Earl Aelfheah

A lot of what people may assume to be contrived, self conscious behaviour is often the opposite - a naive playfulness, a lack of concern about what others think. Conversely, being unreasonably concerned with (and overtly critical of) what others are doing, belies a real sense of self consciousness. It hints at repression of the true self, a pretentiousness, in the literal sense. In other words, I think keekybreeks is secretly a hipster. He certainly seems to be in the mindset of a hipster. That rusk cafe for example... it could be a goer you know KB.

We have a juliet balcony. Must admit, I didn't' give it much thought at the time, but actually a window would have given us a lot more options in terms of furniture layout. I'm not sure you really need a blacony - the velux windows ensure a light room.

That is sad. Any idea why they're closing up shop? It's a shame there isn't any regular comedy in ED anymore.

....Keekybeeks for example, likes to eat burgers with a knife and fork.

There is no doubt that the pleasure one derives from eating goes way beyond simple taste, nutritional content or other substantive qualities of the food itself. Eating is also a ritualistic act, with all kinds of emotional, social and psychological associations.

Cheers Otta (I'm a 'he' by the way)

Although immigration produces a net economic benefit to the country, I do concede that the impact of it is not uniform across different sections of society. For those working in previously well paid trades, I can see how a large increase in eastern European tradesmen will have negatively effected them personally. Also, immigrant populations aren't evenly spread across geographical areas - some areas have seen huge and fairly sudden changes, whilst others haven't. The areas which face the brunt of these changes often tend to be less affluent. So I do get why a lot of people get annoyed at the laid back attitude of some of the middle classes to immigration - they aren't really effected in the same way. That said, those with a legitimate grievance (as described above) are relatively few. A lot of the people who are 'anti immigration', are actually well off, middle class suburbanites, who actually have little direct experience of immigration. A lot of the areas where immigration was a big issue, have very small numbers of immigrants, or for that matter, ethnic minorities. That's not to say that there isn't a legitimate debate to be had, but don't' kid yourself that many of those UKIP and Tory voters in Surrey, Kent etc, actually just don't' like foreigners.

Henry_17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rah, > > "Tories sold the family silver at Rock bottom > prices" worse to figuratively sell the family > silver than to literally have sold the family > gold? The point I was making was that by decimating the social housing stock of this country in an attempt to roll back the state, they have ironically, left taxpayers picking up the far bigger cost of private rents. Selling of public asseets at under market value is not smart. Especially when the state will end up buying the same services back in from the private sector at a higher rate. It's ideology over pragmatism which I object to.

Green goose, I accept that the things I liste are 'widely held beliefs' that s why the Tories were successful. They are not fully justified however. See my earlier post.

Yeah, I agree too Miga. The conservatives managed to fix the narrative aroun the crash whilst Labour were still reeling / naval gazing following their previous election loss. They then jut seemed to give up trying to challenge the prevailing story

The truth is that the Tories played to fears about immigration, to the perception that the financial crash was down to Labour overspending, and to some people's suspicion that their are people living lavish lifestyles paid for by benefits. This doesn't wash with those living in metropolitan areas, because they can see the benefits of immigration (and/or are immigrants themselves), see the reality of those living on benefits (due to the cheek by jowl nature of London communities)and are probably more concerned about Labours main election issue, cost of living..... In my opinion.

yeah, if you ignore Wales and Scotland and add in UKIP and ignore the greens, and maybe forget about London, and possibly Liverpool and Manchester then.....

this whole thread is nuts

... which takes me back to my previous point, that the Tories are ideologically opposed to the state running services, regardless of cost. There is no pragmatism. Labour, despite ridiculous caricature of them as extremists Marxists by some of the press, actually believe in a regulated market economy and an appropriate role for the state.

