ComRes’s monthly poll for the Independent is out, and shows topline figures of CON 45%(+5), LAB 26%(-2), LDEM 17%(-1). Changes are from the last ComRes poll, carried out at the end of March.

The figures are almost the same as yesterday’s YouGov poll in the Sunday People. We haven’t had any post-budget figures from ICM, Populus or MORI yet, but so far it is looking as if, between the rows over MPs expenses, “smeargate” and the budget, we have seen a further shift against Labour and we are back into Tory landslide territory. Obviously there is a long way to go until a 2010 election, but the June local and European elections aren’t looking pretty for Labour.


355 Responses to “ComRes show 19 point Tory lead”

1 2 3 4 5 6 8
  1. With regard to the BNP – I am astonished that people think it is acceptable to “exclude” them from the political scene. You may strongly disagree with their politics (I do too) but that is no reason to exclude them. I also strongly disagree with Labour’s politics, for example, and the Greens, and many other parties, but I don’t advocate that these parties should not be engaged with in reasoned debate, and effectively marginalised. (The Greens don’t do reasoned debate anyway, but that is a different matter). The whole idea is thoroughly undemocratic.

  2. Maybe Promsan meant 14% for UKIP, that would be realistic.

  3. @John TT

    “I just don’t remember the events of the seventies that lead the erudite analysts here to say “it always ends this way for Labour” Where were the rampant free-market capitalists then, unless you count David Bowie?”

    Totally besides the point. Labour ran 20 to 40 Billion deficits throughout the boom years. Which is economic madness. There are always recessions and during periods of growth the Government should be reducing its borrowing.

    Secondly this was a boom that THEY stoked up further with their financial policies – specifically the housing boom. This boom gave Brown massive amounts of stamp duty which he blew on the state. This unsustainable boom was always going to come crashing down.

    “I agree that lurching to the left of centre would be a mistake, but it’s daft to say this has been caused by leftist policies. Tax is lower than under Thatcher.”

    I’m sorry this is partisan nonsense and not represent of the facts.

    Taxation under Thatcher was much lower than it is under Brown. By the late 1980’s Thatcher had reduced the governments take of GDP to 40%. This year Brown will take almost 50%. And Brown is also projected (laughable Treasury prediction of course) to borrow 12.4% of GDP.

    Increasing the government’s take to MORE than the 1975 Labour government is most definitely “leftist policies”. That policy led to a trip to the IMF in 1976.

    Policies of taxing, borrowing and spending more than you can afford on the state are most definitely leftist policies. Every Labour government has pursued them and ended with the public finances in a mess.

    These are the facts.

  4. Incidentally, here is my (rough) prediction for the national shares of the vote:

    Conservative: 37%
    Labour: 18%
    UKIP: 14%
    Libdem: 13%
    BNP: 8%
    Green: 5%
    Nats: 4%
    Others: 1%

  5. @[email protected]:55
    I agree with you up to the point where you say all progress….there are some (penicillin) advancements down to the work of 1/2 people, but most (plane, phone, web) are far more complex achievments.

    I was really just pointing out that I think the figures Leslie suggested are unrealistic to a rather large degree.

    @[email protected]:58
    I agree (broadly, the issue of land pricing is more complex….we can make more cars, tvs etc, but there’s a finite amount of land, as the population grows it is going to get more expensive….especially as land lasts (kinda) forever, and an average tv will be useless in 20 years….) apart from your last para, IMO if you chose to live (or were born in) the richest part of the country, that doesn’t suddenly mean you’re poor if you’re not as rich as your neighbours….in terms of national govt (which is obviously what is mostly discussed round here) I think you should compare nationally, not locally…..in the same way I wouldn’t claim that I’m not rich compared to Indonesians just because I struggle to afford housing in the UK.

  6. Neil,

    Credible prediction for the Euros, though in my view LDs will be very disappointed if they do not edge ahead of UKIP. There are also so many “other” candidates / parties standing that they are likely to collect ively reach at least 2%, if not 3%, even if none of them register in any meaningful way.

  7. @ Promsan and Neil – I don’t want to exclude the BNP. I don’t think I’ve expressed myself very well. What I want is for mainstream parties to listen to the public’s concerns on issues such as immigration and the EU instead of fencing them off as BNP territory and then refusing to listen to public opinion. The BNP has become a get-out clause, especially for Labour – a way of avoiding the issue in order to press ahead with policies that a majority object to.

