[youtube]GVrTepl2hvs[/youtube]howsillyofme1 wrote:PorFavor wrote:@howsillyofme1
Safe journey. I hope you've brought us all back a stick of rock.
Thanks PF.....I didn't bring rock but something squidgy and strange looking that was presented to me at a meal last night....I stuffed it in my bag thinking about you guys
It may be jellyfish but I cannot be sure!
Tubby Isaacs wrote:McDonnell appointing the "wise men" was an excellent decision. As one of them (Simon Wren-Lewis) said expert economic advice hasn't broken through into Mediamacro. This is its best opportunity. Balls should have called a review in 2010.
I am worried about him being caught out by Osborne trickery, like Balls was in 2012 when austerity was slowed down. Hopefully, Wren-Lewis and all will be alert to that and help him. But he seems to have slipped up with this fiscal charter lark, and he needs a hotline to economic advice. Meetings every couple of months won't be enough.
Willow904 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/business/liv ... 4a06987add" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;September’s inflation rate is used to calculate a range of benefits payments in the UK.
Consumer expert Paul Lewis reports that these payments will now be frozen, as will other payments linked to the headline inflation rate.
Osborne can talk it up all he likes. This inflation figure is not good news for people dependent on pensions or benefits and will eventually drag down pay settlements meaning incomes will get tighter and if people fear low wage rises going forward, they will be more reluctant to borrow as well. Throw in Osborne's tax credit cuts and it's hard to see where growth is going to come from next year. It may not be all out deflation, but it's definitely stagnation.
That and the fact that wages growing faster than inflation means nothing when inflation is so low/non-existent. Inflation historically has helped people manage their debts and therefore more able to take on new debt. Osborne's economic plans rely on households taking on record amounts of debt - a risky strategy at the best of times, but in the current climate I'm wondering if the British public will actually be willing to play ball. What happens to the economy when everyone refuses to spend?yahyah wrote:Willow904 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/business/liv ... 4a06987add" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;September’s inflation rate is used to calculate a range of benefits payments in the UK.
Consumer expert Paul Lewis reports that these payments will now be frozen, as will other payments linked to the headline inflation rate.
Osborne can talk it up all he likes. This inflation figure is not good news for people dependent on pensions or benefits and will eventually drag down pay settlements meaning incomes will get tighter and if people fear low wage rises going forward, they will be more reluctant to borrow as well. Throw in Osborne's tax credit cuts and it's hard to see where growth is going to come from next year. It may not be all out deflation, but it's definitely stagnation.
September's figure is also used [along with January's I think] to calculate company pension increases.
What will really hit people on low and medium incomes is that despite headlines about negative inflation, a lot of what they spend money on will have gone up in price a lot more than the inflation rate.
Let them interpret it that way if they want but I think that Corbyn has been talking about this for a rather longer time than simply since he spoke to conference. Cameron ignoring letters is no new thing. He'd sell his own granny anyway. And everyone else's.RogerOThornhill wrote:Jason Groves @JasonGroves1
Did Michael Gove brief Jeremy Corbyn on Saudi deal to help bounce David Cameron into u-turn? Some Tory MPs think so...
3:36 PM - 13 Oct 2015
Quite possible. So...
1. Gove briefs Corbyn
2. Corbyn mentions in conference speech and writes to Cameron who ignores it
3. Gove briefs The Times on the row and tells them who are for the deal
4. labour put down UQ
5. Cameron caves in
6. Slaughter and Gove have a gentlemanly chat about it in the House.
7. Cameron and Hammond look the shifty ones who'd sell their own grannies.
ohsocynical wrote:I voted for a shake up. Corbyn seemed to be the one capable of it.....
The right wing of Labour are going to kill the party. Not Corbyn. If you lot can't accept that then there's no hope for any of us.
All they needed to do was show a solid front, be pleased at the surge in membership and if they're not they bloody well should be, and like sensible adults adapt...
We have to adapt all our lives, so why the fuck can't they? I'll tell you why; it's because they're not in it for wanting to do good.
Hungry kids? Homeless? Low wages? They couldn't give a tinkers cuss.They're career politicians. That's why Corbyn got in and that's why he's got a following.
They don't seem to.ohsocynical wrote:How do they judge inflation on foodstuffs? I thought they worked out the figures on the unit price, which I read as per tin or packet. If that's so then the shrinkage isn't being factored in...Is it? Or have I got it wrong?
The 'twats sticking the knives in ' rarely survive the revolutionary process. They are driven by stupidity and self interest and realisation only dawns as they are lined up against a wall. Even those for whom I have nothing but contempt for on the right of the Labour party do not deserve that end. Nor for that matter do the tories (although there are some that certtainly deserve long prison sentences).ohsocynical wrote:The rumblings of 'had enough' are already taking place. Look at the huge increase on protest marches and people on them. Lawyers and doctors! But with media censorship there is a big chunk of the population who haven't caught on just how much on a knife edge society is.
