The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[Mister M 1,636]

3 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

She’s ginger , it wouldn’t be allowed.

Her hair colour is neither here nor there. 

Her origins and politics are more of an issue for the Mail and Telegraph.

[Al Bundy 1,577]

49 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Can you imagine the headlines of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph if Angela Rayner did this? 

Jesus.....It'd be like World War 3 had broken out.

I am guessing their headlines would be the same as the headlines in the left wing papers about James Cleverly.

[Al Bundy 1,577]

34 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Her hair colour is neither here nor there. 

Her origins and politics are more of an issue for the Mail and Telegraph.

You mean like like left wing papers and media being obsessed about the PM and his origins?

[Mister M 1,636]

7 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

You mean like like left wing papers and media being obsessed about the PM and his origins?

Except that I don't think the Guardian or the Independent would hold an editorial line which  highlights the incongruity between his class origins and role of PM.

[hackey lad 3,996]

8 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Except that I don't think the Guardian or the Independent would hold an editorial line which  highlights the incongruity between his class origins and role of PM.

“ incongruity “ Good word 

[steved32 55]

Chancellor says £100,000 not a huge salary in Surrey

Ah, good old Tories...in touch with "working people" and "the British public."

 

So long as it's south of Watford.

[Beechwood_S6 101]

Just now, steved32 said:

Chancellor says £100,000 not a huge salary in Surrey

Ah, good old Tories...in touch with "working people" and "the British public."

 

So long as it's south of Watford.

He's probably right after taxes £67k won't go that far, if its a single income family with mortgage/rent standard bills to pay car to run

[ECCOnoob 1,053]

13 hours ago, steved32 said:

Chancellor says £100,000 not a huge salary in Surrey

Ah, good old Tories...in touch with "working people" and "the British public."

 

So long as it's south of Watford.

Its not comparatively.   It might be above average and applicable to the top end qualified professional jobs but there are other factors at play here. 

 

Average price in Surrey is £632k compared to £214k in South Yorkshire.   

Average rent in Surrey £2,400 a month compared to £909 in South Yorkshire. 

Sample commuter season ticket (13 mile journey).    Surrey has £2,400   South Yorkshire £1,100.

 

There are plenty of "working people" down south too.   They are not all millionaires driving around in a Bentley. 

[Anna B 1,417]

3 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Its not comparatively.   It might be above average and applicable to the top end qualified professional jobs but there are other factors at play here. 

 

Average price in Surrey is £632k compared to £214k in South Yorkshire.   

Average rent in Surrey £2,400 a month compared to £909 in South Yorkshire. 

Sample commuter season ticket (13 mile journey).    Surrey has £2,400   South Yorkshire £1,100.

 

There are plenty of "working people" down south too.   They are not all millionaires driving around in a Bentley. 

Many 'ordinary workers' including teachers and nurses will never be able to afford a home in London in spite of being essential workers. Is that fair? The huge difference in salaries is now creating a far bigger economic didvide.

 

Unfortunately London prices are creeping north and skewing the economy / creating inflation.

Londoners are coming North buying up housing for buy to let purposes. The population is dividing into those who can afford nice housing in good areas with good schools etc and those that can't, who have to make do in the poorer areas. That's always been true to a certain extent, but is now a stark difference. This is very evident in Sheffield, with hugely visible divide between good areas and bad.  

 

That's not good for the population as a whole.  

 

 

 

[ECCOnoob 1,053]

29 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Many 'ordinary workers' including teachers and nurses will never be able to afford a home in London in spite of being essential workers. Is that fair? 

About as "fair" as you singling out those two specific categories of workers as if they are special and deserve some kind of discount or exception privilege.  

 

Every job is argued essential if an organisation is going to choose to pay money to someone to do it.

33 minutes ago, Anna B said:

The huge difference in salaries is now creating a far bigger economic didvide.

 

Unfortunately London prices are creeping north and skewing the economy / creating inflation.

That I would agree with to a point. However globalisation increase in remote working is giving more opportunities for people outside London or other big cities to be earning City wages whilst remaining living in their location . 

