The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

^ up there, just then...I brought you a conspiracy theory, only this one has evidence. A contemporary political scandal, and not a single comment on it from the resident politicos. (This is where thebish will be sadly missed, by me anyway).
Anyway, additionally, it is now reported that Environment Agency staff have had to be withdrawn after hostility from the pubic [p9 today's Times] because of the issue I highlighted [not reported in daily rags, but reliably informed by a resident who is a friend].
Sounds good enough to me to be a scandal but probably a monumental 'cock up' by some all knowing enviromentalist
So, Dave the tit says "Money is no object". I understood him immediately. The logic is this: an object exists, it occupies space, but money is virtual, made up, doesn't really exist except as a concept. So money is not really there, it is in effect fictional. So there are no blank cheques, there are in fact no cheques to be had at all because money is not an object.
That is clever, very clever

[Lord Kangana]

Yesterday I came across the Jubilee River. Not heard of it before, but I don't understand why it is not a huge political scandal. The hoi polloi of Wraysbury are presently up to their necks in water whilst the patricians frequenting the Riverside and Fat Duck in Bray, the dorms of Eton and the castles of Royal Windsor are going about their merry business dry shod. If it was an equitable affair they would all be paddling about in half an inch of water but no, the taxpayer has spent over a hundred and ten million spondulicks on building an artificial watercourse to take excess water west of Bray and dump it some seven miles further downstream east of Windsor. I shit you not. Didn't anybody wonder what would happen to the poor sods who live in Wraysbury when not only does the Thames overflow but all the water that didn't flood Bray, Eton and Windsor is dumped in their houses too?

You have heard of the economic equation that is used to decide whether flood defences are built, haven't you?

If not, very quickly, for every £1 spent, £8 of economic benefit has to be "predicted" for the project to be prioritised.

In layman's terms, we all collectively pay to make sure that the wealthiest amongst us are the least likely to be flooded. That's why London and the SE are the most heavily protected.

[Lord Kangana]

And to clarify, why even within that area there are hierarchies of spending.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

And to clarify, why even within that area there are hierarchies of spending.

Ahhh Sooo Glasshoppa. In other words the areas with the highest population density and the lowest average house price are to be sacrificed to save the areas with the highest average house price and the lowest density population because obviously saving three multimillionaire's houses is exactly the equivalent to saving three thousand factory worker's hovels because three billionaires contribute more to the economy and society than three thousand factory workers ever could. How foolish of me not to see that instantly.

[Hoboh]

[Bruce Rioja]

Bob Crow's council house

[jaffka]

shows what an effective union can do for the worker

[Bruce Rioja]

shows what an effective union can do for the worker

Or what gains can be made by holding London to ransom.

[Beefheart]

feck this, I'm becoming a tube driver!

[jaffka]

shows what an effective union can do for the worker

Or what gains can be made by holding London to ransom.

yeah I agree, that's what the union have done. to the benefit of those they represent

[Prufrock]

The tube drivers pay ( which the latest dispute wasn't about BTW) does look massive as a headline figure. I don't know much more about it, but it looks sus.

Are we really slagging Crow off for his house though? Looks like any one of the thousands of identikit new housing estate houses to me. It's hardly palatial for someone in his position. Nice enough sure, but hardly decadent

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The tube drivers pay ( which the latest dispute wasn't about BTW) does look massive as a headline figure. I don't know much more about it, but it looks sus.

Are we really slagging Crow off for his house though? Looks like any one of the thousands of identikit new housing estate houses to me. It's hardly palatial for someone in his position. Nice enough sure, but hardly decadent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 64238.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[boltonboris]

Isn't a council house or something?

[Prufrock]

The tube drivers pay ( which the latest dispute wasn't about BTW) does look massive as a headline figure. I don't know much more about it, but it looks sus.

Are we really slagging Crow off for his house though? Looks like any one of the thousands of identikit new housing estate houses to me. It's hardly palatial for someone in his position. Nice enough sure, but hardly decadent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 64238.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Didn't realise it was a council house ( though I notice Bruce did say so!).

Odd one for me. Seems perverse initially, but also seems analgous to the likes of Amazon not paying tax. Not their fault the system is f*cked.

[Harry Genshaw]

I find it a bizarre argument that because you live in a council house you should have to give it up once you're earning (to some) a decent wage. Will we be turning high earners away from A&E next, on the basis that they can afford to go private

[Beefheart]

The tube drivers pay ( which the latest dispute wasn't about BTW) does look massive as a headline figure. I don't know much more about it, but it looks sus.

Are we really slagging Crow off for his house though? Looks like any one of the thousands of identikit new housing estate houses to me. It's hardly palatial for someone in his position. Nice enough sure, but hardly decadent

They also get 43 days holiday a year! I'm definitely considering a career change.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I find it a bizarre argument that because you live in a council house you should have to give it up once you're earning (to some) a decent wage. Will we be turning high earners away from A&E next, on the basis that they can afford to go private

Not quite the same thing. Anyone can walk into A&E and get treatment a bit of a wait. The same doesn't apply with council housing. If I walked into the council office and asked for one I'd be laughed out of there, despite earning less than Crow.

[Bruce Rioja]

The tube drivers pay ( which the latest dispute wasn't about BTW) does look massive as a headline figure. I don't know much more about it, but it looks sus.

Are we really slagging Crow off for his house though? Looks like any one of the thousands of identikit new housing estate houses to me. It's hardly palatial for someone in his position. Nice enough sure, but hardly decadent

They also get 43 days holiday a year! I'm definitely considering a career change.

Forward - Stop - Doors. Rinse and repeat. How difficult's that?

[Prufrock]

Tbf though, the system we have isn't one which values a job on how 'hard' it is.

It may be (I dont know) for instance that that's what you have to pay to get someone to drive a train there's a good chance someone will clod them self in front of. It is hard to feel sympathy when they strike given that figure though!

[Worthy4England]

I find it a bizarre argument that because you live in a council house you should have to give it up once you're earning (to some) a decent wage. Will we be turning high earners away from A&E next, on the basis that they can afford to go private

Not quite the same thing. Anyone can walk into A&E and get treatment a bit of a wait. The same doesn't apply with council housing. If I walked into the council office and asked for one I'd be laughed out of there, despite earning less than Crow.

I don't believe you would be laughed out of the Council Office - I think just about anyone can apply for a Council House.

That doesn't of course suggest you'd be anywhere near the top of the priority list (or even near the middle of it or anywhere above right near the bottom of it)