Phone hacking.

marble said:
If I had to vote for the best statesman I'd go for Cameron (he was right to go for the vote on Syria, Ed Milliband was wrong and I agree with Tony Blair about the knock on effect this has had on Iraq).
However, in terms of policy, I see very little in it, not a lot that is changeable even with a Labour government. They may scrap a few things but will be scared shitless to rock the economic boat in case of being labelled 'reckless' with the economy again
Coulson is the worse decision they've taken. Total failure of judgement, mistakes like that come back to haunt you.
Click to expand...

I would agree with most of that

I might be a little wrong on Coulson. On reflection i think it has damaged Cameron. Its made him look arrogant (which he is to some extent). Voters dislike that
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
to give an example..rates for contractors in the building game are going through the roof at the moment. They cannot keep men on site. They are walking off for better pay elsewhere.
Click to expand...

That's one example. There is no doubt that inflation has been going up a lot higher than wages for many years though. When I leave London and the South-East (which is a total anomaly to the rest of the UK), I don't see much economic revival.
 
Gamla Stan said:
That's one example. There is no doubt that inflation has been going up a lot higher than wages for many years though. When I leave London and the South-East (which is a total anomaly to the rest of the UK), I don't see much economic revival.
Click to expand...

No. I do not have the stats to hand but inflation has been very low for some time. But no one has expected wages to have flown upwards since 2008. We are talking about now and the future. UK is well placed.

Well I would cite Liverpool as an example of the opposite. Compared with 10 or 20 years ago, it is very obvious there is a revival there.
 
Two different types of blood nuts

Not the freckly one for me. Ie wade.

But the Jill St. John ... Oh yes
 
Well, now that it has been proven in court that she was unaware of how the newspaper she was managing was being run, I am looking forward to seeing Rupert Murdoch sue her for destroying his flagship paper through her negligence.

Then Bar and Charlie Brooks can double dunt her.
 
fonz said:
A decent rise in the minimum wage wouldn't go amiss either
Click to expand...

Euronymous said:
Totally. I'm on minimum wage at the moment and it's tantamount to slave labour really.
Click to expand...

clivex said:
Im all for free market, but agree that minimum wage is too low.
Click to expand...

Can I ask where in the country you all are.
I have a business in the city centre and don't employ staff. However I do know a lot of business owners who do (all in retail).

I can say, without exception, and this includes small buinesses with 2 or 3 part time staff, up to chains including starbucks and river island, all the managers/owners agree if minimum wage went up to £8 or £9 an hour, which were amounts that I saw being mentioned a while back, the only response they could have to that would be reduce staff hours, or staff numbers.
In fact, some are still trading now only because they have reduced staff costs over the past few years, increasing them by 50% won't help the business or the staff who get a reduction in hours or lose their jobs.

I can understand £6 odd an hour isn't enough in London and other affluent area's, but in area's that struggle, increasing it by more than a few pence isn't going to work.

The other thing to take into account, in many cases, doing this wouldn't actually increase the income due to in work benefits being claimed. As an example (and there are quite a few people I know in the same rough position) a girl i know works 16 hours and comes out with about £100 a week. She gets working tax credit on top, child tax credit, housing benefit and a small amount of childcare. If her wage went up to £150 a week, the extra £50 would just be taken from her other benefits, leaving her on the same disposable income as she had before, therefore making absolutely no difference to her income. Yes it would save the goverment a bit of money, but the employer would be worse off, and the employee, no better off. I just fail to see any point in doing it.
 
its hard to believe in the 60's a married man could have an ordinary job...my Dad was a signalman on the railways...and be able to pay a mortage..go on holidays..eat... pay all the bills whilst his wife could stay at home and look after the kids...only if she wanted to i'll add..before some label attaching type on here comes on spouting sexist

compare that to today...a married man on minimum wage ..what is it 6 an hour?..lets say he is on 7 an hour..works 40 hours a week..monthly pay 1120..probably take home a grand then.

