I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
I love the idea that you since university education is some sort of lie of guaranteed advancement, we should simply cut university education.
Fucking bonkers.
Not cut it. Do it better. Focus funding to courses giving more value. Shorter, more focused courses. Enable students to add more value to themselves while aquiring less debt.
I totally agree with that, but it was not the original argument.
Well if you and I can agree on this we probably have the kernel of an approach which 85% of pb can broadly support.
Too much university education is simply credentialism and a university degree has become a very expensive social signifier.
It seems an astonishing waste of time and money for many.
But the path to improvement lies in not blaming the students themselves, or sneering at them for trying to better themselves (you weren’t doing this).
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
The social contract - that you can get ahead via hard work - has broken down.
Also, the world is burning, and the Young expect to inherit the ashes.
It really is no surprise they are authoritian-curious.
The party breakdown is interesting in the cross tabs for support of an authoritarian leader:
I simply find that breakdown ridiculously implausible.
Brexit and Green votes look plausible, but what's going on with the Lib Dem column there? Though there's always been a chunk of None Of The Above about Lib Dem votes...
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
You could say the same about the lying in state in London later this week. Even if it gets to 2-3 million who see her it will be a small minority of those in England.
I expect tourists would always be a very modest percentage, particularly in the small towns of Fife or the outer suburbs of Edinburgh.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
Not for the first time, HYUFD demonstrates he doesn’t have a fucking clue.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
The GG actually performs virtually all the functions of the head of state
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
Not for the first time, HYUFD demonstrates he doesn’t have a fucking clue.
Oh I do, clearly you don't other than to suit your agenda
I love the idea that you since university education is some sort of lie of guaranteed advancement, we should simply cut university education.
Fucking bonkers.
Not cut it. Do it better. Focus funding to courses giving more value. Shorter, more focused courses. Enable students to add more value to themselves while aquiring less debt.
I totally agree with that, but it was not the original argument.
Well if you and I can agree on this we probably have the kernel of an approach which 85% of pb can broadly support.
Too much university education is simply credentialism and a university degree has become a very expensive social signifier.
It seems an astonishing waste of time and money for many.
But the path to improvement lies in not blaming the students themselves, or sneering at them for trying to better themselves (you weren’t doing this).
In the solicitors' profession, the route of training on the job seems a much better one. I honestly don't know what benefit I derived from my law degree, with hindsight. Everything useful I learned has been in practice.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
The GG actually performs virtually all the functions of the head of state
Yes, but Chris Patten (for instance) was not easily confused with HMtQ when he was GG in Honkers.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
A Frank Sidebottom statue will do that to house prices.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
The GG actually performs virtually all the functions of the head of state
The GG is not the head of state, very little attention is given the GG, many NZers could never pick them out in a lineup.
My post was about the monarchy itself.
Stick to topics you know about, ie masturbation etiquette for shared bed-sits.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
The GG actually performs virtually all the functions of the head of state
The GG is not the head of state, very little attention is given the GG, many NZers could never pick them out in a lineup.
My post was about the monarchy itself.
Stick to topics you know about, ie masturbation etiquette for shared bed-sits.
How do you know, just because it suits your anti Charles rant you rude obnoxious man
I love the idea that you since university education is some sort of lie of guaranteed advancement, we should simply cut university education.
Fucking bonkers.
Not cut it. Do it better. Focus funding to courses giving more value. Shorter, more focused courses. Enable students to add more value to themselves while aquiring less debt.
I totally agree with that, but it was not the original argument.
Well if you and I can agree on this we probably have the kernel of an approach which 85% of pb can broadly support.
Too much university education is simply credentialism and a university degree has become a very expensive social signifier.
It seems an astonishing waste of time and money for many.
But the path to improvement lies in not blaming the students themselves, or sneering at them for trying to better themselves (you weren’t doing this).
In the solicitors' profession, the route of training on the job seems a much better one. I honestly don't know what benefit I derived from my law degree, with hindsight. Everything useful I learned has been in practice.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
Not for the first time, HYUFD demonstrates he doesn’t have a fucking clue.
Oh I do, clearly you don't other than to suit your agenda
My agenda is to offer a NZ opinion about the NZ monarchy.
Your agenda is unknown except to your original programmers.
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
You could say the same about the lying in state in London later this week. Even if it gets to 2-3 million who see her it will be a small minority of those in England.
I expect tourists would always be a very modest percentage, particularly in the small towns of Fife or the outer suburbs of Edinburgh.
Nevertheless, it does not demonstrate anything whatsoever about views as to republicanism or otherwise in the population as a whole. Those who are not interested will not be there. So your conclusions are out of kilter.
By the way, it appears that the demonstrations are by members of a formally republican party/organization. Not one I'm familiar with, as it happens.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
Not for the first time, HYUFD demonstrates he doesn’t have a fucking clue.
Oh I do, clearly you don't other than to suit your agenda
My agenda is to offer a NZ opinion about the NZ monarchy.
Your agenda is unknown except to your original programmers.
No, your agenda is to post from New York anti Charles posts. You neither live here nor NZ!!
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
The GG actually performs virtually all the functions of the head of state
The GG is not the head of state, very little attention is given the GG, many NZers could never pick them out in a lineup.
My post was about the monarchy itself.
Stick to topics you know about, ie masturbation etiquette for shared bed-sits.
How do you know, just because it suits your anti Charles rant you rude obnoxious man
I haven’t offered an anti-Charles rant. I suggested he might want to learn some Māori.
If you think that is “anti-Charles” I can see why you are notorious as the site’s resident Tory bukkake robot.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
Not for the first time, HYUFD demonstrates he doesn’t have a fucking clue.
Oh I do, clearly you don't other than to suit your agenda
My agenda is to offer a NZ opinion about the NZ monarchy.
Your agenda is unknown except to your original programmers.
No, your agenda is to post from New York anti Charles posts. You neither live here nor NZ!!
Didn't you ever live away from Epping for a few years when you were younger, perhaps to work, in, say, Newent or Hartlepool? Or to study in, say, Wales? Would you have denied yourself the right to comment on politics in Essex?
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
And I would wander out for a look if I lived on the route despite being fairly lukewarm about the whole thing. This really means nothing.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Well move to somewhere outside Central London then
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
The GG actually performs virtually all the functions of the head of state
The GG is not the head of state, very little attention is given the GG, many NZers could never pick them out in a lineup.
My post was about the monarchy itself.
Stick to topics you know about, ie masturbation etiquette for shared bed-sits.
How do you know, just because it suits your anti Charles rant you rude obnoxious man
I haven’t offered an anti-Charles rant. I suggested he might want to learn some Māori.
If you think that is “anti-Charles” I can see why you are notorious as the site’s resident Tory bukkake robot.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
Not for the first time, HYUFD demonstrates he doesn’t have a fucking clue.
Oh I do, clearly you don't other than to suit your agenda
My agenda is to offer a NZ opinion about the NZ monarchy.
Your agenda is unknown except to your original programmers.
No, your agenda is to post from New York anti Charles posts. You neither live here nor NZ!!
Didn't you ever live away from Epping for a few years when you were younger, perhaps to work, in, say, Newent or Hartlepool? Or to study in, say, Wales? Would you have denied yourself the right to comment on politics in Essex?
I would not have said I was offering an Essex opinion as he claimed he was offering a NZ opinion despite living in New York City!!!!
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
And I would wander out for a look if I lived on the route despite being fairly lukewarm about the whole thing. This really means nothing.
Indeed.The other matter is that the late Queen was one thing; the new King and his reign will be quite another. Another confounding factor.
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
You could say the same about the lying in state in London later this week. Even if it gets to 2-3 million who see her it will be a small minority of those in England.
I expect tourists would always be a very modest percentage, particularly in the small towns of Fife or the outer suburbs of Edinburgh.
I was mildly impressed that there was a fella with a book of condolence in Tesco in Helsby today. Obviously most people aren't going to go to London or Edinburgh. But clearly the demand to mark ths occasion is sufficiently widespread for this to be thought necessary.
On another note, my mother in law, who has just had a knee replacement, is quite delighted with her timing, it having afforded her the opportunity to sit with her knee up doing nothing but watching BBC news. Plenty of people have plenty more appetite still for this sort of thing.
