General Chat

Another example of sheer hypocrisy by a senior politician :-|

In the Commons today, Nick Clegg, standing in for David Cameron at Prime Ministers Questions, during which he accused the Tory's of moving the goal posts on Europe, was teased by the Tory MP Edward Leigh who waved a 2008 Lib Dem leaflet with a picture of Nick Clegg, at the time of the Lisbon Treaty negotiations, when Nick Clegg declared "It's time for a real referendum on Europe, an in out referendum, not a referendum on a treaty change" ;-)

Tory MP Edward Leigh, cheered on by his Tory colleagues, asked Mr Clegg whether the man pictured in the leaflet was "an impostor or just a hypocrite". Nick Clegg admitted that it was him, and struggling to be heard above the laughter, he said his position hasn't changed :-S

Talk about wriggling and squirming, if it was not for the fact that this man holds the second highest position in the government, it might be funny :-|

John, If you buy your house in 1980's and sell it today for 1 million you with have assuming you don't have a mortgage 1 million but then where do you live? so to keep living in a like for like property the and in a like for like area it will cost you the 1 million thus meaning your no better off

same for those who paid 100,000 in the 1990's it doesn't matter what you paid or what you can get for it today Its a house and you will still need a house to live in, Yes you could sell and rent but if you sell in London and rent in London depending where in London rents are from around 60k up to abt 80k per annum for a 3 bed house so your 1 million wouldn't last you that long,

As i see from your example the true blue labour voter, Always ready, eager and willing to invent ways to spend someone else's money

Roy

McB sorry forgot to say my answer is yes and no,
yes I think we will get a vote but no I don't trust what the vote "question" will be? I don't believe it will be a simple yes or no, in or out vote

If one of these 147,000 "millionaires" in London has a networth of £1m, am I to assume that if they have bought a house for £700,000 and now the house is worth, say, £1.5m and still has a mortgage of £500,000 and they sell house for £1.5, that the money they invested originally and money they have paid off mortgage remains their money. That is, they keep £200,000 they invested originally plus, say, £100,000 they have managed to pay off the mortgage

But any equity they have gained through property value increases in London (in this example £700,000) reverts to the Government. In that case, the profit they have made in London on just one large house could be used by Exchequer to build loads of nice 1 bedroomed bungalows (probably about 10) with a lounge and study room for people who want or need to downsize. Win-win.

it is relative, values in 1980 ish are still on a par with todays a 40 grand house then is probably around 350k where a council bought terrace then was around 18 k is only worth what you can get for it, one along the road from me went for 124 k
Bob

ps.no I dont, either

If left to this government the whole affair will be manipulated and contrived. We will end up with a choice that is in fact no choice at all, a bit like being allowed to choose the uniform of your firing squad.


Mayfield

The man is running scared, scared of UKIP, scared of his coalition partners, worst of all he is scared of his own cabinet and backbenchers - I certainly do not believe a single word he utters, time after time he has shown that he will say and do anything that he thinks might convince some that he is in charge :-|

To make the situation worse his government will today vote on an amendment against their own Queens Speech.

Their amendment, "Respectfully regrets that an EU Referendum Bill was not included in the gracious speech" and it is being reported the Prime Minister supports this amendment.

He must be hoping he is Teflon Cameron, as this amendment takes his government and him personally into what some are calling, uncharted waters, because, by convention, if the Queen’s Speech is amended, the Prime Minister must resign ;-)

Unfortunately, just as he does not appear to have respect for the truth, he will probably have even less respect for convention, lets hope I am wrong :-D

John, The point is, its all relative, if people bought a house anywhere in the UK in the 1980's it will be worth more today than what they paid so their wealth has also increased

Roy

No, not a lot in Rhondda with a £1.5m house and £500,000 mortgage, Roy.

You've been talking to George Osborne and Ian Duncan-Smith too much :-D ;-) My thought about all these millionaires in London is that very many of them will be pro-Europe (because their wealth and jobs largely depend on us staying in Europe, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas) and they may be generous if they feel that the pro-Europe vote lobby need a bit of a push.

And if the vote in 2017 also extends to Scotland and Wales, I would think the left wing Governments in both those nations will also be backing an "in" vote.

John, Being the owner of a property that has increased in value doesn't automatically exempt you from being in fuel poverty

I dare even say that people in the Rhondda that are in fuel poverty also had their properties increase in value

Roy

8 feet from a rat, is that all of london or just around Westminster? :-D

Mayfield,
PS I had two lovely Barkshire rats Mel & Grif, rather have them on my sofa than many MP's!

Roy. Thought property must represent most of that wealth in London and it would not be "cash in hand". But still a staggering statistic that London has that number of paper millionaires (twice the population of the Rhondda, most of whom are in fuel poverty).

Also, London has more billionaires than any other city in the world - more than New York even. In centre of London, you are never more than 8 feet from a rat, and never more than 700 yards from a billionaire, I believe.

I am convinced that two best chess players in politics have been DC and Tony Blair. Tony Blair was exposed as a liar and also had too many ambitious and not very good underlings, but he was playing a canny game up to the time he was told what to do by Bush Ltd (and Son Ltd) in Iraq. DC is outmanoevering lightweights Miliband and Clegg (and now Farage Ltd) but his lies (elaborations of the truth) might also catch up with him.

But what IGP has said is what I believe. UKIP and politicians like Cash and Michael Fabricant and Nasty Dollies will be very upset when Miliband and Clegg spend a lot of public money to drive through a yes vote on Europe in 2017.

I'm more inclined to believe in fairies!

Mayfield

John, The 147,000 millionaires in Greater London are not cash millionaires they are 147,000 property millionaires due to their house prices increasing in value,

Roy

It is nothing to do with whether or not you 'believe' DC. It rather depends on the Referendum Bill passing through Parliament.

As JLH has already said Labour and Lib Dems are all for staying in Europe, it is UKIP and some Tories that want out.

So voting the Tories out at the next election is a sure fire guarantee that we stay in Europe.

Incidentally, the net amount we pay to Europe is miniscule in terms of this countries total budget. It is less than 1%

NO I don't believe a word he says.

DC must know he will not be in power in 2017. So he appears to be passing a poisoned chalice to Miliband.

Labour and Liberals are committed to Europe at almost any price. So the "yes" vote for staying in will be very well orchestrated with a lot of money from Unions and wealthy millionaires (did I see this morning that there are 147,000 millionaires in Greater London alone?). The "no" vote will depend on how deep pockets of Farage and Cash are. It will be like a race between Red Rum and Hercules. ;-)

how can you tell when a politician is lying?
when they open their mouths!

politicians all tell you want they think you want hear, thats when they are not telling lies.
also heard that anyone who wants to be a politician should be banned from becoming one.
it still amazes me the number of politicians who defrauded US as taxpayers by wrongfully claiming expenses they were not entitled to.
anyone working in any other job who did this would automatically lose their job and be prosecuted for theft

that feels better.
val

NO NO,, Don't belive a word he says about anything.

I don't either. Think he is using as a bargaining ploy to try and get some concessions from the E.U.

Sure they don't want to lose us with the amount we pay over what we get.

Happy days

No I'm afraid I don't.