miga

I think that Guardian opinion piece is really histrionic. "Hope won over hate" - yeah right. The inevitable result hapenned, Khan was way ahead for yonks, even before Goldsmith pointed out he had met with some oddballs (and all this was meant to imply). If anything the gap closed.

.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's certainly taken attention off the Tory Brexit > split. Live blogging the Labour "anti-Semitism" > crisis. Wonder what this will do for Sadiq Khan's > chances. Here we are: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-try-to-link-sadiq-khan-to-antisemitism-row-despite-condemnation-a7006261.html "Have you stopped beating your wife?".

It's certainly taken attention off the Tory Brexit split. Live blogging the Labour "anti-Semitism" crisis. Wonder what this will do for Sadiq Khan's chances.

Is Israel criticised more than Iran? Until the recent rapprochement, Iran was deemed a part of the "Axis of Evil", and deeply criticised both officially and in the press. Even now I don't think you'll find any serious public political person who'll claim Iran is a freer or in any way better state than Israel. On the other hand, Iran is brought into the argument often when Israel is criticised. "You built a massive wall to keep one part of your population from reaching another part of your territory". "Are you saying Iran is any better?".

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think some people feel that criticism of Israel > - when not accompanied by criticism of, say, > Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc. - is unbalanced and > unjustified. Maybe it is. But that still doesn't > make it racist... There was a very shouty man on LBC the other day (I'm on a week off - I give my brain a holiday... I don't listen to it on a regular basis... honest) who made that point, something along the lines of: "if you criticise Israel any more than any other nation than you're an anti-Semite". Apart from that being just totally idiotic logic, what irked me is the usually vocal compere just let it slide. Especially in comments sections of papers, Twitter, and the like, there's a really vocal group of people who are ready to strike as soon as any comment is made against Israel. It's like the Putin bots who jump to defend Russia's policies whenever some criticism of them appears. The worst outcome of all of this would be for people to get self conscious about criticising Israel's rubbish record on human rights and multi-culturalism.

Jesus wept - the papers now have it as an "anti-Semitism crisis".

Banks do valuations on places before doing final mortgage approval - allowing the ring around to run its course presumably runs the risk of mortgages not being approved not due to buyer's position but due to the asset being overvalued. As I said, it was mayhem.

The asking price should be set in collaboration with an agent. A good one should suggest the optimistic side of what's possible. The 2014 market was so mental that houses we were offering on were going for 25% over asking price in the sealed bid process. Agents actually stopped the bidding for two places we had offered on, presumably because finance was unlikely to be approved after valuation. We were in an excellent position, but so was everyone else. When we bought our first flat in N4 way back in 2006 the conditions were completely different; it was completely normal to offer a few grand under asking price for example. So I know rhe frustration. What surprises me is that places are still going to sealed bid, as my impression was the market had cooled down. Missing out on the house you had imagined yourself in, and settling for something that will do, sucks. You think of schools, transport, cafes, wallpaper, garden etc. and then poof, you can't have it. Good position, big deposit, great salary...nope, still can't have it. It's sobering to realise, though, that to be able to buy anything at all that's family sized in London is a privileged position, and to be able to buy somewhere that's actually nice like SE22 is the stuff of dreams for most double income professionals. And ultimately, wherever you wind up that meets your basic criteria, will be where you/your family call home, and so by default will be a place you love.

Seems silly, they could have just stuck to Khan's track record of unprincipled flip flopping on issues if they wanted to sling mud.

Crucial point Seabag - moral accusations (greedy, selfish etc.) are being leveled at someone whose business is to be amoral.

And probably did something really boring and sensible with it.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/21/all-top-selling-cars-break-emissions-limits-in-real-world-tests Something doesn't quite sit right. If VW had a software solution to defeat the lab tests, and their cars perform just as badly as everyone else, how did all the others pass the lab tests without "cooking the books"?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > miga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > everywhere you go is as good as the company you > keep an' all, innit. > > Not sure. An empty pub is rarely fun. A pub in > Harlow full of tracksuited nitwits shouting at the > football isn't much fun either, no matter who > you're with. I meant - I've had some really great nights in complete dumps, because I was keeping hilarious company.

everywhere you go is as good as the company you keep an' all, innit.