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
You could say the same about the lying in state in London later this week. Even if it gets to 2-3 million who see her it will be a small minority of those in England.
I expect tourists would always be a very modest percentage, particularly in the small towns of Fife or the outer suburbs of Edinburgh.
Nevertheless, it does not demonstrate anything whatsoever about views as to republicanism or otherwise in the population as a whole. Those who are not interested will not be there. So your conclusions are out of kilter.
By the way, it appears that the demonstrations are by members of a formally republican party/organization. Not one I'm familiar with, as it happens.
I think you're trying to dismiss scenes that have surprised you.
re the topic, here's a thought. The single biggest driver of this is the push towards higher education amongst the young and its ripple effect.
We've sold young people a lie, namely that if you get a degree, it's the route to riches. That was always going to be impossible given the natural small number of high paying jobs out there. All we have done is created a sullen class of individuals who are in debt, feel they have been cheated and, worse, because they view themselves as superior in knowledge, believe their views are right and that they must be accommodated to.
In addition, those who didn't go to university are made to feel worthless, shut out of many careers even those such as nursing which they could have done before.
Contrast that with a few decades back. If you left school at 16, you weren't automatically thought a failure. In fact, it was seen as the default in many cases. You found yourself a job and trade, and you made your own life (in many cases).
Reverse this stupid obsession with pushing people to Higher Education.
I often hear this claim that young people were "sold a lie" of university making you rich. Is there any evidence of it? I can't find anything beyond "there is a pay premium to a degree", which was and continues to be true. I don't believe anyone was told the type of degree didn't matter or that you didn't also have to work hard once you had a degree.
I would also disagree that there is a "natural" number of high paying jobs. Whatever pay level you set, there are more jobs above that level and fewer below that level than in 1997, even accounting for inflation. If you compare two countries, the one with higher education levels will almost always have more high paying jobs. Lots of Western countries have chosen Poland as a place for higher skilled back office functions off the back of the number of good graduates vs other Eastern European countries.
Not really.
The problem isn’t the degrees - tons of them are including modules on Business etc to make them (partially) worldly.
When I used to help at a volunteer communal workshop - it was full of frustrated young people in dead end, low paid desk jobs, who frantically wanted to Make Stuff.
Being a sparky would have double the wages for many of them.
Of course it would.
But it is also important to note that you will reach maximum income earlier, and a much lower level than with generalist skills.
The other problem is that in many jobs, what employers (and I speak for myself here) are looking for is maturity.
You are unlikely to have that at 16/18, and even at 21 it's far from a given.
I watched the NZ Accession ceremony earlier and was suddenly struck by the fact that it is essentially unprecedented.
The last accession in 1952 took place when NZ was barely independent and fully identified as part of a family of *British* nations, with the UK (and the Queen) at its head of the family.
NZ just isn’t that country anymore and the risk for monarchists is that they look irrelevant and at worst imperialist if they pretend otherwise.
If the monarchy wants NZ to avoid becoming a republic, it needs to find a way to renew its relevance. It can’t be a just a bunch of eccentric British aristocrats.
It would need to become - as some have hinted above - a conscious guarantor of NZ’s democracy and constitution - embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding “partnership” between Crown and Māori.
Charles needs to start practicing his Māori.
I presume similar dynamics are at play in Canada and even Australia.
Most New Zealanders want to keep the monarchy and the Governor General is Maori. In Canada the Governor General is now Inuk and both PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre wish to keep the monarchy
Very relevant to your point, the Monarch's representative in both New Zealand and Canada is already of indigenous heritage for goodness sake, unthinkable in 1952
It’s not relevant because it doesn’t actually respond to my points.
NZ’s first Māori GG was in 1985 in any case.
And 1985 was still 33 years after 1952.
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
But the GG is not the head of state. Just the local rep in a funny uniform.
Not for the first time, HYUFD demonstrates he doesn’t have a fucking clue.
Oh I do, clearly you don't other than to suit your agenda
My agenda is to offer a NZ opinion about the NZ monarchy.
Your agenda is unknown except to your original programmers.
No, your agenda is to post from New York anti Charles posts. You neither live here nor NZ!!
Didn't you ever live away from Epping for a few years when you were younger, perhaps to work, in, say, Newent or Hartlepool? Or to study in, say, Wales? Would you have denied yourself the right to comment on politics in Essex?
I would not have said I was offering an Essex opinion as he claimed he was offering a NZ opinion despite living in New York City!!!!
How does my living in NYC make me not a New Zealander?
You really have some demented opinions.
Did voting PC (presumably in Wales) make you Welsh?
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
You could say the same about the lying in state in London later this week. Even if it gets to 2-3 million who see her it will be a small minority of those in England.
I expect tourists would always be a very modest percentage, particularly in the small towns of Fife or the outer suburbs of Edinburgh.
Nevertheless, it does not demonstrate anything whatsoever about views as to republicanism or otherwise in the population as a whole. Those who are not interested will not be there. So your conclusions are out of kilter.
By the way, it appears that the demonstrations are by members of a formally republican party/organization. Not one I'm familiar with, as it happens.
I think you're trying to dismiss scenes that have surprised you.
Haven't seen them at all - been busy all day and only now just catching up. Going on your own description, which sounds like what one would expect of the number of royalists and those with more general idle curiosity*.
Actually, it's been mildly interesting in an academic way to get your feedback. What you can't do is draw political conclusions like you have done.
*for instance, from memories of the Olympic torch's circuit.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
That’s precisely my point. Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
A friend of mine has been in Perth for the yarn festival today and drove back to Edinburgh along some of the route before the hearse and there were already loads of people waiting. I haven't seen any of the pictures of it myself, but it will be interesting to hear an estimate of how many people turned out.
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
You could say the same about the lying in state in London later this week. Even if it gets to 2-3 million who see her it will be a small minority of those in England.
I expect tourists would always be a very modest percentage, particularly in the small towns of Fife or the outer suburbs of Edinburgh.
Nevertheless, it does not demonstrate anything whatsoever about views as to republicanism or otherwise in the population as a whole. Those who are not interested will not be there. So your conclusions are out of kilter.
By the way, it appears that the demonstrations are by members of a formally republican party/organization. Not one I'm familiar with, as it happens.
I think you're trying to dismiss scenes that have surprised you.
Haven't seen them at all - been busy all day and only now just catching up. Going on your own description, which sounds like what one would expect of the number of royalists and those with more general idle curiosity.
Actually, it's been mildly interesting in an academic way to get your feedback. What you can't do is draw political conclusions like you have done.
I didn't expect anything like this turnout or reaction from everyday Scots, so it has surprised me too.
But, then, HMQ was half-Scottish, her heart was in Scotland, the monarchy has Scottish roots, and is pledged to defend Scottish institutions as well, so perhaps I shouldn't have been.
Sean_F said: "I'm unconvinced that life is worse for young people than in the sixties, seventies, or eighties.
If you don't vote, there's not much point complaining that things are not to your liking."
In the US, life is worse for young people now than it was in the fifties, sixties, seventies, and eighties -- in some ways. And better in other ways.
The most important way it is worse here is the breakdown of families. A young person is far less to have had two parents in their lives while growing up, than a young person would have in the fifties, and even most of the sixties. And if there is a simple way to cure that breakdown by voting, I don't know what it is. (Choosing leaders who set good examples probably helps, a little.)
There are many ways it is better, most of them due to technological advances. For example, young people's teeth are much better now, thanks to widespread fluoridation. (Interestingly, Portland, Oregon does not fluoridate its water, so that is one place where, in principle, voting could easily make a difference.)
Actually, I don't think your central premise is true:
There are far more two parent families now than there are in the late eighties and early nineties.
Rates for divorce and for teenage pregnancies have collapsed, while the chances of unmarried couples staying together have improved dramatically.
Don't forget, too, that the 1950s (thanks to the war) had a surprisingly large number of one parent families.
So, sure, things are worse than the 60s and 70s, but - equally - they're a lot better than they were.
Liberal Democrats have cancelled their conference.
