Johnny Bognor

There are only 400,000 millionaires in the UK (including property millionaires who have come of age due to the debt fuelled silly brownite house price bubble) and so the vast majority of the "Upper Middle Class" are working professionals. Royalty and the Ruling/Upper classes never seem to get analysed in the same way (perhaps they are the ones doing the analysing). The social grading is based on the following: A= higher managerial, administrative or professional B = intermediate managerial, administrative or professional C1 = supervisory or clerical, junior managerial, administrative or professional C2 = skilled manual workers D = semi and unskilled manual workers E = state pensioners or widows (no other earner), casual or lowest grade workers However, this is now outdated by Acorn Profiling which recognises more specific groups of people: http://www.caci.co.uk/acorn/acornmap.asp I don't have a breakdown of the population by Acorn code, but ultimately it would show a similar pattern. They will probably take a chunk of C1 and C2 along with D and E considering that they will become the official opposition in may next year.

You seem to imply there is something wrong with this. By the way, you left out tax-paying from your list and this is the most important attribute of this demographic. If you look at the breakdown of the adult population by class, this is the spread: A = Upper Middle Class = 2m B = Middle Class = 10m C1 = Lower Middle Class = 14m C2 = Skilled Working Class = 10m D = Working Class - Semi Skilled = 8m E = Subsistence living = 4m The Middle Classes represent over 50% of the adult population and so surely this is where the power SHOULD lie. As their tax rates are higher (Benefits claimants and the super rich don't pay tax), then it is the middle class tax payers who are the ones funding the system and as such are more likely to consider what they get in return. They have to make a choice between paying even more tax for improved public services (or not as the case may be) or lower tax for better value public services. Therefore, as a political party, you have to win over the taxpaying majority as they are most likely to be ****ed off if you don't deliver. Although policies are similar, I think there will be clear water between Labour and Tory as they try to differentiate themselves. If anything, Browns speech yesterday was the end of the Blair Witch Project (Sorry New Labour project) and if anything, Labour have started to move back to the left.

You say that, but tactical voting was used to good effect in the 1997 election. In tory safe seats, traditional labour voters were going for the Lib Dems and so reducing the tory chances of clinging on. Having said that, based on recent polls, the Lib Dems will become the opposition (thus answering BTF's call for a strong opposition ) and Labour will become a marginal fringe party which is perhaps why they are now in favour of PR.

This is one 'new' policy in a stream of new measures announced by the PM in his speech yesterday. So new in fact, that it was in the 1997 manifesto and it never happened. :rolleyes: "The Conservatives remain opposed to a referendum, saying existing first-past-the-post rules create stable governments and maintain MPs' links with constituencies." BTF are you coming round to their way of thinking?

Are you sure you don't mean SunnyB?

I know it's a risk, but I'd go for Bobby Stokes as first scorer.

Not sure what it's like for a night game, but on a saturday it makes for a good day out.

Ah, the old "I'm Not Sober Especially Today" teacher training jolly.

What the **** are school kids doing in the pubs in the first place. I know, let the kids in, but ban the teachers. This is a prime example of why we live in a ****ed up country.

But amoungst the purile, childlike jibes I always do try to make a valid point. For me, I couldn't give two monkies about the baroness as it happens. The issue for me which I alluded to earlier and no one seems to be able to answer, is why are employers having to sort out the mess created by a failure of govt, a failure of UK border controls and a failure of UK immigration? What's more, not only do employers have to do their jobs for them and police immigration from the inside, they'll be penalised if they get it wrong. That can't be right, can it? Why didn't they just fine the border control/immigration staff £5k for every illegal that slipped through the net? (or is that just being purile and childlike?)

Are you referring to my spelling and grammar? If so, I tend to write whilst foaming at the mouth to score points over people on the Internet. I would never get away with this in the real world. Or are you referring to the content? I am for common sense politics on the whole, but can't resist jabbing the lefties with a metaphoric fork now and again. I guess I can be a little matter of fact and that probably makes me look a ****. I am more of an anti-leftie than someone of a right persuasion. Don't ask me why, just the way I'm made.

They were a socialist party once upon a time, but socialism died when the wall came down. In 1997, the lefties and 'cool brittania' middle classes put them in power. Ironically Blair was one of the best tory prime ministers for years. Yet, despite this, the lefties kept him and continue to keep 'their' party in power. Most bizarre if you ask me. I suppose people and their principles are soon parted. Having said this, there are still many lefties within the labour party (without the baggage of their principles) and so Labour still are the party of the socialist, even if their policies aren't really socialist - they are more liberal lefties who couldn't run a **** up in a brewery.

