First, I think his "manly" campaign is more likely to be an artifact of the sort of thing that the type of people who supports support him are drawn to rather than an intentional appeal to a specific crowd.

Second, I think his relatively low appeal to women can be satisfactorily explained by his positions. If Ron Paul was driving policy at the federal level that would mean:

• The end of federal equal rights legislation - overt workplace sexism  would be legal unless individual states outlawed it
• The end of federal sexual harassment legislation - sexual harassment in the workplace would be legal
• The overturning of Roe v. Wade - most likely leading to an outright ban on abortions in many states
• The repeal of most health care legislations - insurers would be free to reject women because they are women, or because they are pregnant, et cetera

Granted, not all of these issues are important to all women. But I think enough of them are important to enough women to explain the disparity in support for Paul between men and women.

---

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic

My initial reaction was that it'd be crazy to throw away the redundancy money, but thinking about it I suspect the money would be worth less than the potential stress of not having a certain future income.  This is confounded further by the fact you're thinking of buying a house - so in holding out for redundancy pay you're pushing back that process by some unknown number of months.

But that's just me being boring and grown-up.

---

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

It was a fairly sound article up until the end. I had some quibbles about the allegations of a nanny state over the outlawing of abortion. (Pollitt apparently does not realize that Paul wants to turn the whole affair over to the states.)  But then came this zinger ``If Ron Paul was interested in peace, he wouldn’t be a Republican''

With this line, Pollitt abandons the approach of the first three fifths of the article of examining Paul's favored policies and the disjunction between those and liberal politics. Now Pollitt turns to the policies of the GOP in general as if they had some bearing on Paul's views. This is done despite the fact that most of the other issues that were brought up are also unfavored by most of the GOP. Take the ADA, it's champion was the Bush '41 administration. Take the war on drugs. That's premium Republican turf.

That's kind of a bizarre ending.

---

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic

Concerning the austerity curve.  The problem the author has is that he doesn't differentiate between fiscal policy during a depressed/recession and fiscal policy during flush times.  During a recession you pretty much need to keep steedy on government spending to support demand and (because I am a Keynesian) increase government demand.  During flush times you cut the budget.  Go with austerity when the economy is huming along.  Government spending isn't needed at those points. During flush times you pay down the debt so that you have flexibility when the next recession comes.  This is what conservatives totally blew it on.  The Bush Administration went into deficits in the US during flush times and the English and Europeans are cutting spending during a recession.  Completely backward and shows a fundamental lack of understanding ot Macroeconomis.  Demand equals government plus consumer plus business.  It's a pretty simple equation to learn. 

Concerning US fiscal federalism versus Europe.  The author touches on, but doesn't actually go into, the transfer of accounts that the Federal taxation allows.  One of the big problems in Europe is an imbalance of accounts between Euro states.  The US avoids that by having a Federal level of tranfer of accounts between states through Federal taxation.  So that's one of the benefits of Federal taxation that I didn't see listed.  If the EU could transfer accounts from flush Germany to destitute Greece it would help the EU situation considerably.  They can't and they won't. 

Concerning your work.  Start looking for a new job and accept if you find one to your liking.  You know you have time and don't have to jump.  If you find one before the redundancy occurs I would take it.  The severance pay isn't worth the gap in employment.  Yes, you could live on the money and then have unemployment payments to further carry you forward, but the gap in employment should be avoided if possible.  The financial impact to you is likely neutral, but from a CV perspective it's a better situation to be in. 

DON'T PUT HER ON THE LEASE.

Also, the victim alleges she was struck by her assailant, so let's charge her for being sweary? WTF is going on over there in Englandia?

You can't handle my complete attention.

Rents will - obviously - fall dramatically once the HB restrictions come in.

If you get another job, how long do you have to be in it for it to cut any ice with a mortgage company?

Fucking hell! Mortgage! With a partner type person!

Low IQ & racism/conservatism. Sounds obvious to me - but then I may be prejudiced.

Mistake I made with jobs was I thought I could walk out of Crap Corp and pick up something soon enough. I did pick up something but it was a step down and I'm still there and it's shit (not as shit, but shit). So if you get offered a job you really want before redundancy then take it. Otherwise you run the risk of having to take something sub-optimal. Or shit.

---

Do not write below this line. Office use only

You don't actually have a tricky decision to make until someone offers you a position.

I don't know what your current work situation is, any chance of them giving you a severance on short notice if you flat out asked for it? (obviously waiting until you had a job offer in your back pocket)

The weather forecaster thing is bizarre, what motive does a newspaper have for making up the fucking weather?

Until you know what your situation is likely to be? I'm surprised that sharing won't work out cheaper anyway, you both must have very good deals.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

Which November are we talking about?  If it's November 2011, it's a bit premature to even bring up moving in together, let alone buying a house together.  IMHO.  That's an awfully big commitment for such a young relationship.