Both rooms refunded and the taxi cancelled
It is actually pretty serious. The party is likely to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds. All the hotel bookings, train fares etc will apparently have to be paid although negotiations are going on. It seems that the death of the monarch is no reason for insurance to be paid.
Brief guide to the commonly-used party abbreviations, and point on spectrum.
Polling stations have been open for last three weeks and close at 8pm Swedish time tonight (7pm English time).
I might post a little from the results shows, but maybe not staying up all that late, as was at a black tie event til nearly 3 last night and the body is waning.
PR system, with 4% threshold to get into parliament. The main thing to get your head around is that all 8 of the parliamentary parties are “left” in a global context, even the supposed “conservatives”.
Currently 8 parliamentary parties:
Two “Labour” parties:
S - Social Democrats, think centrist/sensible Labour; currently the sole governing party, weak minority government
V - Vänsterpartiet (’Left Party’), formerly the Communists, far-left; back the Social Democrats
One Green party:
MP - Miljöpartiet (’Environment Party’), what it says on the tin, pretty leftist; back the Social Democrats
Two conservative parties:
M - Moderates, think Tory wets; currently the principal Opposition party
KD - Christian Democrats, ultra-liberal Jesus fans when compared to every other Christian political movement; back the Moderates
Two ”Lib Dem” parties:
C - Centre Party, formerly the Agrarians, pro small-business liberals with a greenish tinge, still strongest in rural Sweden; back the Social Democrats
L - Liberals, classic urban liberal party; oppose the Social Democrats
One far-right party:
SD - Sweden Democrats, think BNP-lite/UKIP/Farage, but rarely talk about Europe; bang on about immigration literally non-stop; other policies pretty left wing; back the Moderates
I remember how assured one user here was that Starmer was in fact guilty of the curry incident, oddly we've not heard from him about it recently
I’m pretty sure that the ‘curry’ incident bent the rules a bit, but the police were never going to end Starmer career over it. In hindsight he played a blinder with his ‘I’ll resign’ statement.
It was sold on here by one poster in particular as a million times worse than poor old Boris getting "ambushed by cake" and that Starmer was a hypocrite.
It was at a different time and under different circumstances than Johnson's wrongdoings. Starmer's incident was at a time when we were mainly back at work eating lunch with colleagues. One could argue Starmer was unprofessional drinking alcohol whilst at work, but that wasn't the accusation.
Anyway it matters not a jot as Starmer, for good or ill, is still in post, whilst Johnson is now merely a footnote in history.
I’d have some sympathy for Johnson if it had only been the cake ambush, but it clearly wasn’t. The garden party photos were enough. The culture among the staff was terrible, and he had to take the can for that. And then the lies. It was never going to wash in the end about thinking it was within the rules as the rules came from No 10, ultimately.
The thing is 'tubbs it wasn't just the staff. The evidence is quite clear to all except himself that he too was living it large.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
That’s precisely my point. Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
If they live outside of London and the Home counties they almost certainly can get on the property ladder, certainly by 35
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
I wouldn't dream of working for a magic circle law firm, and I'm glad my wife never did.
The stories I've heard of the bullying and abuse of trainees shocked me to my core.
I love the idea that you since university education is some sort of lie of guaranteed advancement, we should simply cut university education.
Fucking bonkers.
Except that for every other good and service known to mankind, restricting supply tends to push up price
The extremely large number of software developers in Silicon Valley has not resulted in them earning less than their peers. Quite the opposite in fact.
re the topic, here's a thought. The single biggest driver of this is the push towards higher education amongst the young and its ripple effect.
We've sold young people a lie, namely that if you get a degree, it's the route to riches. That was always going to be impossible given the natural small number of high paying jobs out there. All we have done is created a sullen class of individuals who are in debt, feel they have been cheated and, worse, because they view themselves as superior in knowledge, believe their views are right and that they must be accommodated to.
In addition, those who didn't go to university are made to feel worthless, shut out of many careers even those such as nursing which they could have done before.
Contrast that with a few decades back. If you left school at 16, you weren't automatically thought a failure. In fact, it was seen as the default in many cases. You found yourself a job and trade, and you made your own life (in many cases).
Reverse this stupid obsession with pushing people to Higher Education.
You might just as well say "Reverse the second law of thermodynamics" unfortunately.
The problem isn’t university degrees. It is the belief that all university degrees lead to a high paid, pure white collar job.
The problem is the huge waste of resources pouring into quasi-compulsory but largely useless higher education.
"Over their working lives, men will be £130,000 better off on average by going to university after taxes, student loan repayments and foregone earnings are taken into account. For women, this figure is £100,000."
What is your evidence to suggest it is "largely useless"?
If so, that's not a very good return (economically) on a university education.
Yes at first glance I think most people would be better off buying some investments. Maybe a lot better off.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Going back to that stat of a degree being worth about 100k over a lifetime. Passes the sniff test. Look at it another way, it's £2000 a year for 50 years; how big do you want the graduate premium to be?
However, when you compare that with the paper gains to be made by taking out a mortgage... Something's not right.
Catching up on the thread I have been attacked by @Gardenwalker for having to have the temerity to point out the misleading nature of Starmer's 6 month energy offer and by @Mexicanpete over beergate
As far as Starmer and labour are concerned they do not get a free pass and indeed those who are really knowledgeable on the subject have called out the reliance on the windfall tax including @Richard_Tyndall who works in the industry
It is a myth that I said Starmer's beergate was a million miles worse than Johnson and indeed I did not say he was guilty of an offence. Beergate was discussed by many on here and it was entirely appropriate Durham Police investigated it and I'm sure nobody questions their decision
I do find at times this forum is almost like a NEC meeting with no tolerance of dissenting views of Starmer and labour, and I am sure that would be a terrible thing to happen
I sought Johnson's loss of office for months and finally now Truss is PM of course I support her and will not give Starmer or labour a free pass
I do my best to be honest and if wrong I do apologise
Maybe I do not need to defend myself but things were said this pm when I was not present that were personal and an exaggeration so I wanted to put the record straight
No harm in being Chief PB Cheerleader for Truss. Some of the rest of us are not quite on that page yet.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Indeed, I don't reckon any lawyers will become QCs in my lifetime.
re the topic, here's a thought. The single biggest driver of this is the push towards higher education amongst the young and its ripple effect.
We've sold young people a lie, namely that if you get a degree, it's the route to riches. That was always going to be impossible given the natural small number of high paying jobs out there. All we have done is created a sullen class of individuals who are in debt, feel they have been cheated and, worse, because they view themselves as superior in knowledge, believe their views are right and that they must be accommodated to.
In addition, those who didn't go to university are made to feel worthless, shut out of many careers even those such as nursing which they could have done before.
Contrast that with a few decades back. If you left school at 16, you weren't automatically thought a failure. In fact, it was seen as the default in many cases. You found yourself a job and trade, and you made your own life (in many cases).
Reverse this stupid obsession with pushing people to Higher Education.
You might just as well say "Reverse the second law of thermodynamics" unfortunately.
The problem isn’t university degrees. It is the belief that all university degrees lead to a high paid, pure white collar job.
There are now many more mixed-mode jobs , requiring both intellectual and physical skills. In addition the pay and social class issues against such jobs have greatly changed.
As someone actually in that generation, university isn't seen by young people as some kind of pathway to easy money, it's pretty much a basic requirement for most jobs beyond stacking shelves or delivering takeaways. If you want to be a police officer, teacher, civil servant, accountant, whatever, you need a degree. If you don't have a degree, you'll be at a disadvantage when applying for work compared to the 50% of your cohort who do.
Certainly so. I have a nephew who did an apprenticeship in IT, as he never liked the bookstuff. He is industrious and punctual, good with customers and has a sound knowledge base.
In his company he is being overlooked for promotion in favour of graduates who keep overtaking him. He is thinking of going to Uni after all.
Is he in London? I suggest he move companies. I employed many IT people in my time and never gave a fuck about their education.
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
You could say the same about the lying in state in London later this week. Even if it gets to 2-3 million who see her it will be a small minority of those in England.
I expect tourists would always be a very modest percentage, particularly in the small towns of Fife or the outer suburbs of Edinburgh.
