It's the (possible) end of the world as we know it.

[scooterscot]

But if you lived in Southampton why would you ever leave?

You're right. Why would you. The architecture is a wonderful example of what happens when you forget architecture altogether. And the queues of traffic are truly delightful, nothing excites me more than having some quality time listening to Simon Mayo whilst the bumper of the car in front is in my face.

[tomtomagain]

You're right. Why would you. The architecture is a wonderful example of what happens when you forget architecture altogether. And the queues of traffic are truly delightful, nothing excites me more than having some quality time listening to Simon Mayo whilst the bumper of the car in front is in my face.

And of course if you did try and leave you might accidentally end up in Portsmouth. And then you'd be sorry.

[Mich the Tester]

Part of the reason now when I depend so much on airbnb and look for a nice guest house instead.

Thanks; cool site. Will use.

[wurzel]

Or worse still, Havant

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

[eek]

Not directly but has been my experience working across England. I met a girl in Southampton once she was 26, never been north of the M27!! She did not know where Winchester was.

I know of people in the Yorkshire Dales who never went further than Hawes or Leyburn. There are people in Darlington who have never been to Middlesbrough (understandable because its a tulip hole) nor anywhere else.

However they are the exception rather than the rule. We do however see 1 set of friends twice a year on their twice yearly visit from the Dales to Darlington (which is where many Dales people head for larger shopping trips).

[NotAllThere]

In Switzerland there are people who think the folk in the next town are bloody foreigners. When we moved 10 miles from our first home, some of our car-owning friends were saying "oh, no, we won't see you". Very parochial.

[Zero Liability]

This is not a party political issue. It is a treasury issue. The IR (now HMRC) have been gunning for contractors for years. They want everyone to be employed. Pre-IR35 the government told the IR to take a running jump over this, because there were politicians who actually understood how the economy worked. Then Blair's lot came in with very little experience of how to deal with the civil service and the treasury got what they wanted.

You're agreeing with me. An apathetic executive is just as bad as a mal-intentioned or ignorant activist one. HMRC is just the collections department of the government, lets not pretend it's anything else. You're correct in that the civil servants have more of a stake in the system than the executive does, since they will be there even after the PM and his/her cabinet is gone. My point was to highlight this is not a Tory or Labour issue per se.

There is, of course, the view that higher levels of taxation are necessary (from the government's POV) to soak up the effects of credit injections (actual inflation) by the central banks (globally), which generate price increases (aka inflation in common parlance), because high levels of inflation reflect poorly on the government in power (and inflation is also used to discount GDP figures, another important metric.) It's all very short sighted but they won't be around to deal with it, we will.

It just amuses me that what they will present as a way of preventing agencies from 'exploiting' so-called vulnerable workers (who is to say these people, or others in their position in the future, will necessarily be hired once the agency can't engage in this mechanism?), could also conveniently discourage agencies from using contractors. Opposed to that? Well you must hate those itty bitty poor vulnerable workers you selfish pig.