out of that..either mortgage or rent will be around 500...council tax 100..gas and electric 120...possibly 50 to get to work..insurances and tv license sundries..50...water 50..telephone 30...food 350

which comes to about 1250..so he is actually bankrupt in real terms

so..i'd just love to know how we are better off today than we were 50 years ago.

the truth is a large % of the country spends more than it earns..hence why many business selling goods are going out of business..certainly if they rely on sales in this country

we managed to cover up this over the years by letting folk get up to their necks in credit..so the a large % of the country ran their life on credit..nowadays many people have wised up to that lifestyle..and go without..creating the situation we now in. When in interest rates go up many are going to lose their homes again as they are mortgaged up to the hilt at current rates.

i don't believe we are picking up at all...first sign things have turned a corner...where i live anyway... will be when i walk down the high street and there will be a "shop closed" sign in the Bright House window.
 
Last edited:
Can't have that at all e

Of course we are "better off" . Perhaps like to think of the relative cost of consumer goods, food, cars and many other things to wages at that time? The difference is huge. As for house prices, look at the weath accrued by those who have bought in the last few decades? And that's a lt of people. Far more than in the 60s . House prices work both ways

There are a fair number of people I know that are easily property millionaires (they don't need to say so and don't do so) and they are not necessarily in high flying roles at all. A lot of people have a pretty high asset base now. And before anyone moans about London, a lot of them stuck their necks out and grafted for it

And would it be fair to say that expectations of those on less than average wages (not necessarily minimum) will include a car and overseas holiday? Let alone all that the media world brings us to our homes. Not quite the same in the 60s I would venture.

You can give one limited example an use that as an indicator for the whole economy. But every single overall indicator will clearly demonstrate that wealth is substantially higher than in the 60s

The idea that every one was cosily comfortable back in the day is nothing but nostalgia
 
Last edited:
my point Clive was that someone with an ordinary job could run a home and have holidays etc..that doesn't happen now unless the government fund them with all sorts of allowances

the only reason people have those things and more now, with an ordinary job, is if they work every hour or their partner works

so we have gone from an ordinary job funding a lifestyle to it needing two to do same...i don't see that as being better off

i don't know any millionaires..i live in an ordinary street like millions of others

i am trying to compare like with like

yes many people have better lifestyles than they did then..i'm not on about that tbh...a lot of that is due to the rich/ poor balance throughout the years..ie those on bigger pay get more money with % rises...a logical outcome

do you remember in 76 when they gave everyone the same rise in £'s?...think it was £6 across the board...that lasted a long time...they did it once...i wonder why??..since then every year the better paid get more money in their pocket than those on low earnings

i'll give a modern example...my nephew is a fireman..one of the most valued people in society..you could have asked Maggie but she brown bread now...a professional man having to work other jobs and take building work on to make ends meet...a job like that and he's struggling to run a home..his wife doesn't work..same as my family in the 60's...he's got a better job than my old man though
 
Last edited:
I'll just ask Clive..how can someone bringing home a grand a month survive financially..with the general cost of just existing being as it is?...and then in a few months his mortgage starts going up when interest rates go up to give the rich even more money
 
Last edited:
You think interest rates go up " to give the rich more money"?

That's ridiculous ec. So by that token then, the historic lows we've had for last few years were "to deprive them of more money"?
 
EC1 said:
my point Clive was that someone with an ordinary job could run a home and have holidays etc..that doesn't happen now unless the government fund them with all sorts of allowances

the only reason people have those things and more now, with an ordinary job, is if they work every hour or their partner works

so we have gone from an ordinary job funding a lifestyle to it needing two to do same...i don't see that as being better off

i don't know any millionaires..i live in an ordinary street like millions of others

i am trying to compare like with like

yes many people have better lifestyles than they did then..i'm not on about that tbh...a lot of that is due to the rich/ poor balance throughout the years..ie those on bigger pay get more money with % rises...a logical outcome

do you remember in 76 when they gave everyone the same rise in £'s?...think it was £6 across the board...that lasted a long time...they did it once...i wonder why??..since then every year the better paid get more money in their pocket than those on low earnings

i'll give a modern example...my nephew is a fireman..one of the most valued people in society..you could have asked Maggie but she brown bread now...a professional man having to work other jobs and take building work on to make ends meet...a job like that and he's struggling to run a home..his wife doesn't work..same as my family in the 60's...he's got a better job than my old man though
Click to expand...