Nevertheless, it does not demonstrate anything whatsoever about views as to republicanism or otherwise in the population as a whole. Those who are not interested will not be there. So your conclusions are out of kilter.
By the way, it appears that the demonstrations are by members of a formally republican party/organization. Not one I'm familiar with, as it happens.
I think you're trying to dismiss scenes that have surprised you.
Haven't seen them at all - been busy all day and only now just catching up. Going on your own description, which sounds like what one would expect of the number of royalists and those with more general idle curiosity.
Actually, it's been mildly interesting in an academic way to get your feedback. What you can't do is draw political conclusions like you have done.
I didn't expect anything like this turnout or reaction from everyday Scots, so it has surprised me too.
But, then, HMQ was half-Scottish, her heart was in Scotland, the monarchy has Scottish roots, and is pledged to defend Scottish institutions as well, so perhaps I shouldn't have been.
Actually, I am not surprised at the [edit] crowds - whatever the counts tdurn out to be, don't think that has been done?. My own ball park estimate ab initio would be about 300k at 1% of the population within an easy day trip of the route - which is say half of the Scottish population (and more for these who make more of an effort). Could be 2-3% easily, though.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
Yes, of course they can get on the property ladder if they are not selective. In central London, a well paid professional without parental support who lives frugally and saves with discipline will by their mid thirties be able to afford the kind of very small flat that is provided by the state as social housing for those without sufficient income to pay market rent. That is hardly much of an incentive to feel included in the economy.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Indeed, I don't reckon any lawyers will become QCs in my lifetime.
True, though whether KC or QC you get paid the same
re the topic, here's a thought. The single biggest driver of this is the push towards higher education amongst the young and its ripple effect.
We've sold young people a lie, namely that if you get a degree, it's the route to riches. That was always going to be impossible given the natural small number of high paying jobs out there. All we have done is created a sullen class of individuals who are in debt, feel they have been cheated and, worse, because they view themselves as superior in knowledge, believe their views are right and that they must be accommodated to.
In addition, those who didn't go to university are made to feel worthless, shut out of many careers even those such as nursing which they could have done before.
Contrast that with a few decades back. If you left school at 16, you weren't automatically thought a failure. In fact, it was seen as the default in many cases. You found yourself a job and trade, and you made your own life (in many cases).
Reverse this stupid obsession with pushing people to Higher Education.
You might just as well say "Reverse the second law of thermodynamics" unfortunately.
The problem isn’t university degrees. It is the belief that all university degrees lead to a high paid, pure white collar job.
There are now many more mixed-mode jobs , requiring both intellectual and physical skills. In addition the pay and social class issues against such jobs have greatly changed.
As someone actually in that generation, university isn't seen by young people as some kind of pathway to easy money, it's pretty much a basic requirement for most jobs beyond stacking shelves or delivering takeaways. If you want to be a police officer, teacher, civil servant, accountant, whatever, you need a degree. If you don't have a degree, you'll be at a disadvantage when applying for work compared to the 50% of your cohort who do.
That's the problem in a nutshell.
Go back even 30 years ago, there were many jobs that offered a decent career where you didn't need a degree.
Hell, go back further and, with jobs like accountancy and law, it was not uncommon for people to leave school at 16, start at the bottom and then become partners. As others have said, for many jobs, it's on the job learning that counts.
That's all gone. Now, as you said, to even be considered, you need a degree. It's become a negative motivating factor, rather than a positive ie you need to have one to avoid being blocked, not because it gives you an inherent advantage.
And I understand completely why young people today need to do one.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
That’s precisely my point. Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
If they live outside of London and the Home counties they almost certainly can get on the property ladder, certainly by 35
"Think critically" = everyone should think like me.
Perhaps if the Government did something for young people like built houses or sorted out tuition fees and transport costs, perhaps they'd be more willing to vote for you and listen to what you say. Instead you condescend and tell us we're all brainwashed wokies and we like to eat avocados on toast.
I can’t say I’m overly shocked at the turnout for the procession either: it was always going to be a large turnout. I’m not sure I would have expected any different.
Catching up on the thread I have been attacked by @Gardenwalker for having to have the temerity to point out the misleading nature of Starmer's 6 month energy offer and by @Mexicanpete over beergate
As far as Starmer and labour are concerned they do not get a free pass and indeed those who are really knowledgeable on the subject have called out the reliance on the windfall tax including @Richard_Tyndall who works in the industry
It is a myth that I said Starmer's beergate was a million miles worse than Johnson and indeed I did not say he was guilty of an offence. Beergate was discussed by many on here and it was entirely appropriate Durham Police investigated it and I'm sure nobody questions their decision
I do find at times this forum is almost like a NEC meeting with no tolerance of dissenting views of Starmer and labour, and I am sure that would be a terrible thing to happen
I sought Johnson's loss of office for months and finally now Truss is PM of course I support her and will not give Starmer or labour a free pass
I do my best to be honest and if wrong I do apologise
Maybe I do not need to defend myself but things were said this pm when I was not present that were personal and an exaggeration so I wanted to put the record straight
No harm in being Chief PB Cheerleader for Truss. Some of the rest of us are not quite on that page yet.
I would be very surprised if you were but debate on here should be vigorous and reasoned but nobody demanded Johnson eviction over the last six months more and most everyone of us are relieved (I can think of one notable exception) he is gone and we have a functioning government and opposition with 2 capable leaders
I love the idea that you since university education is some sort of lie of guaranteed advancement, we should simply cut university education.
Fucking bonkers.
Except that for every other good and service known to mankind, restricting supply tends to push up price
The extremely large number of software developers in Silicon Valley has not resulted in them earning less than their peers. Quite the opposite in fact.
Mainly helped by VC and PE ploughing money into any old firm that says it's a Tech company. Now that interest rates are rising and the era of free money is dead, I suspect many of those developers are going to struggle.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
That’s precisely my point. Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
If they live outside of London and the Home counties they almost certainly can get on the property ladder, certainly by 35
Property in Gainsborough is quite cheap 👍
Bit difficult to be a London solicitor, though, when living there.
A bit of class by Princess Anne with a deep curtsey as the coffin with her mother entered Holyrood.
Anne is a class act.
Yes she is.
A few random thoughts having watched just the last bit: -
1. How beautiful is Edinburgh. 2. The tractors all lined up in a field. Surprisingly touching. 3. The quietness of the crowds. There was a restraint very appropriate for HMQ. 4. Very few people making the sign of the cross. I realise this is the Italian Catholic in me but I was taught that when you see a funeral cortège that's what you do and I always have done. Not a criticism of those not doing it. Just something I noticed. 5. The commendable self-discipline of the police officers with their backs to the cortège and not turning round to get a look.
And, finally, everyone raising their phones. I really do not get this. Why not experience the moment rather than think you can only experience it by trying to capture it (badly) on something the size of a postage stamp which I'll bet no-one ever looks at again.
re the topic, here's a thought. The single biggest driver of this is the push towards higher education amongst the young and its ripple effect.
We've sold young people a lie, namely that if you get a degree, it's the route to riches. That was always going to be impossible given the natural small number of high paying jobs out there. All we have done is created a sullen class of individuals who are in debt, feel they have been cheated and, worse, because they view themselves as superior in knowledge, believe their views are right and that they must be accommodated to.
In addition, those who didn't go to university are made to feel worthless, shut out of many careers even those such as nursing which they could have done before.
Contrast that with a few decades back. If you left school at 16, you weren't automatically thought a failure. In fact, it was seen as the default in many cases. You found yourself a job and trade, and you made your own life (in many cases).
Reverse this stupid obsession with pushing people to Higher Education.
You might just as well say "Reverse the second law of thermodynamics" unfortunately.
The problem isn’t university degrees. It is the belief that all university degrees lead to a high paid, pure white collar job.
There are now many more mixed-mode jobs , requiring both intellectual and physical skills. In addition the pay and social class issues against such jobs have greatly changed.
As someone actually in that generation, university isn't seen by young people as some kind of pathway to easy money, it's pretty much a basic requirement for most jobs beyond stacking shelves or delivering takeaways. If you want to be a police officer, teacher, civil servant, accountant, whatever, you need a degree. If you don't have a degree, you'll be at a disadvantage when applying for work compared to the 50% of your cohort who do.