    I hope that’s a bit clearer.

  8. laz hansen-

    on thoes odd figures you thorught up the tories would get 209 seats labour 420 seats and others 20 beacuse of northern ireland as labour do not stand in this area

    so 57.5% to 42.5% would give a big majority

  9. for the tories to win in A TWO PARTY SYSTEM THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME 6% ahead of labour

  10. Wayne, we’ve had our two ICM polls for April, but the Sunday Telegraph poll was under the banner Marketing Sciences rather than ICM. Due to the the bank holiday our next scheduled poll will be Populus on Monday 11th May. Of course that doesn’t rule out the possibility of unscheduled polls.

  11. Wood,

    With regard to your comment:

    “… if you chose to live (or were born in) the richest part of the country, that doesn’t suddenly mean you’re poor if you’re not as rich as your neighbours….”

    None of us choose where we are born, and most prefer to stay near family and friends. So it does matter if there are great differences between various parts of the country. For most people, poverty is a comparative perception measured against their neighbours – because that is what they can see and understand.

    If we take your point about comparing ourselves with Indonesians (a rather bustling place where the people seemed to me happier than you would find on a stroll through parts of London), then presumably we should measure poverty and wealth in absolute terms – i.e ability to feed, clothe and house our families and provide for their physical and emotional security.

    In which case the idea of abolishing “poverty” in the UK is a nonsense, since that goal was achieved decades ago.

    If it is okay to define “poverty” in relative terms, then why should we not look at our position relative to the town in which we live ?

    It is because Labour have ignored the pressures they have piled on people in the South-East while doling out subsidies to their “heartlands”, that we have a divided country, and Labour will pay a price for it at the next elections.

  12. Will Brown wait for the very last opportunity for the G.E.
    then. Will it be June 2010? Could he wait til the 31st?
    Why wouldn’t he?

  13. Actually he may be hoping for another bounce. If enough people die from Flu, then expect him to start personallty injecting them with tamiflu (or whatever it’s called) he may even pop across to Mexico and try to help them as well.

    The BBC today were saying how he is coming back and will want to be fully briefed before making a statement (maybe on YouTube) – let’s hope he’s better “advised” than he was over MP’s expenses.

    Sorry but it made me froth…

  14. I’m surprised he hasn’t duetted with Susan Boyle yet. Maybe she turned him down.

  15. ‘Will it be June 2010? Could he wait til the 31st?
    Why wouldn’t he?’

    Because there’s only 30 days in June!
    Sorry – only being daft

    While my username shows my feelings I’d rather there were less partisan comments from all sides on here

  16. It’s interesting what people are saying about 150k being a lot of money and that it should be taxed more.

    I wanted to say a word about entrepreneurship. It is worth noting that other than the state, every job that is created is by a company owned by individuals or consortiums of individuals through shareholdings. Whatever the mechanics, at some point someone has decided to take the risk to begin a new venture.

    Many people complain that there are not enough jobs available in their area. It is only if people begin to expand or start new ventures that new jobs come on to the market. People will only start new ventures for substantial financial reward.

    I own my own small 1 man consultancy company and I earn a decent living in the course of that. Now if I wanted to expand my company and say employ 5 people who I would train and find work for. That would be a massive risk for me as I would need to set up premises and be sure I could pay their salaries.

    Therefore I would need to think I would get a substantial reward for this risk. High marginal tax rates decrease anyone’s desire to set up these ventures if they think that the government is going to take 50% of that in tax + employers and employees NIC. With those you are looking at a large proportion of the funds disappearing before VAT, Business property taxes, corporation tax etc etc.

    So the upshot is higher taxes = less entrepreneurship = less jobs = more unemployment. Certainly in terms of small business and start ups.

  17. Stuart Gregory
    Thanks for that but did you read my question correctly?
    At least I had a reply instead of history lessons!
    hanks
    Laz

  18. Neil,

    I doubt that UKIP will get a result as high as that.

    Their publicity and media exposure if nothing compared to what it was last time and they do not have Kilroy-Silk on their side this time.

    In 2004, the Tories were not a credible party for the Euro-sceptic majority in the UK and thus those voters looked to UKIP. The Tories are certainly a lot more electorate and credible now and will pick up a lot of the UKIP voters.