 

35 minutes ago, Anna B said:

 

Londoners are coming North buying up housing for buy to let purposes. 

No. "Londoners" are not.  What an insulting generalisation.    There are plenty of flat capped Northerners buying property to let out too.  

 

38 minutes ago, Anna B said:

 

The population is dividing into those who can afford nice housing in good areas with good schools etc and those that can't, who have to make do in the poorer areas. That's always been true to a certain extent, but is now a stark difference. This is very evident in Sheffield, with hugely visible divide between good areas and bad.  

 

That's not good for the population as a whole.  

The population have always been like that . You always seem to be desperately portraying it to be a tory issue.  There's been a wealth divide and difference between those who have and those who have not for centuries. 

 

People make areas good or bad not simply wealth.  You could be on a low income counsellor state with families taking Prague in their homes, using my local money. They have to do them up and keep them neat. Or you could be on some millionaires row surrounded a fading gaudy fixtures and unkempt gardens because the owners don't care.  That could be former industrial waste. Language are transformed into premium housing with lots of new families and communities developing equally there could be 

former streets for the rich and privileged which  become desolate and run down to become the new bad area.  

 

It is clear that has technology and the world of work continually develops, we are building an increasing middle class who are far more educated, aspirational and ambitious than their predecessors. 

 

I never see that something negative. 

The world evolves.  Opportunities are still out there for those prepared to take that step and grasp them.  People wallowing in the past, expecting things to be handed to them on a plate or those two or three generations on still banging on about Thatcher& co ruining their lives need to be kicking themselves up the backside. 

 

Inequality is a basic part of human nature and so is the default of looking after number one.    Even the 'poorest' in this country still are more than prepared to reap rewards and take advantage of other nations elsewhere.   Just the same as our ancestors are doing hundreds of years ago.

 

It's deluded to believe it's going to be any sort of balance of equality.

[Mister Gee 832]

5 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

About as "fair" as you singling out those two specific categories of workers as if they are special and deserve some kind of discount or exception privilege.  

 

Every job is argued essential if an organisation is going to choose to pay money to someone to do it.

That I would agree with to a point. However globalisation increase in remote working is giving more opportunities for people outside London or other big cities to be earning City wages whilst remaining living in their location . 

 

No. "Londoners" are not.  What an insulting generalisation.    There are plenty of flat capped Northerners buying property to let out too.  

 

The population have always been like that . You always seem to be desperately portraying it to be a tory issue.  There's been a wealth divide and difference between those who have and those who have not for centuries. 

 

People make areas good or bad not simply wealth.  You could be on a low income counsellor state with families taking Prague in their homes, using my local money. They have to do them up and keep them neat. Or you could be on some millionaires row surrounded a fading gaudy fixtures and unkempt gardens because the owners don't care.  That could be former industrial waste. Language are transformed into premium housing with lots of new families and communities developing equally there could be 

former streets for the rich and privileged which  become desolate and run down to become the new bad area.  

 

It is clear that has technology and the world of work continually develops, we are building an increasing middle class who are far more educated, aspirational and ambitious than their predecessors. 

 

I never see that something negative. 

The world evolves.  Opportunities are still out there for those prepared to take that step and grasp them.  People wallowing in the past, expecting things to be handed to them on a plate or those two or three generations on still banging on about Thatcher& co ruining their lives need to be kicking themselves up the backside. 

 

Inequality is a basic part of human nature and so is the default of looking after number one.    Even the 'poorest' in this country still are more than prepared to reap rewards and take advantage of other nations elsewhere.   Just the same as our ancestors are doing hundreds of years ago.

 

It's deluded to believe it's going to be any sort of balance of equality.

What the hell does that mean?

[ECCOnoob 1,053]

42 minutes ago, Mister Gee said:

What the hell does that mean?

Sorry 😐, stupid voice recognition and no editing function! 

 

I meant to say you could be on a low income council estate with families still taking pride in their homes using whatever little money they have to do them up and keep them neat.....

 

.....

 

 ....There could be former industrial wastelands  transformed into premium housing with lots of new families and communities developing equally there could be former streets for the rich and privileged which become desolate and run down to become the new bad area...