If people see that the party they supported in such huge numbers because of one man, let change for the better slip through their fingers, the anger will spill over. It will have to. What else is there.
And the twats sticking the knives in each other's backs are too selfish to see it. And it won't be their fault. It never is.
Jeremy Corbyn MP @jeremycorbyn 4h4 hours ago
After my letter to Cameron he finally cancels Min of Justice bid to run Saudi prison service
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 92276.html
Ten or fifteen years ago maybe, but today? Unless you have pre-existing resources it's not really possible to drop out. Even a very ordinary tenancy requires a guarantor and a credit check these days. No income, no tenancy. And more and more landlords won't take social tenants and the requirements for even the most basic of incomes are to sign your life into a type of penal system, where you are regarded as the lowest of the low and sanctioned for being that. So dropping out is for the well to do. It's not an outlet for the truly disenfranchised. I do not see anything except the most minimal of self organisation happening, a generation ago even the strikers were able to effectively support each other.yahyah wrote:I think a lot of people will drop out of the system, as they feel their chances of getting a decent job, home and life dwindle.
The revolution may be the way people live their lives rather than any overt action or rioting.
An academy trust that runs ten Muslim faith-based schools is set to take over three non-faith community secondaries in the north, Schools Week can reveal.
Last week the Tauheedul Education Trust (TET) was chosen as the preferred sponsor to turn around Highfield Humanities College, in Blackpool
The trust has insisted it has “no plan at any stage to implement a faith ethos”, but concerns have been raised locally in the town where only 0.7 per cent of the population is Muslim.
Today Bradford council has announced the trust will also take over two community schools: Tong High School and Laisterdyke Business and Enterprise College.
Tong school is rated as inadequate by Ofsted and Laisterdyke had its board of governors removed by the local authority amid concerns of links to the Trojan Horse investigations.
Yes - it would be virtually impossible to opt out and make any sort of go at it in an urban area - for too many reasons to go into and which I'm sure are fairly obvious both to you and to everyone else here, anyway.yahyah wrote:@seeing clearly.
I'm thinking more of people buying vans, tents, old caravans to live in, or attempts at communal living. But agree that may be more open to people with some existing assets.
Also, more likely to happen in area like mine, very low population, lots of places to camp out.
It's certainly a trap, and right they shouldn't vote for it. Looks amateurish to say they would, having not read it apparently. They have to expect this sort of stuff.howsillyofme1 wrote:Tubby Isaacs wrote:McDonnell appointing the "wise men" was an excellent decision. As one of them (Simon Wren-Lewis) said expert economic advice hasn't broken through into Mediamacro. This is its best opportunity. Balls should have called a review in 2010.
I am worried about him being caught out by Osborne trickery, like Balls was in 2012 when austerity was slowed down. Hopefully, Wren-Lewis and all will be alert to that and help him. But he seems to have slipped up with this fiscal charter lark, and he needs a hotline to economic advice. Meetings every couple of months won't be enough.
Tubby,
I what way do you think he has slipped up on this?
I think his explanation is okay - that it is a pretty crass trap set by Osborne and that he was only pandering to counter the 'deficit denier' tag - I remember him saying that at the time and it was in response to calls for him to speak out on this immediately after being put in place. It was a gesture and it has not worked out as he would want
Isn't that pretty hard to do, these days? I listened in in late 2011, when they cleared a traveller site, well documented case, it was terrible to hear especially the younger people, who were very afraid. Communal living is a better idea, but one for the few, not the many, I think also not suited to the angry.yahyah wrote:@seeing clearly.
I'm thinking more of people buying vans, tents, old caravans to live in, or attempts at communal living. But agree that may be more open to people with some existing assets.
Also, more likely to happen in area like mine, very low population, lots of places to camp out.
I'm fairly sure that I've mentioned this here before but, anyway -seeingclearly wrote:Isn't that pretty hard to do, these days? I listened in in late 2011, when they cleared a traveller site, well documented case, it was terrible to hear especially the younger people, who were very afraid. Communal living is a better idea, but one for the few, not the many, I think also not suited to the angry.yahyah wrote:@seeing clearly.
I'm thinking more of people buying vans, tents, old caravans to live in, or attempts at communal living. But agree that may be more open to people with some existing assets.
Also, more likely to happen in area like mine, very low population, lots of places to camp out.
We've got a version of it already, because young people are more and more having to share houses, and the landlords are getting fat on it.
