How does the Tory government help the man in the street?

[shaunbhoy]

Wish I was as economically clueless as he is

You are. But you have the edge in that you are clueless across a whole range of other disciplines.

[sasguru]

You are. But you have the edge in that you are clueless across a whole range of other disciplines.

With GB9 on your side, you'll go far

[shaunbhoy]

With GB9 on your side, you'll go far

Well wherever I might end up, I can confidently predict I will outdistance you, constrained as you are by your wifie's apron strings.

[northernladyuk]

Yup, it's happening already, but will get worse in the next year or so.
Be interesting to see what happens when Brexiters find out they're going to be worse off permanently.

They will blame the Bremainers as Enemies of the People for talking down the economy.

[northernladyuk]

Well wherever I might end up, I can confidently predict I will outdistance you, constrained as you are by your wifie's apron strings.

You will only outdistance anyone if you're ending up at Gregg's.

[shaunbhoy]

You will only outdistance anyone if you're ending up at Gregg's.

If I do, you be sure and lend me your Loyalty card.

[d000hg]

I suppose you can say a Tory government has helped the average man by saving them from a Labour government Like how kneecapping someone in a time of conscription saves them from the draft!

[SueEllen]

I suppose you can say a Tory government has helped the average man by saving them from a Labour government Like how kneecapping someone in a time of conscription saves them from the draft!

I don't know was Millipede as bad as Camoron?

One couldn't eat a bacon sandwich while the other one ran a referendum lost and ran for the hills.

[AtW]

I don't know was Millipede as bad as Camoron?

One couldn't eat a bacon sandwich while the other one ran a referendum lost and ran for the hills.

Millipede would have been better, sad but true.

He'd get 50% tax back, but that would still be less than dividend hike by fooking Cons.

[henryhooverville]

A good read

so we need about 4.34 million houses to house the new population.

Not necessarily, we have enough 'rooms' for three times our population in theory but the distribution of these is skewed to the very richest (manor houses and all that). Of course that doesn't work in practise because a spare room is always a good thing.

If you are really into this read Inequality and the 1% by Danny Dorling, he's a professor at Oxford Uni and actually a nice guy (I've met him, at a lecture). He's studied in detail things such as housing and wealth distribution. I think the ratio is 1/3 rooms occupied from the lecture two years ago, I doubt that's gone to 1/1 in just two years.

That's specifically on housing, the rest of his book is a good enough read I guess.