|
|
Post by davee39 on Apr 29, 2015 15:18:30 GMT
Yes, from a financial perspective as I have some savings so will be seen as the enemy. And how has the coalition helped savers? Twas the coalition which introduced Funding for Lending, and determined Base rate should remain at 0.5% for evermore.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563 
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Apr 29, 2015 20:40:14 GMT
I note that someone is suggesting hitting building sites with planning permission with their full rates charge after 3 years of ownership even if the building is not built yet. Should end up with pass the parcel :-) I'm not so sure, I'd draft it so a change of ownership wouldn't restart the clock
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Apr 29, 2015 21:01:03 GMT
I'm not so sure, I'd draft it so a change of ownership wouldn't restart the clock I think I just wouldn't draft it.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 30, 2015 7:36:01 GMT
It's us against them and it has been since time immemorial. Who's "us", and who's "them"? It's the answer to that question which differs the party views. FWIW, I believe that most people (of all shades) go into politics from a genuine aim to improve the country. Sure, some of them have very odd views on how to do it, and I doubt any of us agree 100% with everything any particular party/group/politico espouse, but they do believe they'd work. Once they get there, power frequently corrupts, but they go there out of genuine motives.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Apr 30, 2015 8:21:32 GMT
I note that DC is promising to commit some of their promises/commitments/pledges to law, why not just go the whole hog and bring party manifestos within contract law thus legally committing all the parties to all the promises they make.
|
|
|
|
Post by norfolkblue on Apr 30, 2015 8:22:59 GMT
It's us against them and it has been since time immemorial. Who's "us", and who's "them"? It's the answer to that question which differs the party views. FWIW, I believe that most people (of all shades) go into politics from a genuine aim to improve the country. Sure, some of them have very odd views on how to do it, and I doubt any of us agree 100% with everything any particular party/group/politico espouse, but they do believe they'd work. Once they get there, power frequently corrupts, but they go there out of genuine motives. I suspect the "them's" are the thousands of people around the country in positions of power, wealth and influence, who frequently meet up in a very large hall (or do they ( I mean the "them"'s still) use Skype these days?) to decide how to keep the rest of us oppressed and impoverished. Their remit is surprisingly large, and even extends to local businesses putting up their prices, insurance companies refusing to pay out etc. Occasionally , one of us is realised to be one of them all along, which explains the myth of social mobility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 8:40:07 GMT
"There's thems that feeds the cow and thems that suckles on the teat." What worries me is that very few leaders who know how to be a vet  |
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Apr 30, 2015 19:23:18 GMT
I note that DC is promising to commit some of their promises/commitments/pledges to law, why not just go the whole hog and bring party manifestos within contract law thus legally committing all the parties to all the promises they make. Because gaining power is sometimes a reality check for politicians and they need the freedom to be able to change course for the good of us all.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 7, 2015 21:36:12 GMT
As far as this thread is concerned, I guess its time to either p** or get off the potty. Market reactions in the morning. Or in about 3 weeks time when our elected representatives have finsihed their bickering negotiations and decided in which direction they are taking our sceptered isle (or fragmented portions thereof).
Last chance to post your predictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 7, 2015 22:12:43 GMT
Con + SNP to form a majority, ha! Indepentantly in two separate countries ?
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on May 8, 2015 8:11:20 GMT
Labour has lost its Balls!
Apparently Ed Milliband is going to retire in order to spend more time with his bacon rolls.
|
|
coop
Member of DD Central
Posts: 714
Likes: 571
|
Post by coop on May 8, 2015 8:26:26 GMT
Well stock shave regained the pennies that have been drifting away in the previous weeks of uncertainty.
PS I challenge anyone to eat a bacon sarnie in front of a camera with a telephoto lens going off twenty times a second without being photographed looking like an imbecile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 8:29:28 GMT
now all we have to do is federalise the country and sort out the man on the Omnibus's perception of the EU in the next 18 months and it's all sorted
|
|
|
|
Post by newbie on May 8, 2015 9:13:17 GMT
coop if future government leaders are judged by the skills of eating a sarnie then maybe Nigella should have a pop at getting into no10. Though I fear that might be a recipe for disaster!!! (See what I did there!!?)
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on May 9, 2015 23:18:07 GMT
The political incentives here are quite interesting. Consider that the SNP has a political incentive to make English, Welsh and Northern Irish voters as unhappy with them as possible to increase support within the country for Scottish independence. A beggar thy neighbors approach to extract maximum benefits for Scotland at the expense of the rest of the Union would seem to be in their political interests. And not in those of the rest of the Union, who must necessarily oppose such attempts because they are the ones being beggared and in recognition of an underlying independence motivation. One potential counter would be a requirement that the elected representatives in all four parts must approve measures to limit the potential for one or more to exploit or extort the others, perhaps replacing the Barnett formula or having to approve or reject its results. Given that Lord Barnett himself considers the formula to be "a terrible mistake" that would have some significant merits. Part of the reason for that is that an incorrect too high population for Scotland was used that has never been corrected, so Scotland ends up with a £1600 per person subsidy from the rest of the Union. A correction to that is being applied to only increases, not the whole payment, so it'll take a long time to drop to the real population proportions. |
|