The traditional outlet to the scenario that Tem describes is to invoke war. Internal or external. The former requiring a scapegoat community. The latter anything that can be summoned up. Thatcher used this safety valve and built on it to some degree. I'd much prefer the caravans..... I keep wondering why they don't start building a million prefabs, and then have to pinch myself to get back into the real world, where nothing that sane seems to happen. But it's not just the matter of a roof, you have to have the right kind of plastic, and it's hard to get services without it.
I'd be up for a caravan myself TBH.
Nah.yahyah wrote:Just been sent an Opinium poll, being asked to choose who would be best PM, Corbyn or Cameron, and Corbyn or Boris Johnson, Corbyn or Osborne, Corbyn or May.
I have of course responded Corbyn in all cases, probably a few so called Labour people who wouldn't.
PorFavor wrote:I'm fairly sure that I've mentioned this here before but, anyway -seeingclearly wrote:Isn't that pretty hard to do, these days? I listened in in late 2011, when they cleared a traveller site, well documented case, it was terrible to hear especially the younger people, who were very afraid. Communal living is a better idea, but one for the few, not the many, I think also not suited to the angry.yahyah wrote:@seeing clearly.
I'm thinking more of people buying vans, tents, old caravans to live in, or attempts at communal living. But agree that may be more open to people with some existing assets.
Also, more likely to happen in area like mine, very low population, lots of places to camp out.
We've got a version of it already, because young people are more and more having to share houses, and the landlords are getting fat on it.
The traditional outlet to the scenario that Tem describes is to invoke war. Internal or external. The former requiring a scapegoat community. The latter anything that can be summoned up. Thatcher used this safety valve and built on it to some degree. I'd much prefer the caravans..... I keep wondering why they don't start building a million prefabs, and then have to pinch myself to get back into the real world, where nothing that sane seems to happen. But it's not just the matter of a roof, you have to have the right kind of plastic, and it's hard to get services without it.
I'd be up for a caravan myself TBH.
When I was at infant school, I used to have a school friend who lived in a prefab. I was envious as it seemed like a wonderful, spacious, comfortable place to me. I've fancied living in one, ever since. I expect it must have had downsides which weren't apparent to me at the time?
It's over a year later, now and they're still at it.I gave it all up … to live off the land
"...last summer we quit our jobs and flats, and gave away most of our stuff. Furniture and crockery went to a friend; shoes, bags and clothes to the charity shop.
The whole thing felt surreal when we were leaving with our bikes through the front door, setting off to cycle through Sweden, Denmark, England, Wales and Ireland. All I had was a small bag of clothes, camping gear and some electronics. We cycled 40-80km a day through Sweden and Denmark, (the distance increased as the trip went on). We had a small gas stove for cooking and and made most of our meals on it. In Sweden and Denmark we camped in forests, by lakes and on beaches, asking farmers if we could sleep in their fields.
Wild camping isn’t allowed in the UK and Ireland, so we ended up asking people if we could stay on their land. We were amazed by people’s generosity."
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... -good-life
Before you rush out & buy a caravan, motorhome, whatever, remember what used to happen in the 1980's to people who took to the road to avoid the government:seeingclearly wrote:Isn't that pretty hard to do, these days? I listened in in late 2011, when they cleared a traveller site, well documented case, it was terrible to hear especially the younger people, who were very afraid. Communal living is a better idea, but one for the few, not the many, I think also not suited to the angry.yahyah wrote:@seeing clearly.
I'm thinking more of people buying vans, tents, old caravans to live in, or attempts at communal living. But agree that may be more open to people with some existing assets.
Also, more likely to happen in area like mine, very low population, lots of places to camp out.
We've got a version of it already, because young people are more and more having to share houses, and the landlords are getting fat on it.
The traditional outlet to the scenario that Tem describes is to invoke war. Internal or external. The former requiring a scapegoat community. The latter anything that can be summoned up. Thatcher used this safety valve and built on it to some degree. I'd much prefer the caravans..... I keep wondering why they don't start building a million prefabs, and then have to pinch myself to get back into the real world, where nothing that sane seems to happen. But it's not just the matter of a roof, you have to have the right kind of plastic, and it's hard to get services without it.
I'd be up for a caravan myself TBH.
Research Institute
Thought leadership from Credit Suisse Research and the world’s foremost experts
Global Wealth
Report 2015
"...the group of millionaires still only accounts for 0.7% of population, but owns 45.2% of global wealth. While the distribution of wealth is skewed towards the wealthy, the considerable economic importance of the base and middle sections should not be overlooked. Together, these sections account for USD 39 trillion in wealth, driving a significant part of demand for a wide range of consumer goods and financial services.
Every year, we try to contribute to the house-hold wealth debate by extending our analysis to a special topic of interest. We devote this year’s report to middle-class wealth.
