Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Skidfingers McGonical]

It does beg the question, why put that in their manifesto? It might as well have been, 'if you vote for us we'll be sending Kelly Brooke around for blowjobs'.

I voted for that shit and I am still waiting.

 

Cleggy You Cunt! Where is my BJ (off Brook, not you, you dog faced fluffy haired cunt)

[dennis tooth]

Nobody said that, but it all adds up. In the circumstances I think it is difficult to justify free tertiary education for children from middle and upper class families.

 

Ok, so why did Clegg justify it then?

 

By circumstances I take it you are referring the defecit that continues to balloon under the coalition.

Surely the best way out of it is not to deter the future generation who will have to use their education to work out a way out of it for the UK,  from getting such an education?

Surely we should not look to further indebt the young people who do get a university education, if these are going to be the ones to get us out of it?

What happend to your banker's tax spiel?

Inbstead the bankers are taxing our youth trying to better themselves?

 

Do you consider these things?

[dennis tooth]

We are still waiting for the record profits banks to pay back what we give them, instead we continue to print them money and print money for the corporations. 

Cant we print money therefore for our tuition costs?

 

Of course we can.

 

We spent more on the Olympics, lets not pretend that the 'legacy' of the games will be of greater use to our GDP than the legacy of losing our brightest minds to an education system that is shunning them.

[TheBitch]

What? There's a north/south divide?

 

Who knew?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/sep/22/uk-growth-london-north-south-divide?CMP=twt_gu

 

Go to Preston and tell them that Britain is booming and the notion will be greeted with a hollow laugh. Tell the folks in Hull that the housing market has caught fire and they will assume you have taken leave of your senses. Mention in Rochdale that a corner has been turned and you are likely to be run out of town.

 

Ed Miliband's big idea at last year's Labour conference was One Nation Britain. This is a nice as an aspiration but bears no relation to the country we actually inhabit.

 

The latest growth figures are a classic example of Disraeli's dictum that there are three sorts of falsehoods: lies, damned lies and statistics. Sure, if you take the UK as a whole it is true that growth has returned. National output is expanding by 3% a year, slightly above its long-term trend.

 

But the country-wide average disguises considerable regional disparities, which are reflected in Britain's political make-up. Areas where the Conservatives are strong tend to have above-average prosperity; areas where Labour is strong tend to be poorer than the average. Marginal seats are clustered in those areas where the two nations collide.

 

House prices are one example of how regional economic performance varies. The Office for National Statistics said last week that property was 3.3% dearer in July 2013 than it had been a year earlier. But strip out London, where the cost of a home increased by almost 10%, and the south-east, and in the rest of the country prices were up by just 0.8%. That's below inflation, meaning that property prices are falling in real terms. In Scotland and Northern Ireland they are falling in absolute terms.

 

Now look at the regional breakdown for workless households, where the five areas with the worst record are all former industrial powerhouses lying north of a line drawn from the Severn estuary to the Wash: Glasgow, Liverpool, Hull, Birmingham and Wolverhampton. For the UK as a whole, 18% of households do not have anyone in work; in the unemployment blackspots it ranges from 27% to 30%.

 

At the other end of the scale, the areas with the fewest workless households are all in the south of England. Hampshire has the lowest percentage, at 10.6%, followed by North Northamptonshire (11.2%), Buckinghamshire (11.3%), West Sussex (11.3%) and Surrey (11.4%).

 

The north-south divide is not new. Far from it. There has been a prosperity gap for at least a century, ever since the industries that were at the forefront of the first industrial revolution went into decline. But the disparity between a thriving London and the rest has never been greater.

 

On past form, there will be a ripple effect from the south-east and there are tentative signs that this may be happening. But it is early days and, understandably, there is concern in the rest of the UK when it is mooted that economic policy needs to be tightened to tackle a problem that is chronic and heavily localised.

 

This is well illustrated in an article by Paul Ormerod published in Applied Economics Letters. Ormerod drills down into the UK labour market to see what has been happening to unemployment at the local authority level.

 

He notes that most labour market economists have seen the cure for unemployment as a good dose of "flexibility".