Certainly so. I have a nephew who did an apprenticeship in IT, as he never liked the bookstuff. He is industrious and punctual, good with customers and has a sound knowledge base.
In his company he is being overlooked for promotion in favour of graduates who keep overtaking him. He is thinking of going to Uni after all.
Is he in London? I suggest he move companies. I employed many IT people in my time and never gave a fuck about their education.
(Although I did for other roles).
Yes, works in the Smoke.
Strange. In my 40 years experience as a non-graduate working in IT, education qualifications never counted for anything.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Any realistic increase in building won't fix affordability in less than a generation, as it will only add an extra small fraction of a % each year to supply. IMO the larger problem is with a broken market which allows a house to be a tax free investment.
Given that rents have been falling relative to CPI inflation for years and years - according to the official surveys of what people actually pay, rather than the advertised rentals for the 0.x% of properties currently on the market used by media outrage-bots for their articles, I'm quite skeptical about the affordability claim. Perhaps London is a outlier, but then London is always a outlier.
Catching up on the thread I have been attacked by @Gardenwalker for having to have the temerity to point out the misleading nature of Starmer's 6 month energy offer and by @Mexicanpete over beergate
As far as Starmer and labour are concerned they do not get a free pass and indeed those who are really knowledgeable on the subject have called out the reliance on the windfall tax including @Richard_Tyndall who works in the industry
It is a myth that I said Starmer's beergate was a million miles worse than Johnson and indeed I did not say he was guilty of an offence. Beergate was discussed by many on here and it was entirely appropriate Durham Police investigated it and I'm sure nobody questions their decision
I do find at times this forum is almost like a NEC meeting with no tolerance of dissenting views of Starmer and labour, and I am sure that would be a terrible thing to happen
I sought Johnson's loss of office for months and finally now Truss is PM of course I support her and will not give Starmer or labour a free pass
I do my best to be honest and if wrong I do apologise
Maybe I do not need to defend myself but things were said this pm when I was not present that were personal and an exaggeration so I wanted to put the record straight
No harm in being Chief PB Cheerleader for Truss. Some of the rest of us are not quite on that page yet.
It's hilarious to read the ramping after her being PM for less than a week!
Remember this lot saying they might vote Labour! ROFL
A bit of class by Princess Anne with a deep curtsey as the coffin with her mother entered Holyrood.
Anne is a class act.
Yes she is.
A few random thoughts having watched just the last bit: -
1. How beautiful is Edinburgh. 2. The tractors all lined up in a field. Surprisingly touching. 3. The quietness of the crowds. There was a restraint very appropriate for HMQ. 4. Very few people making the sign of the cross. I realise this is the Italian Catholic in me but I was taught that when you see a funeral cortège that's what you do and I always have done. Not a criticism of those not doing it. Just something I noticed. 5. The commendable self-discipline of the police officers with their backs to the cortège and not turning round to get a look.
And, finally, everyone raising their phones. I really do not get this. Why not experience the moment rather than think you can only experience it by trying to capture it (badly) on something the size of a postage stamp which I'll bet no-one ever looks at again.
Probably I'm showing my age .....
It is rather strange watching it and remembering it was just round the corner from St Giles I joined Edinburgh City Police in late 1964, and I said exactly the comments in your last paragraph to my wife
I love the idea that you since university education is some sort of lie of guaranteed advancement, we should simply cut university education.
Fucking bonkers.
Not cut it. Do it better. Focus funding to courses giving more value. Shorter, more focused courses. Enable students to add more value to themselves while aquiring less debt.
I totally agree with that, but it was not the original argument.
Well if you and I can agree on this we probably have the kernel of an approach which 85% of pb can broadly support.
How would that proposal be instantiated? Things like 2 year degrees?
I love the idea that you since university education is some sort of lie of guaranteed advancement, we should simply cut university education.
Fucking bonkers.
Except that for every other good and service known to mankind, restricting supply tends to push up price
The extremely large number of software developers in Silicon Valley has not resulted in them earning less than their peers. Quite the opposite in fact.
Mainly helped by VC and PE ploughing money into any old firm that says it's a Tech company. Now that interest rates are rising and the era of free money is dead, I suspect many of those developers are going to struggle.
I suspect they will struggle less than those without a university education.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
That’s precisely my point. Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
If they live outside of London and the Home counties they almost certainly can get on the property ladder, certainly by 35
Property in Gainsborough is quite cheap 👍
Bit difficult to be a London solicitor, though, when living there.
Perfectly possible to be a Gainsborough solicitor though
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
That’s precisely my point. Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
If they live outside of London and the Home counties they almost certainly can get on the property ladder, certainly by 35
Property in Gainsborough is quite cheap 👍
Bit difficult to be a London solicitor, though, when living there.
Perfectly possible to be a Gainsborough solicitor though
But not to be a London solicitor, which is the point. Don't you lot in Epping need solicitors when you rob banks, are fitted up by the police, sell dodgy whelks, etc. etc.?
Catching up on the thread I have been attacked by @Gardenwalker for having to have the temerity to point out the misleading nature of Starmer's 6 month energy offer and by @Mexicanpete over beergate
As far as Starmer and labour are concerned they do not get a free pass and indeed those who are really knowledgeable on the subject have called out the reliance on the windfall tax including @Richard_Tyndall who works in the industry
It is a myth that I said Starmer's beergate was a million miles worse than Johnson and indeed I did not say he was guilty of an offence. Beergate was discussed by many on here and it was entirely appropriate Durham Police investigated it and I'm sure nobody questions their decision
I do find at times this forum is almost like a NEC meeting with no tolerance of dissenting views of Starmer and labour, and I am sure that would be a terrible thing to happen
I sought Johnson's loss of office for months and finally now Truss is PM of course I support her and will not give Starmer or labour a free pass
I do my best to be honest and if wrong I do apologise
Maybe I do not need to defend myself but things were said this pm when I was not present that were personal and an exaggeration so I wanted to put the record straight
No harm in being Chief PB Cheerleader for Truss. Some of the rest of us are not quite on that page yet.
It's hilarious to read the ramping after her being PM for less than a week!
Remember this lot saying they might vote Labour! ROFL
I did vote Labour previously and talking of ramping is surreal coming from Starmer's chief of ramping on here
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
You could say the same about the lying in state in London later this week. Even if it gets to 2-3 million who see her it will be a small minority of those in England.
I expect tourists would always be a very modest percentage, particularly in the small towns of Fife or the outer suburbs of Edinburgh.
Nevertheless, it does not demonstrate anything whatsoever about views as to republicanism or otherwise in the population as a whole. Those who are not interested will not be there. So your conclusions are out of kilter.
By the way, it appears that the demonstrations are by members of a formally republican party/organization. Not one I'm familiar with, as it happens.
I think you're trying to dismiss scenes that have surprised you.
Haven't seen them at all - been busy all day and only now just catching up. Going on your own description, which sounds like what one would expect of the number of royalists and those with more general idle curiosity.
Actually, it's been mildly interesting in an academic way to get your feedback. What you can't do is draw political conclusions like you have done.
I didn't expect anything like this turnout or reaction from everyday Scots, so it has surprised me too.
But, then, HMQ was half-Scottish, her heart was in Scotland, the monarchy has Scottish roots, and is pledged to defend Scottish institutions as well, so perhaps I shouldn't have been.
Actually, I am not surprised at the [edit] crowds - whatever the counts tdurn out to be, don't think that has been done?. My own ball park estimate ab initio would be about 300k at 1% of the population within an easy day trip of the route - which is say half of the Scottish population (and more for these who make more of an effort). Could be 2-3% easily, though.
300k would be about 10% of the population within an easy day trip.
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
You could say the same about the lying in state in London later this week. Even if it gets to 2-3 million who see her it will be a small minority of those in England.
I expect tourists would always be a very modest percentage, particularly in the small towns of Fife or the outer suburbs of Edinburgh.
Nevertheless, it does not demonstrate anything whatsoever about views as to republicanism or otherwise in the population as a whole. Those who are not interested will not be there. So your conclusions are out of kilter.
