Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
You could turn that around and say that living out in the sticks gives you a lot of positives compared to London (more green space, bigger houses for your money, lower crime, more peace n quiet etc) - and a lot of the stuff you list as London positives are just a train ride away.
As someone who has spent their time working their way gradually from living in Central London to inner London, to London 'burbs and most recently to the sticks, I am definitely happiest where I am now and won't be going back towards town to live.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think you are lucky (not literally). I moved away from the SE as soon as I could and never went back because all I remember as a kid was a stressed and pissed off father who commuted. I think that's the more common experience.
You gave Oxford as an example of somewhere you can easily get to. I look at Oxford as somewhere rather nice to live that gives easy access to London.
I can't really afford to live.in London, but if I could I might well live in Oxford.
0 -
I don't really go to Oxford, but instead to places like Bekonscot, but you need kids under about 8 to understand that, so went with a more generic reference.
In any case, I agree with your point. I hate that SE commuter experience where some parents only see their kids awake at the weekend and spend their lives moaning about trains. I chose a different life which I am happy with. Other people make other choices.
0 -
I did say that there are negative aspects too. Crime is one of those.
0 -
I read that, but my point is that it is avoidable while keeping access to the good things that London offers.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yes. I don't agree with that, but that's just my view of it.
0 -
More to the point, for some reason people find it impossible to realize that the balance of pros and cons is individual and think that anyone who comes to a slightly different decision is therefore plain wrong...
I do think it's a massive issue how London centric our economy is though. But I'm not sure of a good way of fixing it.
0 -
Investment further north would be good. HS2 to Manchester, Leeds and Scotland would remove a lot of barriers.
Manchester is being transformed, and that's despite it still being Manchester, so anything is possible.
0 -
This is what I would prefer the current govt. focus their efforts on. Investment in all regions and a genuine attempt to start to create the conditions for stronger local economies and a greater distribution of wealth would benefit far more of the country than the notion that a strong London or SE region radiates economic prosperity across the land.
More jobs, more money and better living standards across all areas would also support better social cohesion. The likes of Farage and Tommy Robinson have far less traction if people have greater financial stability and opportunity, and are less inclined to buy into the "it's all the fault of immigrants" rhetoric that these chancers constantly espouse.
0 -
Laughing at the hoo-ha over cancelling the winter fuel allowance, for some. Apparently there is a £22Bn black hole and this will save £1.4Bn so there is still a £20.6Bn hole to be fixed. "You ain't seen nothing yet!"
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
unfortunately it's going to be painful for the ones who will be badly affected
imo it's not simply the saving that matters, but establishing precedent for means testing benefits to pensioners, rather than just handing out taxpayers' money irrespective of need
why give extras (tv license, travel, prescriptions, etc.) to people well able to afford them simply because of age?
ffs i automatically get some myself, it's ludicrous that taxes from people with a tiny fraction of my income/assets are going towards giving me freebies/discounts
there must be old dears who are just over the tax threshold and struggling to feed their cats, but they're helping to fund me
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny1 -
My view is that means testing is fine. The method could have been better thought through so there's not so much of a cliff-edge though. My point was the bleating. "You ain't seen nothing yet."*
*Put in apostrophes as it's a common saying, but a double negative.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It all depends on how much the means testing costs - for some (many) of those things, it is cheaper to make them universal than to means test.
Government needs to come clean on the true cost of means testing things.
0 -
I'm surprised that the estimated £10bn cost of public sector pay rises hasn't been commented on more in the context of 'black holes'.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Was any increase budgeted for? How much of that £10bn do you think is unreasonable?
0 -
-
That isn't really the point. Neither party mentioned it during the campaign and both knew it was coming. Doesn't look like either part budgeted for it either.
As much as Stevo and the Telegraph readers will claim otherwise, a pay deal was required and would have either been hammered out badly over many months and cost £8-10Bn, or resolved quickly at a cost of about £10n.
It's okay to be annoyed at both sides, when it comes to the spin about this.
0 -
UK coffers benefit from inflation. Public pay also need to match inflation, unless we decide politically we want to pay them less.
I don't understand why this is even up for debate.
0 -
I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise, but feel free to carry on having a conversation with yourself.
0 -
😂🤣😂 It was you who raised the topic of pay rises.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Now now, don't be patronising. Re-read my post above and tell me how I don't understand inflation based on that.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I just said I was surprised. The usual actions of a government when faced with a 'black hole' as they claim would not usually be to splurge money in my view.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No, it wouldn't. So how much of the £10bn would be a "splurge", and how much is reasonable and unavoidable?
0 -
-
Many apologies. Stevo started it. Maybe it's time for a nap. 🤣
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
-
Yep, just saw that. Ignore him.
0 -
Don't knock it until you've tried it...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Nobody can put an exact number but its pretty well accepted that a lot of those raises were generous. However that's not the only issue - they got nothing in return in terms of changes to working practices. Which will also cost in the long run and quite frankly was pretty pathetic negotiation.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So you reckon. And your thoughts on the fact that Labour got no concessions from the unions in return?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
