Nah. Bringing the unions to heel was something that was long overdue. Anyone alive in the 60s will remember shows like the Rag Trade, which played on the then poor state of industrial relations. These were funny because we recognised the truth of them - just like Fawlty Towers was funny because we recognised bad hotels.
So who should be a politician then? It won't be a human being because we're all politicians one way or another, even those nice touchy-feely LibDems.
I don't think the public realises, and its carefully managed so that it doesn't, just how much shit we are in.
we are treading a tightrope between the government simply not being able to raise any more money which would cripple the public sector completely as they simply wouldn't get paid...and a massive amount of violent protests as the cuts bite deep.
There is no answer any one likes.
It's just a case of trying to plot a middle course between two very bad scenarios, and hope that the pretty bad one in the middle will see us through.
Of course the Left, who are responsible for at least some of that, can safely stand apart and make out its all a hated Tory plot in some kind of class war, offer no alternative solution that is realistic, and hope that in 4 years time everybody is so busted that they get back in, so they can have the ministerial cars and the expenses, and wreck the country completely.
Mots peoles is.
In te USA they calculated that no one has, since the Crunch, actally repaid any debt on credit cards. Just keoping p the teret payments is as good a it gets.
Suc debt reduction a there has been has been via bankruptcy and mortgage foreclosures.
You are cloud cuckoo land.
What a narrow prejudiced view you have..
As opposed to the labour MPs like T Bliar, who made off with a personal fortune, after pushing us into an unneccesary war?
Hmm.
an apt description of New Labour.
+1
No, Tony Blair was. Brown was obviously crap. With Tone, people actually believed he was OK?
Thats a thought. Write an economy optimising piece of software, and put that in charge.
No, we have far too many sheriffs, very few independent homesteaders any more, and a bunch of maiden aunts like Dennis Day who want the sheriffs to deal with everything. As sheriffs obviously can't be everywhere, cowboys can run rife in the gaps.
Our sheriffs also seem far more interested in putting a price on the head of anyone with the temerity to brand their own cattle, let alone take a six-shooter to a bandit.
+1
We homesteaded our place - almost a 50% reduction in annual county taxes, ta very much, all for ticking a box on a form. I'm not sure if there's an equivalent in the UK, is there?
cheers
Jules
There used to be in London about 25 years ago. I suspect the scheme finished years ago.
Which means what?
It means I ticked a little box and saved around 50% a year on taxes ;-)
I think we're essentially declaring that it's the house where we permanently reside - so it can't be applied to second homes, or houses that are put to commercial use, or land[1] that doesn't have a dwelling on it. Quite why the county would give such a massive reduction though, I don't know, but I'm not going to complain :-)
[1] that's why we don't quite get 50% - in the eyes of the county, we own two adjacent bits of land, so can only homestead the bit with the house on it (but the 'empty' bit is a fraction of the annual tax bill, so it doesn't make a lot of difference)cheers
Jules
1) Why doesn't everyone do it?
2) Why not merge the two bits of land - then you've only got one.
Over here if you're a single occupant of a property, you get 25% off. But when we got married, my wife was the Warden of the Anglican Retreat House in Ely. So I moved in with her as it was a tied house, she had to live there (condition of employment).
Foolishly I reported this to my local council, who immediately rubbed their hands with glee and said second property, 100% please - even though we couldn't have lived there anyway as there was major repair work being done to alleviate subsidence.
I then put the house in our joint names after which we got 50% discount because of her terms of employment. So there are some minor variations.
Using the "Midas" formula?
If you are rich enough you don't need to even tick a box to save 100% of your taxes.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Tim Streater saying something like:
As was only right and proper if you are a government faced with hundreds of thousands of young wans with no job. Do you want riots? NO. So you have to get into creative job creation. This is con, true, but it goes back decades under differing names.
HAHAHAHA. You and all the politically polarised fools (left and right) are kidding yourselves if you honestly think the Tories would have done anything much differently.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher saying something like:
Hah, TNP agrees with Hugh the redneck wanker. No surprise there.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Jules Richardson saying something like:
I guess it's an incentive to reduce rural depopulation. In some rural counties here, there was an utter ease in getting PP some years ago as an attempt to repopulate some areas.
A broadly similar thing happened in the UK, where houses on rundown council estates were 'homesteaded' to buyers for a nominal purchase figure. Some of the schemes actually worked, with people taking care of their properties and upgrading the neighbourhoods substantially.
Yes, that could be. Or possibly recognition that most rural properties are (or were) connected with farming, and it's a kind of tax break for the farming industry.
We don't have any kind of PP around here at all - if you have land, you can build whatever you like on it without informing anyone. There are requirements for permits and inspections for electrical work, though (and inspections for new septic systems, although I think I can install one without having to tell anyone in advance - it just needs somebody "official" to sign off on it when it's done)
Interesting! It wasn't a term I'd ever heard of before moving over here.
cheers
Jules
Oh, they would.
They at least realise the difference between a gift and investment. "Investing in people" when it means make jobs to get unemployment figures down and buy votes, using borrowed money, is as near to a fraudulent statement as it is possible to get.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.