The Tories

[Less]

Originally Posted by garinda

I always found a pen, dipped in poisoned ink, was more effective with you, than a cat o' nine tails.

We've already got a thread about cats do try to stay on topic.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Could have tried it with me and got a smack in the gob for the effort

Stop showing off.

Peel me an orange, then go and put your gimp mask on.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Less

We've already got a thread about cats do try to stay on topic.

I'm such a pussy.

I'm living on my nerves.

It's all so very confusing nowadays.

Apologies, gentle reader, and I suppose those forced to read this.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

I always found a pen, dipped in poisoned ink, was more effective with you, than a cat o' nine tails.

I'll get you at playtime

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

I'm such a pussy.

I'm living on my nerves.

It's all so very confusing nowadays.

Apologies, gentle reader, and I suppose those forced to read this.

Its them who DON'T read this that you've got to be wary of

[Houseboy]

Originally Posted by garinda

What about wealthy and working class, what label do you attach to them?

That's a whole different argument. Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth. It is possible to be middle class and have no money as such but it is also possible to have a great deal of money whilst being technically working class (a couple of plumbers I know fit nicely into that category). I think voting patterns used to be based more on income because the Tories obviously are a better prospect if you have money but I admit (as in your follow-up post) things went a bit nuclear with regard to voting patterns in the late 70's. Everything was dragged so much to the right that all else had to follow. Incidentally I think the present Labour party are, as a result of that shift, a watered down version of what the old Tories used to be. They're certainly not a socialist party any more.

[kestrelx]

Don't know if anyones mentioned this? But the Cameron plan to have an open season on house extensions/conservatories and attic bedrooms will lead to a lot of conflict between neighbours; as planning permission laws are relaxed. The plan to "build us" out of recession!

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Houseboy

Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth.

Er...I'm afraid you're wrong.

I think you'll find all socio-economist statisticans arrive at their groupings based, not only on earning power, but also other things, such as age, educational background, religion, professional qualifications, and even things like geographical locations, amongst other things.

I'm afraid it's only an 'E' for effort, you've been awarded.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Houseboy

Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth.

In your world, would the statisticians put an unemployed single parent on benefits in the same catagory as the Queen, say?

[Lucysgirl]

Originally Posted by Houseboy

........We are also now suffering a chronic shortage of affordable housing ...........they opposed the reducing of the voting age to eighteen .

With historic high prices of land, anyone who thinks "affordable housing" is realistic they're living in cloud cuckoo land. The days are long gone when one man with an average wage could provide for his family and realistically buy a house with a mortgage valued at 2.1/2 times his annual wage. Excepting for managers, most workers these days have low wages and/or are only working part time. Even at 3 times their annual wage, neither of my two uni. educated offspring could obtain a mortgage for a modest £120K terraced house.
.
I've seen a couple of children's parliaments held in the House of Commons and if the politicians lower the voting age to sixteen I'll emigrate.
.

[Houseboy]

Originally Posted by garinda

Er...I'm afraid you're wrong.

I think you'll find all socio-economist statisticans arrive at their groupings based, not only on earning power, but also other things, such as age, educational background, religion, professional qualifications, and even things like geographical locations, amongst other things.

I'm afraid it's only an 'E' for effort, you've been awarded.

I'm afraid that, unless things have changed radically since my days studying sociology at college, you will find that the Registrar General's calculation of social stratification is exactly as I stated.
Or are you right "again".

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Houseboy

I'm afraid that, unless things have changed radically since my days studying sociology at college, you will find that the Registrar General's calculation of social stratification is exactly as I stated.

Really?

Originally Posted by Houseboy

Officially, on the a's, b's etc scale, class is based solely on employment not on income or wealth.

What's the weather like in your world?

It's spitting here, but quite warm.

Please feel free to post any evidence, that any of the socio-economic grading systems use soley the information as to whether someone's employed, or not.

[garinda]

I'd be interested to see which organisation grades a lawyer, Cherie Blair for instance, the same as an equally fully employed cleaning lady.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Houseboy

I'm afraid that, unless things have changed radically since my days studying sociology at college

Was that before the law was changed, banning indoor smoking in a public place?

[Less]

Originally Posted by Houseboy

(as in your follow-up post)

There's a follow up post? wish you'd quoted it, do you expect me to troll through everything just so you can make a point?