 

According to this approach, joblessness will only persist over time due to "rigidities" in the labour market. Remove the rigidities – such as over-generous welfare systems, employment security provisions, working time regulations, national pay bargaining – and the price of employing workers will adjust (ie reduce) to a level that will ensure that everybody who wants to work can find a job.

 

Unemployment blackspots

 

That's the theory. Ormerod tests it by looking at what has happened to unemployment over time. If greater labour market flexibility is the answer, then local authority areas with high levels of unemployment 20 years ago should have witnessed an improvement. But Ormerod finds no such correlations.

 

Those parts of the country that had relatively high levels of unemployment in 1990 still had them in 2010, even though the rates of joblessness went up or down according to whether the national economy was booming or struggling. "The striking feature of the results is the strength of persistence over time in patterns of relative unemployment at local level," Ormerod said.

 

Those who say flexibility is the answer may counter that the problem with Britain is that the labour market is still not flexible enough, and that only by making the UK more like the US can the problem of persistent unemployment be tackled. The only difficulty with this argument is that high levels of unemployment persist in America as well, although the correlation is not quite so strong as it is in Britain. This, though, may have more to do with the willingness and the ability of Americans to move than it does with the flexibility of the labour market.

 

Ormerod concludes: "The labour market flexibility of the theorists, beloved by policymakers, appears to be at odds with reality. This is especially the case in the UK, where relative unemployment levels persist very strongly over long periods of time. The findings certainly call into question the efficacy of policies that were designed to increase flexibility and to improve the relative performance of regions."

 

The cross-party support for a new high-speed rail link to the Midlands and the north is one attempt to find new ways to tackle the two nations problem. Supporters of HS2 say the cost will be worth it because the new line will lead to higher investment, increased rates of business creation and enhanced spending power in the northern regions.

 

Another solution to the north-south divide would be for London, rather than Scotland, to get its independence. Although Britain is not part of the single currency, London is Europe's unrivalled financial capital. From the dealing floors of Canary Wharf in the east to the hedge-fund cluster in Mayfair to the west, London is where the action is. Upmarket estate agents can tell where the world's latest troublespot is by the source of the foreign cash buying up properties in Belgravia and south Kensington: currently, it is Syria.

 

Were the government to publish regional trade figures, they would show that London runs a current account surplus with the rest of the UK, offset by capital transfers from the rich south to the poorer north. As an independent city state, London would have a higher exchange rate and higher borrowing costs. The rest of the country would, by contrast, get a competitive boost.

 

The reality is that London is a separate country. Perhaps we should make it official.

[Section_31]

The Labour conference has been soul destroying, purple instead of red, 'One Nation' written all over the shop, talk of policies to help 'hard working families'. Just fuck, right, off.

[lifetime fan]

Labour would be better off with Blair than Milliband and I hated the twat come the end.

[Reacher]

Millibands speech that good? Lots of people seem to be made up with it coming out the conference.

 

 

 

[lifetime fan]

Not watched it.

 

Unless he's had a complete about turn I sincerely doubt it mate.

[Stickman]

Funny how the energy companies are falling over themselves to slag off Labours pledge to freeze prices for 20 months, yet when they put em up you never get one of the twats on the telly.

[Scooby Dudek]

Funny how the energy companies are falling over themselves to slag off Labours pledge to freeze prices for 20 months, yet when they put em up you never get one of the twats on the telly.

 

Judge me by my enemies not my friends.

 

I take the fact that both they and large business groups are outraged (on our behalf) as a good sign.

[Rico1304]

It's probably the most mental policy he's come up with. It's unworkable, illogical and probably illegal. If by some miracle it's gets through he'd put 1,000's of jobs at risk and destroy value in massive pension funds.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Millibands speech that good? Lots of people seem to be made up with it coming out the conference.

I think there was lots of good in it. I wasn't crying tears of joy, but I did raise ans eyebrow.

[Stickman]

It's probably the most mental policy he's come up with. It's unworkable, illogical and probably illegal. If by some miracle it's gets through he'd put 1,000's of jobs at risk and destroy value in massive pension funds.