    Furthermore, the Tories are not going to run this election fighting about Europe because, simply, no-one cares. They are going to fight about national issues and make it into a protest vote over Brown and Labour. If the media spotlight is taken off of Europe (it’s not just a European election remember) then UKIP will not be able to campaign effectively on their only issue.

  19. I agree, who cares about the EU at this point in time; the recession / depression is obviously world wide so UKIP is even more irrelevant than normal. The EU voting will be based on people’s normal views, not anything particularly EU (not least as KIlroy-Silk was fa far higher profile than any of their ‘normal’ candidates).

  20. Neil’s prediction is almost the same as one I made a few days ago, although I had the Tories slightly lower on about 33%.

  21. @Keir

    No worries – he’s already been successfully stage managed at Auschwitz. Why is it the Downing St press office feels the need for him to make a big statement everywhere he goes?

    I have been to Auschwitz and you don’t need to write a great condolence note. There are no words that can do justice to the place. ‘We must never forget’ is all that needs saying.

  22. Cliff – “These are the facts.”
    They are, but all facts have dates. Change the dates and the ‘facts’ also change, which is why things aren’t so clear cut as you think. Brown took a lower % in tax for most of his time at no 11 than Thatcher did for much of her time at no. 10. What does that tell us? Probably not much.

    George Faux –
    “High marginal tax rates decrease anyone’s desire to set up these ventures if they think that the government is going to take 50% of that in tax + employers and employees NIC. With those you are looking at a large proportion of the funds disappearing before VAT, Business property taxes, corporation tax etc etc.”

    It’s only 50% once you enter the realms of the richest 1%, and all the other taxes you mention would be deducted from profits before you begin to calculate individual earnings. Your last point about higher taxes = less jobs is also somewhat contentious. Germany for example has in general a better employment record than the UK but with higher taxes. The relationship is much more complex than that, and I suspect is more to do with the relationship between taxation levels and how and what it is spent on.

  23. @ JJ I agree with your sentiment that generally speaking there is no great confidence in the Cons.

    There has been a very gradual growing support for the Cons which climaxed in October 2007 in response to Cameron becoming leader. Since that time they have rarely polled less than 40%. Nevertheless, there are no great expectations from most people that the Cons will do great things.

    But disenchantment with Labour has grown to distain for a large minority of those who voted for them last time. Many are ready to vote for the Cons against Labour. Many as you suggested may very well stay at home.

    I am confident that, such are the numbers that will turn away from Labour at the GE, all the Cons need to do will be to appear adequate in order to win a landslide victory. Mediocrity will come as a welcome relief after so much patheticness.

  24. @Alec – Brown took a lower % in tax for most of his time at no 11 than Thatcher did for much of her time at no. 10. What does that tell us? Probably not much.

    It tells us a lot.

    Thatcher came to power during a recession and the public finances in a complete mess after the last Labour government.

    It took her two terms to right the ship.

    When Labour came to power in 1997 there had been 4 years of sustained growth. Debt was low, Government take of GDP was 38%. Now government debt is much worse than it was even in the late1970s and the GDP take is close to 50%. It may take 3 conservative terms to sort the financial mess out this time around.

    This is not open to “interpretation”. We are talking about basic accountancy. 1 + 1 = 2 etc.

    As a labour supporter you would be better advised to argue the merits of spending tonnes on the state than trying to “interpret” the figures because that won’t wash.

  25. “The relationship is much more complex than that, and I suspect is more to do with the relationship between taxation levels and how and what it is spent on.”

    Alec-you can suspect as much as you like & dream up cpmlexity galore.

    It’s actually very simple.

    The Director of Personal Tax at the Treasury explained it yesterday to the Treasury Select Committee-they expect to receive 31% of the possible total income from the top rate tax increase in the Budget.

    To put that another way Alec 69% will be lost because of avoidance, less work, or simply going somewhere else with lower taxes.

  26. George – I wasn’t saying that £150k should be taxed more, but that sums earned above that figure should (though whether 50% is too much is arguable)

    CLiff -It took her two terms and a lot of Oil and a lot of family silver to get us in the state we were in in 1990 (which wasn’t particularly healthy)

    All this revising of history (ok I’m as susceptible to partiality as any-one) now that the polls show a big lead is disturbing, but to my mind it’s in Labour’s interest to draw the “down with the state” brigade out into the open.