Notably, we find that middle-class wealth has grown at a slower pace than wealth at the top end. This has reversed the pre-crisis trend, which saw the share of middle-class wealth remaining fairly stable over time. These results reinforce our findings from last year’s edition of this report, which argued that wealth inequality had widened in most countries in the years after the 2008 crisis."
- Tidjane Thiam
Chief Executive Officer, Credit Suisse
https://publications.credit-suisse.com/ ... AF9341D47E
Just down the road in Walker, there's a whole estate of temporary prefabs, dating from just after the war. The locals call it "TinTown", but love it just the same. The real downside is the low population density single storey housing creates.PorFavor wrote:I'm fairly sure that I've mentioned this here before but, anyway -seeingclearly wrote:Isn't that pretty hard to do, these days? I listened in in late 2011, when they cleared a traveller site, well documented case, it was terrible to hear especially the younger people, who were very afraid. Communal living is a better idea, but one for the few, not the many, I think also not suited to the angry.yahyah wrote:@seeing clearly.
I'm thinking more of people buying vans, tents, old caravans to live in, or attempts at communal living. But agree that may be more open to people with some existing assets.
Also, more likely to happen in area like mine, very low population, lots of places to camp out.
We've got a version of it already, because young people are more and more having to share houses, and the landlords are getting fat on it.
The traditional outlet to the scenario that Tem describes is to invoke war. Internal or external. The former requiring a scapegoat community. The latter anything that can be summoned up. Thatcher used this safety valve and built on it to some degree. I'd much prefer the caravans..... I keep wondering why they don't start building a million prefabs, and then have to pinch myself to get back into the real world, where nothing that sane seems to happen. But it's not just the matter of a roof, you have to have the right kind of plastic, and it's hard to get services without it.
I'd be up for a caravan myself TBH.
When I was at infant school, I used to have a school friend who lived in a prefab. I was envious as it seemed like a wonderful, spacious, comfortable place to me. I've fancied living in one, ever since. I expect it must have had downsides which weren't apparent to me at the time?
Ever seen the tent cities in the States? The hundreds of people living in encampments, under motor way bridges? The disposessed, the mentally ill. The homeless, the sick and the misfits? Give it a few years....yahyah wrote:@seeing clearly.
I'm thinking more of people buying vans, tents, old caravans to live in, or attempts at communal living. But agree that may be more open to people with some existing assets.
Also, more likely to happen in area like mine, very low population, lots of places to camp out.
I got caught up in a police crack down on campervan convoys back then. I was driving the van with Mrs55 and cost centre 1 and got pulled over on the M5 heading for Devon. I was heading for the ferry at Plymouth for a boat to Santander, but by virtue of my T2 poptop, I was dragged in with the ravers and protestors. I had a wave of sympathy for black kids, who were then being hassled under SUS checks.danesclose wrote:Before you rush out & buy a caravan, motorhome, whatever, remember what used to happen in the 1980's to people who took to the road to avoid the government:seeingclearly wrote:Isn't that pretty hard to do, these days? I listened in in late 2011, when they cleared a traveller site, well documented case, it was terrible to hear especially the younger people, who were very afraid. Communal living is a better idea, but one for the few, not the many, I think also not suited to the angry.yahyah wrote:@seeing clearly.
I'm thinking more of people buying vans, tents, old caravans to live in, or attempts at communal living. But agree that may be more open to people with some existing assets.
Also, more likely to happen in area like mine, very low population, lots of places to camp out.
We've got a version of it already, because young people are more and more having to share houses, and the landlords are getting fat on it.
The traditional outlet to the scenario that Tem describes is to invoke war. Internal or external. The former requiring a scapegoat community. The latter anything that can be summoned up. Thatcher used this safety valve and built on it to some degree. I'd much prefer the caravans..... I keep wondering why they don't start building a million prefabs, and then have to pinch myself to get back into the real world, where nothing that sane seems to happen. But it's not just the matter of a roof, you have to have the right kind of plastic, and it's hard to get services without it.
I'd be up for a caravan myself TBH.
[youtube]6LHizyCtakw[/youtube]
The right wing of the party got hammered, Corbyn isn't just annoying the right wing he is driving the mainstream party into despair.ohsocynical wrote:I voted for a shake up. Corbyn seemed to be the one capable of it.....
The right wing of Labour are going to kill the party. Not Corbyn. If you lot can't accept that then there's no hope for any of us.
All they needed to do was show a solid front, be pleased at the surge in membership and if they're not they bloody well should be, and like sensible adults adapt...
We have to adapt all our lives, so why the fuck can't they? I'll tell you why; it's because they're not in it for wanting to do good.
Hungry kids? Homeless? Low wages? They couldn't give a tinkers cuss.They're career politicians. That's why Corbyn got in and that's why he's got a following.