As opposed to the Tories who have destroyed 1000's of public sector jobs and destroyed pensions in the same area.

[Rico1304]

As opposed to the Tories who have destroyed 1000's of public sector jobs and destroyed pensions in the same area.

I don't get the point, are you saying it's the right thing to do because Tories did it first - like a revenge attack?

 

I only commented because it's the industry I work in so have (very) little knowledge.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I don't see why it'd but 1000s of jobs at risk. It'd put profits at risk, but I can't see energy companies losing 1000s of employees - meaning they can't provide the same service they did - over a temporary freeze in profits. They'll still be earning, and I think this is the exact amount, fucking truck loads. I'm not saying I support that proposal, BTW. I'm not arguing for it, and I've not looked into the specifics, but on the face of it I can't see 1000s of jobs going. It's not like energy companies are SMEs.

[Rico1304]

Plus both Blair and Milliband made decisions on energy policy that impact about £2-300 on your bill so thank them for a significant portion of the rise. Then you've got Japan and Germany scaling back on nuclear energy so gas becomes more expensive and the fact we've got the cheapest energy in Europe but poorly insulted housing stock .

[Stickman]

What I mean is how would it cost 1000's of jobs by freezing energy costs?

I would have thought it would create jobs if firms don't have to pay increasing energy bills.

I don't get the point, are you saying it's the right thing to do because Tories did it first - like a revenge attack?

I only commented because it's the industry I work in so have (very) little knowledge.

Where did I say it was a revenge attack I'm making the point the Tories have cost thousands of jobs and destroyed pensions.

I fail to see how this policy from Labour would result in the same thing.

[Section_31]

It's a 'hard pressed families' vote winner. Will probably have some kind of oil prices cap in his hat for closer to election time.

[Rico1304]

I don't see why it'd but 1000s of jobs at risk. It'd put profits at risk, but I can't see energy companies losing 1000s of employees - meaning they can't provide the same service they did - over a temporary freeze in profits. They'll still be earning, and I think this is the exact amount, fucking truck loads. I'm not saying I support that proposal, BTW. I'm not arguing for it, and I've not looked into the specifics, but on the face of it I can't see 1000s of jobs going. It's not like energy companies are SMEs.

Commodity costs are rising and will continue to do so, but if prices are capped the only way to save would be to cut costs - which is people. If they all cost the same what's the point in having shiny call centres full of workers when there's no money in it? So they'll be the first to go and service will suffer. Most BG shares are held by pension funds and have been performing ok lately, well, it's just gone to £4 a share for the first time. They wouldn't let profits fall, so could sell up and destroy the value in the business.

 

Then you've got the Smart Metering program which should be completed by 2020ish. That's going to create literally 1000's of jobs but who'll invest in it if the costs can't be recovered? That'd stop along with all the benefits to the customers and economy.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Logue Randrords.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

It's a 'hard pressed families' vote winner. Will probably have some kind of oil prices cap in his hat for closer to election time.

He would probably get in and then say he wouldn't be able to do any of it because of x,y,z.

 

The dick.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

It's probably the most mental policy he's come up with. It's unworkable, illogical and probably illegal. If by some miracle it's gets through he'd put 1,000's of jobs at risk and destroy value in massive pension funds.

How is it probably illegal?

[Skidfingers McGonical]

It's probably the most mental policy he's come up with. It's unworkable, illogical and probably illegal. If by some miracle it's gets through he'd put 1,000's of jobs at risk and destroy value in massive pension funds.

.

[General Dryness]

Plus both Blair and Milliband made decisions on energy policy that impact about £2-300 on your bill so thank them for a significant portion of the rise. Then you've got Japan and Germany scaling back on nuclear energy so gas becomes more expensive and the fact we've got the cheapest energy in Europe but poorly insulted housing stock .

 

OK. Our housing stock is a cunt whore bitch bastard motherfucker.

 

That any better?

[Rico1304]

.

EU rules on restricting markets - this isn't my area and of course it's early days but as the other 5 of the big 6 are European I can't see them taking it lying down.

 

Plus, if they pull out because there's no money in UK energy who will supply it? It costs a lot to buy....