  27. Colin – you caused me to look up the IFS research paper on it yesterday. All about elasticity and incredibly complex. I had to lie down. and I can’t find it this morning.

    However, the gist was that the IFS applied certain criteria , the treasury only slightly different criteria to determine the level at which new tax would be “uncollected”. In both cases, the level of expected avoidance was very large. The IFS concluded that while no-one knew the answer, it was likely to result in modest savings, and the Treasury concluded that the savings would be considerably higher.

    The point is that no-one knows yet, but no-one is “making it up”

  28. If you google BSS IFS TAX you’ll find it. Let me have a precis by 11 OK?

  29. OK john.

    I guess in the end this thing about taxing income comes down to political philosophy-but ultimately it defines the sort of economy;and indeed society you want.

    I am in favour of higher earners paying a higher rate of tax.( as well of course paying a higher quantum of tax which they do in any event).
    But I think 40% is internationally competitive, and 50% may not be.
    In any event I do not think that £150kpa is the threshold for “very high income” in UK-or anything like it.

    What I object to profoundly is the definition-by the State-of what constitutes an unreasonably/unnecessarily/unacceptably/…. high income.
    That way lies the economy & society of Fidel’s Cuba.
    I fear that Harriet’s view of “Equality” is but the first step on that road down which the State says whether your income is acceptable to it.

  30. john-I should have said of course, that at the lower income end of the scale the State most definitely has a duty to ensure acceptable minimum income levels for people in work, people who want to work but cannot, the chronically sick & disabled etc .

  31. The 50% rate is only going to take 31% of the maximum amount?

    Considering there will be some who earn £150k who will be moving all of their money elsewhere, I wonder what amount of tax lost in the 40% band the treasury expects. Still, I suppose if the goal was to increase the amount of capital gains tax they bring in then they will succeed.

  32. Mark – it’s all there in the research I pointed Colin to. The BSS figure suggests you’ll get most from the upper earners at around 43%, whereas the Treasury graph shows “optimal rate” (ie before it falls off a cliff as everyone leaves the country) is around 60%.

    Both forecasts suppose and take account of a very large rate of avoidance measures.

    I don’t know how charitable giving might be affected – my own rule of thumb would be to increase giving to charity during Tory years, and reduce it during Labour years.

  33. The day after the Com Res poll came out I thought I’d pay another visit to the pub near Westminster Bridge where I met the Tory researcher last week (amazed there weren’t any journos about but perhaps they haven’t caught on to this venue yet as it’s not on the normal ‘circuit’). There were two this time and they seemed to be having a bit of a celebration as a result of the even better polling news from their perspective — the one I encountered previously and a young women who said she worked in the office of someone close to Cameron!

    If they are to be believed, the Tory ‘age of austerity’ agenda seems to be gathering pace, with job cuts of arouind 250,000 in the public sector being contemplated, overall unemployment peaking at 3.5million followed by a sharp recovery well in time for another election win in 2014-15! If these ideas are tossed around during an election campaign anything could happen as public sector workers and their families are a farly high proportion of the electorate in some areas and they aren’t going to be too happy about their prospects under a Tory government. The researchers weren’t so keen to discuss ideas about what to do about public sector pensions but it’s clear that Cameron wants to save money in this area and we will all have our own ideas about what this might mean.

  34. @ Observer – trouble is, we’re in such a mess now that some people are going to have to pay at least a temporary price no matter what. Of course no one wants it to be them (and I’m sure we all share that sentiment) but it’s inevitably going to be someone. That’s going to happen whichever party is in power and I think most voters know it. The burning question at the moment is more about which party will be best able to pull us out of that situation as quickly as possible so people only suffer for a couple of years instead or for 5 or 10 or whatever.

  35. Personally i cannot believe we are spending £220 billion on benefits. This government has created a scenario where too many people rely on the state for handouts. This has now come at a massive cost to the taxpayer.

    I know some of you will argue that this is due to rising unemployment, however under Labour we have seen a huge raise in the ‘long term’ unemployed before the recession, which these people have no intention of working and are willing to let the state look after them.

    Whoever is in power after the next election will have to cut spending and raise taxes because like most i reckon Darling is somewhat wrong on his predictions and we will probably owe an extra £1 trillion is 4-5 years time.

    I would like to thank all those who voted for Labour in 1997 under the banner ‘things can only get better’ because you were conned and things have got worse within the last 12 years.