By the way, it appears that the demonstrations are by members of a formally republican party/organization. Not one I'm familiar with, as it happens.
I think you're trying to dismiss scenes that have surprised you.
Haven't seen them at all - been busy all day and only now just catching up. Going on your own description, which sounds like what one would expect of the number of royalists and those with more general idle curiosity.
Actually, it's been mildly interesting in an academic way to get your feedback. What you can't do is draw political conclusions like you have done.
I didn't expect anything like this turnout or reaction from everyday Scots, so it has surprised me too.
But, then, HMQ was half-Scottish, her heart was in Scotland, the monarchy has Scottish roots, and is pledged to defend Scottish institutions as well, so perhaps I shouldn't have been.
Nicola Sturgeon was her, and is now the King’s, first minister. The FM is elected by parliament, but appointed by the sovereign, just as the London PM.
Catching up on the thread I have been attacked by @Gardenwalker for having to have the temerity to point out the misleading nature of Starmer's 6 month energy offer and by @Mexicanpete over beergate
As far as Starmer and labour are concerned they do not get a free pass and indeed those who are really knowledgeable on the subject have called out the reliance on the windfall tax including @Richard_Tyndall who works in the industry
It is a myth that I said Starmer's beergate was a million miles worse than Johnson and indeed I did not say he was guilty of an offence. Beergate was discussed by many on here and it was entirely appropriate Durham Police investigated it and I'm sure nobody questions their decision
I do find at times this forum is almost like a NEC meeting with no tolerance of dissenting views of Starmer and labour, and I am sure that would be a terrible thing to happen
I sought Johnson's loss of office for months and finally now Truss is PM of course I support her and will not give Starmer or labour a free pass
I do my best to be honest and if wrong I do apologise
Maybe I do not need to defend myself but things were said this pm when I was not present that were personal and an exaggeration so I wanted to put the record straight
No harm in being Chief PB Cheerleader for Truss. Some of the rest of us are not quite on that page yet.
It's hilarious to read the ramping after her being PM for less than a week!
Remember this lot saying they might vote Labour! ROFL
I did vote Labour previously and talking of ramping is surreal coming from Starmer's chief of ramping on here
Are you going to apologise for abusing me yesterday yet?
re the topic, here's a thought. The single biggest driver of this is the push towards higher education amongst the young and its ripple effect.
We've sold young people a lie, namely that if you get a degree, it's the route to riches. That was always going to be impossible given the natural small number of high paying jobs out there. All we have done is created a sullen class of individuals who are in debt, feel they have been cheated and, worse, because they view themselves as superior in knowledge, believe their views are right and that they must be accommodated to.
In addition, those who didn't go to university are made to feel worthless, shut out of many careers even those such as nursing which they could have done before.
Contrast that with a few decades back. If you left school at 16, you weren't automatically thought a failure. In fact, it was seen as the default in many cases. You found yourself a job and trade, and you made your own life (in many cases).
Reverse this stupid obsession with pushing people to Higher Education.
You might just as well say "Reverse the second law of thermodynamics" unfortunately.
The problem isn’t university degrees. It is the belief that all university degrees lead to a high paid, pure white collar job.
The problem is the huge waste of resources pouring into quasi-compulsory but largely useless higher education.
"Over their working lives, men will be £130,000 better off on average by going to university after taxes, student loan repayments and foregone earnings are taken into account. For women, this figure is £100,000."
What is your evidence to suggest it is "largely useless"?
If so, that's not a very good return (economically) on a university education.
Yes at first glance I think most people would be better off buying some investments. Maybe a lot better off.
Except those numbers are net of tuition fees. And the state doesn't generally give you a subsidized loan for your derivatives portfolio.
re the topic, here's a thought. The single biggest driver of this is the push towards higher education amongst the young and its ripple effect.
We've sold young people a lie, namely that if you get a degree, it's the route to riches. That was always going to be impossible given the natural small number of high paying jobs out there. All we have done is created a sullen class of individuals who are in debt, feel they have been cheated and, worse, because they view themselves as superior in knowledge, believe their views are right and that they must be accommodated to.
In addition, those who didn't go to university are made to feel worthless, shut out of many careers even those such as nursing which they could have done before.
Contrast that with a few decades back. If you left school at 16, you weren't automatically thought a failure. In fact, it was seen as the default in many cases. You found yourself a job and trade, and you made your own life (in many cases).
Reverse this stupid obsession with pushing people to Higher Education.
You might just as well say "Reverse the second law of thermodynamics" unfortunately.
The problem isn’t university degrees. It is the belief that all university degrees lead to a high paid, pure white collar job.
There are now many more mixed-mode jobs , requiring both intellectual and physical skills. In addition the pay and social class issues against such jobs have greatly changed.
As someone actually in that generation, university isn't seen by young people as some kind of pathway to easy money, it's pretty much a basic requirement for most jobs beyond stacking shelves or delivering takeaways. If you want to be a police officer, teacher, civil servant, accountant, whatever, you need a degree. If you don't have a degree, you'll be at a disadvantage when applying for work compared to the 50% of your cohort who do.
That's the problem in a nutshell.
Go back even 30 years ago, there were many jobs that offered a decent career where you didn't need a degree.
Hell, go back further and, with jobs like accountancy and law, it was not uncommon for people to leave school at 16, start at the bottom and then become partners. As others have said, for many jobs, it's on the job learning that counts.
That's all gone. Now, as you said, to even be considered, you need a degree. It's become a negative motivating factor, rather than a positive ie you need to have one to avoid being blocked, not because it gives you an inherent advantage.
And I understand completely why young people today need to do one.
And so we throw a huge amount of resources down the drain - resources that are sorely needed for more worthwhile things (not least retraining people later in their careers) - in giving so many young people three years of (for the most part) utterly irrelevant higher education, because we've trapped ourselves in a vicious circle - in which people are arbitrarily ruled out of 50% of careers, not because they lack aptitude or ability, but purely because they haven't spent three years of their lives in higher education.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
That’s precisely my point. Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
If they live outside of London and the Home counties they almost certainly can get on the property ladder, certainly by 35
Property in Gainsborough is quite cheap 👍
Bit difficult to be a London solicitor, though, when living there.
Perfectly possible to be a Gainsborough solicitor though
But not to be a London solicitor, which is the point. Don't you lot in Epping need solicitors when you rob banks, are fitted up by the police, sell dodgy whelks, etc. etc.?
If you want to live as well as work in London, then yes you get to live in the biggest global city in Western Europe but you also have to accept the high prices that come with that
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
That’s precisely my point. Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
If they live outside of London and the Home counties they almost certainly can get on the property ladder, certainly by 35
Property in Gainsborough is quite cheap 👍
Bit difficult to be a London solicitor, though, when living there.
Perfectly possible to be a Gainsborough solicitor though
Does that not bring us back to the point that no one actually has a number for the age of an FTB in the UK. There is so much data with such variations as to be almost meaningless. I would love to know how old the median FTB happens to be, and where affordability lies given that lending terms have changed significantly even in the last 25 years.
Catching up on the thread I have been attacked by @Gardenwalker for having to have the temerity to point out the misleading nature of Starmer's 6 month energy offer and by @Mexicanpete over beergate
As far as Starmer and labour are concerned they do not get a free pass and indeed those who are really knowledgeable on the subject have called out the reliance on the windfall tax including @Richard_Tyndall who works in the industry
It is a myth that I said Starmer's beergate was a million miles worse than Johnson and indeed I did not say he was guilty of an offence. Beergate was discussed by many on here and it was entirely appropriate Durham Police investigated it and I'm sure nobody questions their decision
I do find at times this forum is almost like a NEC meeting with no tolerance of dissenting views of Starmer and labour, and I am sure that would be a terrible thing to happen
I sought Johnson's loss of office for months and finally now Truss is PM of course I support her and will not give Starmer or labour a free pass
I do my best to be honest and if wrong I do apologise
Maybe I do not need to defend myself but things were said this pm when I was not present that were personal and an exaggeration so I wanted to put the record straight
No harm in being Chief PB Cheerleader for Truss. Some of the rest of us are not quite on that page yet.