THey may well do this after the election. Political parties tend to go back to their heartlands after defeat. The Tories did that after they got booted out and it made them unelectable for years. If Labour go to the left, it will make them unelectable for years.

She made that law so for her to 'claim' that it was an error is complete bull. She knew what she was required to do - if she didn't know, then she should be fired as another one in a line of incompetent ministers. If she did know and chose to ignore what was required, then she should be fired either way. Had a tory made a law then broke that subsequent law you would be calling for his/her head. But it's OK when a leftie lies, cheats or breaks the rules. ...and as I have said, if Labour hadn't completely failed with their immigration policy (or complete lack of it) there wouldn't be any need for such a law (and perhaps the BNP would still be a back street party). GO Labour! (by that I mean go away and don't come back)

But she stated that she saw the passport and it is now claimed she didn't see it. If she is lying, then she has to go.

It's not good when the law maker becomes the law breaker....she has to go for that alone. Business owners who don't follow the rules will get punished, so why shouldn't the politicians. If she didn't look at the passport, as it is now claimed, it is not an honest mistake and she is clearly negligent. What's more she is lying about it. This was not the best peice of legislation in the first place, because the govt are expecting Britains business owners to clear up their immigration mess. If the illegals were not here in the first place, there would be no need to check their documents. Instead of concentrating on getting Britain out of recession, we have to concentrate on checking the documents of people who shouldn't be here. Yep, she should be fired with a capital F

Just 2% of accidents where there are casualties are caused by drivers over the age of 26 exceeding the speed limit. So speed is an issue, but to reduce fatalities there are far bigger fish to fry

1. Why should they? 2. They have admitted to doing 100....how do you know they didn't mean KMPH? Do you believe everything you read on the Internet? I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as father christmas. It also pains me to tell you that there is no such thing as the tooth fairy.

But these other people aren't making a big deal out of Matt not being on TV and then lording TC as if it is some great thing. To be fair I didn't know anything about TC either. I just saw another pop at Matt and thought enough is enough. I simply googled Tony Cottee+Scandal and it didn't take very long and I didn't have to dig very far. Perhaps if NC had done the same, he wouldn't have made an arse of himself. Anyway, as it happens, Matt (innocent or guilty) always flies the flag for Saints on soccer saturday and a club long forgotton by the media (thanks to you know who) gets some decent coverage. If he is removed, I don't see this as a positive thing for Saints.

He could try TC's consultants as he has maanged to worm his way back to the top table.

True, but you can't castigate MLT and at the same time welcome TC with open arms. You either have both (if you want to turn a blind eye) or neither. I was merely highlighting 19C's double standards.

Agreed. But someone who is banned from all forms of football shouldn't really be given top billing by the Media on a football show. But whilst there are those who are willing to support such people, it is something we will just have to accept I suppose.

Yes, it was a bit strong, so I've edited that statement. But at the end of the day his irresponsible actions led to innocent people being hurt. Tickets were DELIBERATELY given to Spurs fans for the Leicester end. On that basis, Matt is welcome back at Sky as far as I am concerned, at the expense of NC's much acclaimed Cottee.

Indeed. There is quite a bit of news surrounding this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/football/693627.stm "What should have been a pleasant day out for many fans instead involved fear, intimidation and violence. Those found guilty today deliberately gave their tickets to Spurs fans or distributed them carelessly that they ended up in opposition hands." "One of Impey's tickets found its way into the hands of a Tottenham fan who was pictured attacking a female Leicester supporter, Ruth Lelacheur, at the 1999 Wembley final." NC obviously doesn't have a problem with this as he is actively supporting one of the perpetrators. I happen to think that whilst a bit of irregular betting is out of order, there is no way I could support those whose irresponsible actions led to the attacking of a woman at football.

So you have a problem with Matt, but not Tony-sells-tickets-to-spurs-hooligans-in-the-Leicester-end-causing-a-mass-riot-at-a-cup-final Cottee, who was charged by the FA and suspended from all forms of football and football management. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2358520/Cottee-ban-rules-him-out-of-West-Ham-deal.html Double standards methinks.