  36. Tom – I think things did get better for a while, and the next election will depends on who remembers what.

    Most won’t forgive being harmed by taxes, unemployment etc, and likewise, most won’t remember the good things.

    Thwe general opublic don’t really appreciate being called naive, but if Cameron wants to run with that, good luck to him. Just paints himself into the “hasn’t changed” corner.

  37. Carrying on from the “levelling out” of post-tax income due to rising income tax, whilst we only look at the “big stars” of our society, everyone is affected the similarly.

    That means everyone in the system, from the semi-retired lollipop lady who realises that the benefits system will give her just £10 less than if she worked for 12 hours a week, through to the office worker who won’t work as hard for the promotion because, after tax, the difference in income is irrelevant, to the top-rate entrepreneur who can and will leave this country to another, taking their taxable income, and their job-creating nous with them.

    These taxes blunt the entire economy, and everyone in it. Especially now, when the banks are looking at severe prunings and cost savings, they can more than add their top employees’ salaries by just paying them the same in Switzerland (effective top income tax 50%) vs. ours (about 70%.

    And when they’re gone, they’re gone. Once they’ve dissolved their capital here, and built it somewhere else, it takes a lot to shift them back here.

  38. The success of this relies on enough people not being driven by money. Other things come into it for some people,. Perhaps a large number will leave, but not after doing some sums, and working out how much money they would be saving, and whether it would be worth the upheaval for hte extra cash.

    I don’t care too much about a lollipop operative cutting down her hours, or anyone else, that just leaves a gap for some-one else to fill.

  39. OK, let’s talk about tax and why it is important for polling (which is what this site is meant to be about). If 60% of people say they are in favour of a 50% tax rate why does Tony Blair and his allies think it is such a bad thing?

    Answer: very simple: First it is a symbolic thing: To maintain the centre ground nowadays it is important that the electorate does not perceive you to be reflecting the more extreme wishes of your party. Hence Cameron’s position on the NHS, and Blair’s on tax. For Labour to be seen to raise income tax is likely to be seen as the “thin end” by many floating voters, even those that are completely uinaffected

    Secondly tax take is very likely to go down. Why? Not because of the people that can’t avoid it such as some doctors and lawyers who are on PAYE, but because of many people who might not have bothered to find avoidance at 40% (when they probably could have) are “pushed over the edge” by the 50% tax rate. Therefore increased avaoidance overall more than cancelling out the increased take form those who can’t avoid it. Very simple really.

    This is why clever politicians like Tony Blair interpret certain opinion polling very carefully before taking them as guides to policy that might have unexpected ramifications both in terms of governing and also electorally.

  40. Nigel; – ref to the IFS research to show how complex it is – the data they draw on is based on waht little evidence they can deduce from the effects of lawson’s reduction in 1988. Fiendishly difficult to work out.

    Re Polls – I don’t believe the 60% in favour would put their money where they say their preference is, and I think Blair recognised that. It won’t convert into votes in favour of Labour.

    The thin end of the wedge argument is strong too.

    As I said earlier, the optimum rate is anywhere between 43% (hardly anyone would bother) and 60% (lots would bother)

    I myself wouldn’t bother unless it was making a serious dent. An extra 5k on the bill ? that’s if I earn 200k i think.

    When the tories suggested the non-dom hit of £25k? I distinctly remember some of them being interviewed by the BBC and suggesting it would be tolerable as a one-off. (ie not the thin end of the wedge)

  41. @ John T T

    “The success of this relies on enough people not being driven by money.”

    That’s why it fails, that’s why bonuses exist, that’s why prizes exist, and that’s why I’m not a socialist with their head in the clouds and their hands in other people’s pockets.

    Forgive me whilst I mock your naivete.

  42. Richard – no need for the ad hominem insults.

    Not everyone will make life choices based on how much they can earn.

    That’s why down-sizing exists, that’s why people retire early to enjoy themselves.

    That’s why people donate money to charity.

    That’s why the IFS struggled to come up with a difinitive analysis.

    Nothing to ask forgiveness for, no naivety, just intellectual rigour applied to commonly known facts.

