Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

the bulk of my savings are tied up in the only truly wise (lucky actually) investment i ever made - a little freehold off notting hill

my only fear is some socialist gov't that thinks it'll spend, spend, spend and simultaneously try to over-tax the so-called rich as a populist and ill-conceived sop to the loony left
in fact, that is reasonably unlikely to happen, as even should labour get into power next time around, even with an overall majority (only a small chance), the realisation of reality quickly tempers pre-election rhetoric


and by the way, the recovery is most assuredly no illusion .... believe what you see and experience (as i do) and not what you read as it's nearly always put together by some geek with an axe to grind

"An overwhelming victory for UKIP will break the political mould in the UK, forcing Labour and the Lib Dems to back a full-scale referendum and intensifying the popular pressure for that to be staged as early as general election day 2015."

now that's a very interesting comment to come from NF, almost implying that he's quite pro-tory

But what a silly statement. There won't be a referendum earlier that a couple of years post election. The Conservatives have been expecting a large EU protest vote. It is quite clear that the general election will be different as the polling data for the two elections are very different. In the GE, UKIP are far behind.

you rather miss the point, being too fixated on ukip and ge

New garden cities not required to include low-cost homes, minister says

Nick Boles says no stipulation would be imposed on schemes, despite Nick Clegg's pledge that they would help solve housing crisis


Rowena Mason, political correspondent


The Guardian, Monday 21 April 2014 17.02 BST


A Tory planning minister has admitted that the coalition's new wave of garden cities would not have to contain a single affordable home, despite Nick Clegg's claims that they would offer low-cost accommodation and help solve the UK's housing crisis.

As the government unveiled plans for new garden cities containing 15,000 homes each, it emerged that developers would not need to reserve a certain proportion of the properties for those struggling most with the cost of living.

Asked by Labour whether the first garden city in Ebbsfleet would contain low-cost homes, Nick Boles, a Conservative minister, said the government would "not impose a particular level of affordable housing for housing schemes".

"Unrealistic Section 106 agreements [which specify how many affordable homes should be built] result in no development, no regeneration and no community benefits," he added.



http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/21/new-garden-cities-low-cost-homes

that's really stupid, though for houses in ebbsfleet will inevitably command good prices because of its commutability to london ..... nevertheless, if chelsea can have council housing (it does!) then why the hell not ebbsflet and similar?

They don't want the oiks spoiling the area.

don't be such a pratt!
i'm amazed to hear that bit about the housing mix though, as it's usually ( i thought "always" nowadays) mandatory

Why are you name calling?


The reason given is probably spot on!


"Unrealistic Section 106 agreements [which specify how many affordable homes should be built] result in no development, no regeneration and no community benefits," he added.

An MEP gets:

Salary: £79,000 pa

General Expenditure Allowance: £42,685 pa

This is supposed to cover cost of a constituency office: computers, phone bills, office rent but not staff and is worth up to EUR 4,299 per month (currently = £3,531.67). And it is an allowance – there’s no need to prove expenses or hand in any receipts.

Daily Allowance: £15,058
To cover hotel bills in Strasbourg (5 days a month) MEPs get £14,979 a year (18,240 EUR). No receipts are needed here either as the daily allowance is a flat-rate 304 EUR a day: a no-receipt, take the cash situation.

MEPs also get money for travel – though that is an expense, not an allowance – so they have to produce the receipts to claim that back.

And to pay any staff they hire, that goes directly to the staff and not through the MEP.

On that basis, it is difficult to see how any MEP can be accused (or even found guilty) of corruptly overcharging for expenses.

eg. "The Ukip leader is under pressure to explain what happened to almost £60,000 in EU funds which The Times revealed he said that he spent on a West Sussex office given to him rent-free."

The fact that his office was 'rent-free' is utterly irrelevant. His GEA allowance is paid to him and he does not have to account at all for how it is spent.

It's a bit like 'Immigration from the EU countries'. Tens of thousands of people are entitled to come over to the UK but no one has to count them or report the figures to anybody.

This is why UKIP are going to get my vote. They want us to come out of the EU completely and they particularly want their own MEPs to resign and stop claiming expenses and salaries when it happens.

(Hmmm? Thinks....... This almost sounds a bit too good to be true. Hmmm? Anyhow, for the moment, I'm definitely going to vote UKIP in the May European MEP Elections. Although I won't be doing the same in the General Election, where I will definitely be voting for for my local Tory MP, Andrea Leadsom. If you can come up with something good to make me change my mind on the MEP Elections, well, I'm listening.)

MEP's and the zillions employed through that system have been on a grotesque gravy train for as long as i can remember - and that's a very long time!

==========

and to quote the old adage, if it sounds too good to be true, then it is assuredly not true

39798 is why you're a pratt!

Ah, ok...I take it you have no good reason for what you said.

it's just a really stupid and unwarranted comment
why on earth there isn't a stipulated quota of starter-price homes, i really do not know or even begin to understand, but that in no way correlates to or justifies your very silly comment
almost needless to say, the developers would much rather build houses to give the maximum return rather than lower value ones, but your haha-logic is (surprise surprise) totally preposterous

I will be voting for UKIP in the EURO vote

http://www.etoro.com/blog/team/25032014/investing-stock-indices-warren-buffett/?dl=30001326&utm_medium=Media&utm_source=45729&utm_content=6965&utm_serial=buffetindex2&utm_campaign=buffetindex2&utm_term=http://trc.taboola.com/aoluk-aoltravel/log/3/click&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral

Would you care to read back what you wrote c?

You ask and answer your own question....Not sure what you are drinking, but i'll have some!



cynic - 21 Apr 2014 20:24 - 39805 of 39806

it's just a really stupid and unwarranted comment
why on earth there isn't a stipulated quota of starter-price homes, i really do not know or even begin to understand, but that in no way correlates to or justifies your very silly comment
almost needless to say, the developers would much rather build houses to give the maximum return rather than lower value ones, but your haha-logic is (surprise surprise) totally preposterous

i know what i wrote .... "oiks" as you so disparagingly call those who want or need starter homes, do not remotely spoil the area, though the homes they need may well impact the developers bottom line

by the way, it was 1996 Pommard 1er Cru (Boillot) to go with the new season's roast shoulder of lamb

You need to lay off the sauce c, cru or no, it messes with your reading ability.



"Unrealistic Section 106 agreements [which specify how many affordable homes should be built] result in no development, no regeneration and no community benefits," he added.

Actually planning permission for developments often includes a stipulation of a proportion of social housing. It is not usually a high percentage as the developers won't go ahead with such a cut in their profit. It is interesting that the last government did not build any social housing even during the period when there was a boom in the economy,

It's a pretty sad state when an individual can't say that we're a Christian nation. Peter Tatchell yuck, makes me feel ill.