It's hilarious to read the ramping after her being PM for less than a week!
Remember this lot saying they might vote Labour! ROFL
Credit where it is true. Truss has been solid since the death of the Queen. I wouldn't vote for her but she is doing fine under difficult circumstance.
Johnson must have been hoping Truss would fall on her arse and he would be called back to put the show back on the road (temporarily) for the funeral. She hasn't.
Imagine the distaste the Queen must have had for Johnson's tomfoolery that she made it over the line to avert the humiliation he would undoubtedly have dealt her and the nation.
A bit of class by Princess Anne with a deep curtsey as the coffin with her mother entered Holyrood.
Anne is a class act.
Yes she is.
A few random thoughts having watched just the last bit: -
1. How beautiful is Edinburgh. 2. The tractors all lined up in a field. Surprisingly touching. 3. The quietness of the crowds. There was a restraint very appropriate for HMQ. 4. Very few people making the sign of the cross. I realise this is the Italian Catholic in me but I was taught that when you see a funeral cortège that's what you do and I always have done. Not a criticism of those not doing it. Just something I noticed. 5. The commendable self-discipline of the police officers with their backs to the cortège and not turning round to get a look.
And, finally, everyone raising their phones. I really do not get this. Why not experience the moment rather than think you can only experience it by trying to capture it (badly) on something the size of a postage stamp which I'll bet no-one ever looks at again.
Probably I'm showing my age .....
The thing with phones is really odd. I went to an End Sheeran concert at Wembley recently and so many of the audience seemed to spend most of the concert looking at it through their phones then presumably posting stuff immediately on social media rather than just looking directly at the concert!
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Any realistic increase in building won't fix affordability in less than a generation, as it will only add an extra small fraction of a % each year to supply. IMO the larger problem is with a broken market which allows a house to be a tax free investment.
Given that rents have been falling relative to CPI inflation for years and years - according to the official surveys of what people actually pay, rather than the advertised rentals for the 0.x% of properties currently on the market used by media outrage-bots for their articles, I'm quite skeptical about the affordability claim. Perhaps London is a outlier, but then London is always a outlier.
I am not sure it's a planning issue either. Developers get planning permission for a scheme, but that doesn't mean it gets built, the units sold for whatever they can reach, then the developer moves on and builds another. What they actually do is self the properties off plan, or build a couple of units, and down tools and lay the builders off if they don't sell. So schemes are built slowly and the price stay high.
A bit of class by Princess Anne with a deep curtsey as the coffin with her mother entered Holyrood.
Anne is a class act.
Yes she is.
A few random thoughts having watched just the last bit: -
1. How beautiful is Edinburgh. 2. The tractors all lined up in a field. Surprisingly touching. 3. The quietness of the crowds. There was a restraint very appropriate for HMQ. 4. Very few people making the sign of the cross. I realise this is the Italian Catholic in me but I was taught that when you see a funeral cortège that's what you do and I always have done. Not a criticism of those not doing it. Just something I noticed. 5. The commendable self-discipline of the police officers with their backs to the cortège and not turning round to get a look.
And, finally, everyone raising their phones. I really do not get this. Why not experience the moment rather than think you can only experience it by trying to capture it (badly) on something the size of a postage stamp which I'll bet no-one ever looks at again.
Probably I'm showing my age .....
The thing with phones is really odd. I went to an End Sheeran concert at Wembley recently and so many of the audience seemed to spend most of the concert looking at it through their phones then presumably posting stuff immediately on social media rather than just looking directly at the concert!
Er 'Ed' Sheeran, I don't know how to edit on my basic phone! 😀
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
That’s precisely my point. Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
If they live outside of London and the Home counties they almost certainly can get on the property ladder, certainly by 35
Property in Gainsborough is quite cheap 👍
Bit difficult to be a London solicitor, though, when living there.
Perfectly possible to be a Gainsborough solicitor though
But not to be a London solicitor, which is the point. Don't you lot in Epping need solicitors when you rob banks, are fitted up by the police, sell dodgy whelks, etc. etc.?
If you want to live as well as work in London, then yes you get to live in the biggest global city in Western Europe but you also have to accept the high prices that come with that
We have to pay the prices but we don't have to accept that they are inevitable. We can campaign for increased taxes on non resident foreign buyers, an end to government schemes designed to prop up house prices and a return to normal interest rates.
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Any realistic increase in building won't fix affordability in less than a generation, as it will only add an extra small fraction of a % each year to supply. IMO the larger problem is with a broken market which allows a house to be a tax free investment.
Given that rents have been falling relative to CPI inflation for years and years - according to the official surveys of what people actually pay, rather than the advertised rentals for the 0.x% of properties currently on the market used by media outrage-bots for their articles, I'm quite skeptical about the affordability claim. Perhaps London is a outlier, but then London is always a outlier.
British houses are amongst the smallest in the West. There’s huge latent demand for housing which cannot be serviced.
Supply is the core problem, but I agree that interest rates and the tax system present as the nearest and most addressable issues.
Catching up on the thread I have been attacked by @Gardenwalker for having to have the temerity to point out the misleading nature of Starmer's 6 month energy offer and by @Mexicanpete over beergate
As far as Starmer and labour are concerned they do not get a free pass and indeed those who are really knowledgeable on the subject have called out the reliance on the windfall tax including @Richard_Tyndall who works in the industry
It is a myth that I said Starmer's beergate was a million miles worse than Johnson and indeed I did not say he was guilty of an offence. Beergate was discussed by many on here and it was entirely appropriate Durham Police investigated it and I'm sure nobody questions their decision
I do find at times this forum is almost like a NEC meeting with no tolerance of dissenting views of Starmer and labour, and I am sure that would be a terrible thing to happen
I sought Johnson's loss of office for months and finally now Truss is PM of course I support her and will not give Starmer or labour a free pass
I do my best to be honest and if wrong I do apologise
Maybe I do not need to defend myself but things were said this pm when I was not present that were personal and an exaggeration so I wanted to put the record straight
No harm in being Chief PB Cheerleader for Truss. Some of the rest of us are not quite on that page yet.
It's hilarious to read the ramping after her being PM for less than a week!
Remember this lot saying they might vote Labour! ROFL
I did vote Labour previously and talking of ramping is surreal coming from Starmer's chief of ramping on here
Are you going to apologise for abusing me yesterday yet?
I may have liked a critical comment of you from @ISHMAELZ but then you have said far worse in your time
I suggest we leave this conversation here before other posters tell us to
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
That’s precisely my point. Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
If they live outside of London and the Home counties they almost certainly can get on the property ladder, certainly by 35
Property in Gainsborough is quite cheap 👍
Bit difficult to be a London solicitor, though, when living there.
Perfectly possible to be a Gainsborough solicitor though
But not to be a London solicitor, which is the point. Don't you lot in Epping need solicitors when you rob banks, are fitted up by the police, sell dodgy whelks, etc. etc.?
If you want to live as well as work in London, then yes you get to live in the biggest global city in Western Europe but you also have to accept the high prices that come with that
These crowds are vast, and outside of one or two mad Nits in Edinburgh (roundly jeered by others) there have been no protests.
Self-selected. But also, not a matter of current political debate anyway.
I'm seeing tens of thousands of Scots lining the route two to three deep along the whole route from Balmoral to Edinburgh, which is hundreds of miles long. These are not just a few die-hards.
What are you seeing?
About five million and more who aren't there.
Edit: Also, 'Scots' is not observationally demonstrable. Many will be tourists.
You could say the same about the lying in state in London later this week. Even if it gets to 2-3 million who see her it will be a small minority of those in England.
I expect tourists would always be a very modest percentage, particularly in the small towns of Fife or the outer suburbs of Edinburgh.
Nevertheless, it does not demonstrate anything whatsoever about views as to republicanism or otherwise in the population as a whole. Those who are not interested will not be there. So your conclusions are out of kilter.
By the way, it appears that the demonstrations are by members of a formally republican party/organization. Not one I'm familiar with, as it happens.
I think you're trying to dismiss scenes that have surprised you.