I think it's even simpler. The voting public is conservative. In - the public knows the score. Out - the great unknown.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure the general public understand what an > investment bank is well enough to understand the > differences. I think in general though they mean > the traders, capital market teams and M&A staff. > Maybe also the risk teams? Thanks LM - I've worked at IBs on and off for a decade or so, so have a little understanding of how they're structured. I imagine there are quite a few ED residents who work at IBs, but not many "bankers". And even if there were - the Gekko stereotype has moved on a bit, at least aesthetically. Hence my question.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Spot on Jeremy. I also carry a copy of the FT to > swot away the little guys.... > > With a copy of "How to spend it", I trust! > > Actually I do personally know a couple of bankers > in ED (and even Peckham) but they tend to be > pretty junior, or in peripheral roles (i.e. not > actually "bankers" as such) As in, they work for an Investment Bank? I wonder what the general public mean by "bankers", surely just working for a bank is not enough.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe in a progressive tax system, > particularly on earned income. OK cool - I agree. The principle of people who make a lot helping out those who are struggling through progressive taxation is one I agree with. I sometimes wonder whether this is a belief held by the majority any more. Also agree with the ticking demographic timebomb re: pensions. Given the generational wealth gap benefiting those now coming up to pension, it would seem only fair for them to give up some of these benefits. Good luck trying to get the baby boomers to act altruistically though.

But LM, do you think the rich should pay proportionally more of their income?

I think what this scandal really needs is for Bono to weigh in.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > miga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > If this constitutes a good hit-rate for the > non-privileged getting to the very top, then it's > a sorry state of affairs. I couldn't agree more with this. It's appalling, and it seems to have sneekily got worse while everyone was watching Kirsty Allsop talk houses and holidaying in Ibiza over the last couple of decades. Also - the last century saw a great deal of social change for the better, some of which is now being rewound, so the 300 years is a bit long for a meaningful comparison. I'd probably just include the last century.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Corbyn will never be PM. OK, your opinion (which I agree with), but he's the current alternative. Many other PMs (on both sides) have not come from huge privilege. > Would his son have made it to PM had he been Dave from > Harris Peckham? It's this I take issue with really...there are and have been many counter-examples without huge privilege in positions of power. I'm not arguing about social mobility in general. It's getting worse and this is a travesty brought about by successive governments' policies. > My Dad left me these rings, necklaces and bracelets. > He was a burglar, but hey - that wasn't my fault. If you have evidence that David Cameron's living on proceeds of crime, I'm sure the Police and Media would love to hear about it.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Besides passing cash on while bypassing IHT (as I > say, 'whatever') - a massive chunk of it also paid > for his son's very privileged education. Would his > son have made it to PM had he been Dave from > Harris Peckham? Like Bollocks would he! Anyone who > can't see how this generally might have an Air Of > Stink to millions of people up and down the land > must have a serious lack of braincells, regardless > of whether Dave himself didn't actually do > anything wrong guv'. Just because it "feels wrong" to millions of people, doesn't mean it's logical. It is understandable, though. Also, Corbyn didn't go to university, and he *might* become PM. From another angle, there are many who receive that same privileged education, and don't do anything much with themselves. Peivilege and succes is not a 1 for 1, and neither is (or was) privilege a pre-requisite to climb in politics. And finally - none of this invalidates Cameron's stance on tax policy.

I think it goes further - I think the hunt of Cameron over (essentially) his background might even make him more palatable to certain voters. I might be reaching, but given the well documented erosion of middle class comfort the fact he's being hounded for something his dad left him could actually resonate with people who feel like they've been squeezed out of various comforts. But other than that, it's a logical fallacy to use his family or background to judge his policies by, as stated multiple times on this thread.