A lot of partners work because they want to. Running a house doesn't take all day and frankly women quite rightly don't want to be stuck at home making dinner.

It's rubbish to say that someone in a middling job needs government allowances to "go on holiday"

Rich poor balance. Ok I thought of this the other day

Which is best ?

5% gross rise for say the bottom 50% and 15% for the top 10%
5% for bottom 50% and 5% for top 10%
 
clivex said:
You think interest rates go up " to give the rich more money"?

That's ridiculous ec. So by that token then, the historic lows we've had for last few years were "to deprive them of more money"?
Click to expand...

last time i looked..when interest rates go up..those with savings make more money on them..so i don't really see whats ridiculous about it

here is the difference between rich and poor re interest rates

..when i have savings and interest rates are very low..i don't buy a yacht at the end of the year...when i haven't got savings and interest rates are low i just manage to survive

..when i have savings and interest rates are climbing..i do buy a yacht at the end of the year...when i haven't got savings and interest rates are rising ..i can't afford my mortgage and be able to eat properly

i'll just point out Clive, so you don't think i'm crying for myself here..i'm in neither situation...i don't have the worry of a mortgage any more..but i haven't got 10's of thousands invested...and i don't know any millionaires;)
 
clivex said:
A lot of partners work because they want to. Running a house doesn't take all day and frankly women quite rightly don't want to be stuck at home making dinner.
Click to expand...

you making issue there where you didn't need to...so thats a no point you've made

i'll just say it again..to make my point clear....i compared like with like..an ordinary job in the 60's could run a family...one person working...now it can't..in fact today even with a professional wage..it can't be done without other work
 
clivex said:
5% gross rise for say the bottom 50% and 15% for the top 10%
5% for bottom 50% and 5% for top 10%
Click to expand...

i'll just say Clive..% wage rises alone are complete boll*x imo...they cause the imbalance..i think a mixture through the years of % and £ rises is fairer..yes you have to have a differential..but when its % year in year out..its eventually unfair
 
Trouble is that our argument is the wrong way round. House prices didnt shoot up from the 60s onwards because someone put them up. I was because households had greater income. And why was that? Because of more double incomes. It's the cause not the effect

In turn that created more wealth for those that bought of course

And anyway you could have had a yacht yourself. ... If it wasn't for those speed ratings
 
clivex said:
Trouble is that our argument is the wrong way round. House prices didnt shoot up from the 60s onwards because someone put them up. I was because households had greater income. And why was that? Because of more double incomes. It's the cause not the effect

In turn that created more wealth for those that bought of course

And anyway you could have had a yacht yourself. ... If it wasn't for those speed ratings
Click to expand...

:lol:

yes agree they had more income..but also the 70's onwards sort of eroded that extra wealth for the individual ..it improved lifestyle as folk had more possessions...as buying by credit really took off..you then ended up with people spending money they didn't have..credit card revolution.. and the whole economy grew on that false credit card level..house prices spiralled as people were allowed to borrow stupid amounts of money compared to what they earned.

i do believe..no evidence apart from business's going under...that a lot of people now aren't prepared to spiral in to debt to the degree they did 10 years ago..consumer spending probably now reflects what money people really have rather than what credit they can have.

I wonder what would happen to the economy if people did what they used to..save for things they want..not take any credit at all...then we would see just how rich we were as a country.

i'm only going on what i feel with that view..no facts and figures...i just feel people have realised that being in debt is miserable..better go without things than have to worry about regular payments to meet
 
Last edited:
Back
Top