  43. John TT – I agree that it is a difficult one to call in terms of tax take, though I know for a fact that some wealthy people I know have now been motivated to visit their “tax planners”, when before they might not have bothered. We aren’t necessarily talking about people moving abroad, I would imagine this is probably a small number, but there will definately be a lot of people who take a bit more notice of their accountants than they used to. Don’t forget, even though you might think it serves them right, wealthy people are also seeing incomes fall, so will be doing what they can to legally avoid any further erosion (through tax). It would be very interesting to have an opinion poll of high earners to see how they have reacted.

    I agreewith Blair that this move is disasterous for Labour electorally, as any intellegent floating voter sees it as a desperate throw of the dice by GB, and a further “lurch” to the left. Expect to see further “lurches” in the coming months that may on the surface seem popular, but in reality will further erode public support of the “big picture” of Labour competence and values

  44. NigelJ – you (and Blair) are right in the sense that it begs the question “what do they stand for now?” Is it a culture change within the party thinking, or is it necessity born of incompetence? Not an easy question to answer,

    An increase would be more defensible if it had been delivered as a temporary step, to be reduced back to 40% as recovery picked up. That would have at least quietened the “thin end of the wedge” argument.

  45. John – we are in complete agreement (your last comment)! this would also have tested the hypothesis to see whether tax take increased or decreased. Unfortunately I think the decision was more motivated by the baser instincts (envy) of the labour party, trying to wrong foot cameron, and trying to shore up the increasingly flaky core vote.

    As someone who considers themselves a moderate I think it is a great shame when one of the main parties starts to move to the extremes (as the Tories did post 1997), as it means the other party gets a free ride.

  46. Phew! That’s got to be a first :)

    The Tories are as vulnerable to their own “extreme” though. They do have an opportunity to occupy the centre – I have a feeling they might just still blow it.

  47. “The shortfall in public finances should be met by cuts in public spending instead of tax rises” – 27% of Conservative voters disagree with this statement.

    Could this one be a case of people answering as they think they should answer, rather than as they actually thing? 1 out of 4 Conservatives seems an awfully large amount to be opposing spending cuts.

    Other interesting ways to judge the country’s mood is to look at the LibDem responses to ConLab questions. On “I trust Gordon Brown more than David Cameron to lead Britain out of recession”, 26% agreed and 62% disagreed. Typically those questions get a roughly even split of agree/disagrees and a lot of don’t knows from LibDem voters.

  48. Mark – The 60% “in favour” of a 50% tax rate probably include a few conservatives too. “in favour of” doesn’t mean “will vote for”

  49. John

    On the case of the 50% rate, I’m more interested in the breakdown of the 40% who don’t support it. Even assuming that anyone who earns over £150k is opposed (which probably isn’t the case), that still leaves a fairly sizeable proportion of people who do not support the tax even though they won’t be affected by it.

  50. @Paul I agree about the definition of poverty by the govt, fortunately the opposition hasn’t ever abused the misnomer to kick up a fuss, but probably the incumbent has always felt that to try to change the definition would give an opportunity for slating and moaning that the opposition and various campaign groups would be unable to resist.

    My point about Indonesia (the stats back up your happier perception, some 20 points happier IIRC), was that in any discussion about govt, we should compare about the juristiction of the govt….if we were discussing the world as a whole, everyone in the UK is rich….if discussing Mayor of London you could compare the struggling areas to the thriving, but with national govt I think comparisons should be national….it wouldn’t be correct to say that the north is just as well off as the south because houses cost less up there.

    I can see your point about staying in London, it is a different situation from where many of us could move to a shithole town and still be in bussing distance of friends and family, but that only makes a little difference. To take your phrase “ability to feed, clothe and house our families and provide for their physical and emotional security.”….the only way Londoners have that harder is in the house part…..private health care isn’t more expensive in London, I can’t get a car any cheaper if I go to Manchester to buy it…food doesn’t cost more, nor web, tvs, music, life insurance, clothes…..

    So I pretty much stand by what I said, if you choose to live (or were born, without choosing of course) in an area where many people want to live supply and demand will make housing/rent more expensive…but I don’t believe this means someone on 50k a year choosing to live in London isn’t well off…I can sympathise with the choice being difficult if you were born somewhere and would have to move beyond reasonable distance of your social circle to get non-expensive housing, but it is still a choice not to move…..and 50k Londoner does still have a new car, new clothes, a big screen tv and good food.

    Hope ya get my point, but agree to disagree anyways…getting more than a little off topic :)

1 2 3 4 5 6 8