.
At least in this thread, yeah.
Social responsibility towards the older worker?
I feel like left wing UK PoliGAF is seriously underrepresented.
Think I might be voting Lib Dem in the locals. Labour haven't got a chance here in Chichester and I'm still an anyone-but-the-Tories voter.
Undecided on the Euros; on the one hand I don't want to see UKIP come first so Labour make some sense... on the other hand the Libs are a bit closer to me ideologically. Tough call.
- Almost 80% of UK adults consume some BBC network news output each week
- The BBC is seen as a very high-quality news provider
- Younger viewers are proving harder to reach
- Some parts of the audience find the BBC "distant" both in tone and subject matter. Some want a broader agenda and a greater variety of tone, and more engaging storytelling
- Audiences expect more from current affairs at the BBC. Many believe the quality of investigative journalism is higher on Channel 4
- Current affairs programmes, such as Panorama, need to be "scheduled, promoted and signposted" in a way that "maximises potential impact"
- The BBC needs to be responsive to change, especially new technology and new habits of consuming news
- The report also found an appetite among some audiences for a wider international agenda and greater depth and coverage of lesser-known places
manufacturing up as well, BBC says a more balances recovery seems to be emerging.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.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/29/patrick-mercer-suspended-house-of-commons
I hope Farage runs and loses.
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.
Europe rejects UK's financial transaction tax challenge
Europe's top court has rejected the UK's challenge to the introduction of an EU financial transactions tax (FTT), which ministers have said will damage British firms.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) said the UK could not block the levy on trades on the grounds that it would affect London's banks.
The FTT will be adopted by 11 EU states, but not by the UK.
UK ministers have also argued the cost of the tax will be passed to savers.
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
I don't really understand why they're doing that at an EU level.
That's a shame. Newark is an anagram of wanker
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.
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.
Heaven forbid...
win/losses cannot just be balanced against each other.
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.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba8e4232-c79b-11e2-9c52-00144feab7de.html#axzz30MxZtd33Financial trading is undertaxed relative to the rest of the economy, in large part because the industry is exempt from value-added tax. Along with the profits banks derive from trading, this encourages excessive trading. It not only creates needless costs to pensioners and savers, it also undermines financial stability. This can be seen in the unnecessary activities of high-frequency traders. These are biased towards contrarian trades they buy when others sell and so they provide liquidity, but at a time when liquidity is plentiful. In times of market disruption, they try to get ahead of the trend, draining liquidity when it is needed most, such as before the flash crash of May 2010.
Further, when the financial system is working smoothly, few worry about the huge number of offsetting trades (for example, via derivatives) that are built on top of small exposures. But when the music stops and counterparties can no longer be trusted, it is these gross exposures that bring down the banks. In a number of different ways, this small tax on churning would limit some of these activities and help to refocus the financial system on to its purpose of the safe financing of real economic activity. Believers in the true purpose of finance the funding of genuine economic activity should embrace the FTT.
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.
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.
Evening Standard said:Labour was today accused of silly tricks after fielding three local election candidates in one ward with the same name as a sitting councillor.
Bexley Tory Teresa ONeill said she was shocked to find that the Labour candidates standing against her were all also called ONeill. She claims it is a plot to trick people who want to back her into voting for a rival candidate.
Paxman is quitting Newsnight
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.
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.
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.
immigration (and I don't just mean international, but from other parts of the UK to London)
London really is another country, I guess!
If I have my way.... Imagine, the Principality of London, with our glorious army of busses lead by Der Vater Prince BoJo.
Bagsy top bunkI 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
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
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.
Most landlords own more than one property though. Bloke I know was running 15 houses. There are very few 2-3 house landlords.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.
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.
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.