The coalition have done a terrible job with the economy. We have seen close to zero growth over their entire term in office and debt has increased massively. They stopped the recovery in its tracks when they took office, by withdrawing investment at a time that private capital was also in retreat. Austerity has been disastrous. This is a good article from Nobel prize-winning, Princeton Economist Paul Krugman on the 'austerity delusion?, which you should read : http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion. The idea that Labour crashed the economy by overspending is nonsense. But bear in mind that in 2007, the conservatives were not only pledging to match Labours spending plans but actually increase upon them (.. a reminder about the Tories position on Labour's 'profligate spending' before the crash. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm). This article on Labours ?profligacy? is worth reading if you have time: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/mediamacro-myth-2-labour-profligacy.html. The truth is that the Global economic crash was the result of under regulation (for which Labour is as culpable as anyone else). But what were there Tories saying about banking regulation, circa 2007: https://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/lest-we-forget-in-2007-cameron-endorsed-even-less-regulation-of-banks-than-labour/. Even Mervyn King has recently admitted that Labour cannot be held responsible for the crash http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/29/labour-government-not-responsible-crash-bank-england-governor-mervyn-king. The financial crash has been used by the Right as cover for further shrinking of the state. The truth is that our public services have been massively under invested in ? for example, our ?bloated healthcare system? actually has one of the lowest spends (as a proportion of our GDP), of virtually any major, developed Western economy. If you really want to know where most of the benefits bill goes, it?s on pensioners, in work benefits and housing (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending#img-1). So let?s look at those last two. The reason that we have to top up peoples wages, is because the cost of living is so high ? to be specific, the cost of housing. The housing benefits bill is high because?. Yep, the cost of housing. Housing is complicated, but a significant reason why affordable housing is so scarce and rents so high, is because council houses have been sold off at huge discounts and not replaced. Because of the ?right to buy?, local authorities are not incentivised to build replacements (as they have no choice but to sell them off again at under market value). Also, they are prevented from borrowing money to invest in new housing. The decision to sell off the family silver at knock down prices is classic Tory policy (they?re looking to do it again with Lloyds). The Tories want to extend right to buy further and to offer mortgages underwritten by the taxpayer, to those who would be considered creditworthy under normal circumstances (?help to buy?). This kind of ?subprime? lending is exactly what led to the credit crunch.

That was a bit all over the place (written on my phone whilst walking) but hopefully you catch my drift.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Labour have always overspent and the Tories > underspent. > > Louisa. That's not exactly true though. George oabourne has accrued more debt during the Tories last term than all Labour administrations since 1900. A large part of the benefits bill is down to the cost of housing, we are forced to subsidise both wages an private sector rents . This can be seen as a legacy of Right to Buy... A policy that on the ace of it was about shrinking the state, but in reality has led to more public money being channeled into subsidising housing, simply in a less efficient, more expensive manner. Other examples of where similar things have happened can be seen in the trains, public utilities and the Nhs. The Tories are ideologically opposed to the state running services, regardless of cost. There is no pragmatism. labour, despite ridiculous charac tyres of them as Marxist extremists, believe in regulated market economy an an appropriate role for the state.

Yeah, there is a person on my street who consistently parks in the middle of two spaces (i.e. Just under a car lengths distance from the next vehicle). It's quite obviously deliberate, I have no idea why, but pretty annoying.

Found this from yougov on the topic: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/13/capital-punishment-50-years-favoured/

Keekbreeks - your upset at the lack of cutlery at GBK I think is misguided... I'm pretty sure they supply a knife and fork. I do accept that there is nothing more enraging than a free nut though.

I was thinking more about Keekybreeks, who seems particularly exercised about it.

People get angry about some strange shit.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yeah quids, I'm a Marxist. You've lost it. Read > my > > post in the context of the comments I was > replying > > too. > > > I didn't say you were a marxist, I said it was a > 'Marxist framed' argument. Something that huge > parts of the left don't seem to realise how much > their arguments are effected by this. > > Take the moral certainty for an example. For many > (not all but a @#$%& of a lot) people on the left > people who are opposed to 'progressiveness' do so > because they are either acting in their own self > interest (personal advantage) or because of their > 'false concisousness' i.e. plebs acting against > their own interest because they read the Sun. They > seem completely unable to understand that plenty > of rational, caring, truly liberal people look at > the facts as they see them and take an alternative > position that they think is best for society. This > is a huge weakness in the left's ability to > debate, move on and or 'learn' as it is based on a > marxist framework. All tories/tory votersare thick > or scum at the extreme. The left should do more > listening and less shouting. There are so many straw men in this post it's hard to know where to start. I haven't called anyone thick, plebs, or suggested that any one is extreme or 'scum'. Jeez. Apparently I'm the one not listening. I should do 'less shouting'. What are you talking about. Seriously? I was responding to your assertion that Labour lost because they only talked about 'the bottom and top of society' and not to those in the middle. Like those 'in the middle' couldn't be interested in what happens outside of their direct experience, or that what goes on in one area of society doesn't directly effect another anyway.

Yeah quids, I'm a Marxist. You've lost it. Read my post in the context of the comments I was replying too.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Why did we do so badly there? First, we spoke to > our core voters but not to aspirational, > middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and > top of society, about the minimum wage and > zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. > But we had too little to say to the majority of > people in the middle." > > Spot on ????. To win an election in the UK you > have to win the support of this group of voters. > It is said that just 150 seats decide elections in > the UK (maybe more after the SNP tsunami) but > those 150 seats are definitely middle ground. And > Chuka is being tipped as a possible new leader for > Labour too. This assumes that those in the middle are only concerned with their own narrow self interest, "what are you going to do for ME".