Haven't seen them at all - been busy all day and only now just catching up. Going on your own description, which sounds like what one would expect of the number of royalists and those with more general idle curiosity.
Actually, it's been mildly interesting in an academic way to get your feedback. What you can't do is draw political conclusions like you have done.
I didn't expect anything like this turnout or reaction from everyday Scots, so it has surprised me too.
But, then, HMQ was half-Scottish, her heart was in Scotland, the monarchy has Scottish roots, and is pledged to defend Scottish institutions as well, so perhaps I shouldn't have been.
Actually, I am not surprised at the [edit] crowds - whatever the counts tdurn out to be, don't think that has been done?. My own ball park estimate ab initio would be about 300k at 1% of the population within an easy day trip of the route - which is say half of the Scottish population (and more for these who make more of an effort). Could be 2-3% easily, though.
300k would be about 10% of the population within an easy day trip.
Catching up on the thread I have been attacked by @Gardenwalker for having to have the temerity to point out the misleading nature of Starmer's 6 month energy offer and by @Mexicanpete over beergate
As far as Starmer and labour are concerned they do not get a free pass and indeed those who are really knowledgeable on the subject have called out the reliance on the windfall tax including @Richard_Tyndall who works in the industry
It is a myth that I said Starmer's beergate was a million miles worse than Johnson and indeed I did not say he was guilty of an offence. Beergate was discussed by many on here and it was entirely appropriate Durham Police investigated it and I'm sure nobody questions their decision
I do find at times this forum is almost like a NEC meeting with no tolerance of dissenting views of Starmer and labour, and I am sure that would be a terrible thing to happen
I sought Johnson's loss of office for months and finally now Truss is PM of course I support her and will not give Starmer or labour a free pass
I do my best to be honest and if wrong I do apologise
Maybe I do not need to defend myself but things were said this pm when I was not present that were personal and an exaggeration so I wanted to put the record straight
No harm in being Chief PB Cheerleader for Truss. Some of the rest of us are not quite on that page yet.
It's hilarious to read the ramping after her being PM for less than a week!
Remember this lot saying they might vote Labour! ROFL
I did vote Labour previously and talking of ramping is surreal coming from Starmer's chief of ramping on here
Are you going to apologise for abusing me yesterday yet?
I may have liked a critical comment of you from @ISHMAELZ but then you have said far worse in your time
I suggest we leave this conversation here before other posters tell us to
Anyway there is a very basic reason why young people are disillusioned, it's because Thatcher's model of a capitalist property-owning democracy doesn't apply to them.
Young people can't accumulate capital because they're paying 30-40% of their income in rent. Young people can't buy property because housebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. Young people have voted the "wrong" way in every election or referendum since 2010 and were overruled by the elderly who won't have to live with the long term consequences of those decisions.
Incorporate young people into the capitalist property-owning democratic model by resolving these problems.
I believe wholeheartedly in the capitalist property owning democratic model, and 100% agree with this. To cite an arbitrary baseline, if a 25 year old teacher can't afford to buy a three bed semi in somewhere like Timperley without an inheritance - as would have been the case in the early 80s - the system isn't workimg
Or, in London, it a 20-something doctor or lawyer can’t afford the local equivalent.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
Unless they live in Central London they almost certainly will and even there if they become QC or partner in a corporate law firm they would too
Most lawyers don’t become QC or corporate law firm partners, you very silly man.
Property prices in London are crazy.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
That’s precisely my point. Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
If they live outside of London and the Home counties they almost certainly can get on the property ladder, certainly by 35
Property in Gainsborough is quite cheap 👍
Bit difficult to be a London solicitor, though, when living there.
Perfectly possible to be a Gainsborough solicitor though
But not to be a London solicitor, which is the point. Don't you lot in Epping need solicitors when you rob banks, are fitted up by the police, sell dodgy whelks, etc. etc.?
If you want to live as well as work in London, then yes you get to live in the biggest global city in Western Europe but you also have to accept the high prices that come with that
Catching up on the thread I have been attacked by @Gardenwalker for having to have the temerity to point out the misleading nature of Starmer's 6 month energy offer and by @Mexicanpete over beergate
As far as Starmer and labour are concerned they do not get a free pass and indeed those who are really knowledgeable on the subject have called out the reliance on the windfall tax including @Richard_Tyndall who works in the industry
It is a myth that I said Starmer's beergate was a million miles worse than Johnson and indeed I did not say he was guilty of an offence. Beergate was discussed by many on here and it was entirely appropriate Durham Police investigated it and I'm sure nobody questions their decision
I do find at times this forum is almost like a NEC meeting with no tolerance of dissenting views of Starmer and labour, and I am sure that would be a terrible thing to happen
I sought Johnson's loss of office for months and finally now Truss is PM of course I support her and will not give Starmer or labour a free pass
I do my best to be honest and if wrong I do apologise
Maybe I do not need to defend myself but things were said this pm when I was not present that were personal and an exaggeration so I wanted to put the record straight
No harm in being Chief PB Cheerleader for Truss. Some of the rest of us are not quite on that page yet.
It's hilarious to read the ramping after her being PM for less than a week!
Remember this lot saying they might vote Labour! ROFL
I did vote Labour previously and talking of ramping is surreal coming from Starmer's chief of ramping on here
Are you going to apologise for abusing me yesterday yet?
I may have liked a critical comment of you from @ISHMAELZ but then you have said far worse in your time
I suggest we leave this conversation here before other posters tell us to
Yeah fuck off, good shout.
It does not take you long to return to type does it
Comments
It is extremely relevant to your point as while having a post at Charles for not being relevant you completely ignored the fact the governor general who actually is the Head of State in New Zealand in reality in all but name is Maori
It seems an astonishing waste of time and money for many.
But the path to improvement lies in not blaming the students themselves, or sneering at them for trying to better themselves (you weren’t doing this).
I expect tourists would always be a very modest percentage, particularly in the small towns of Fife or the outer suburbs of Edinburgh.
I know lawyers FFS who don’t believe they’ll ever get onto the property ladder.
My post was about the monarchy itself.
Stick to topics you know about, ie masturbation etiquette for shared bed-sits.
Your agenda is unknown except to your original programmers.
By the way, it appears that the demonstrations are by members of a formally republican party/organization. Not one I'm familiar with, as it happens.
I suggested he might want to learn some Māori.
If you think that is “anti-Charles” I can see why you are notorious as the site’s resident Tory bukkake robot.
Obviously most people aren't going to go to London or Edinburgh. But clearly the demand to mark ths occasion is sufficiently widespread for this to be thought necessary.
On another note, my mother in law, who has just had a knee replacement, is quite delighted with her timing, it having afforded her the opportunity to sit with her knee up doing nothing but watching BBC news. Plenty of people have plenty more appetite still for this sort of thing.
But it is also important to note that you will reach maximum income earlier, and a much lower level than with generalist skills.
The other problem is that in many jobs, what employers (and I speak for myself here) are looking for is maturity.
You are unlikely to have that at 16/18, and even at 21 it's far from a given.
You really have some demented opinions.
Did voting PC (presumably in Wales) make you Welsh?
Actually, it's been mildly interesting in an academic way to get your feedback. What you can't do is draw political conclusions like you have done.
*for instance, from memories of the Olympic torch's circuit.
A solicitor in his late twenties in London, probably ought to be able to get onto the property ladder, but it will likely be a flat in a not very salubrious area, unless they work for the magic circle, in which case their quality of life will be awful.
Now think about all the other professionals: junior doctors, teachers, civil servants, management consultants.
And that’s out top tier, What do we offer those below them?
Everyone knows it’s out of control, well - every except HYUFD.
But, then, HMQ was half-Scottish, her heart was in Scotland, the monarchy has Scottish roots, and is pledged to defend Scottish institutions as well, so perhaps I shouldn't have been.
There are far more two parent families now than there are in the late eighties and early nineties.
Rates for divorce and for teenage pregnancies have collapsed, while the chances of unmarried couples staying together have improved dramatically.
Don't forget, too, that the 1950s (thanks to the war) had a surprisingly large number of one parent families.
So, sure, things are worse than the 60s and 70s, but - equally - they're a lot better than they were.
Brief guide to the commonly-used party abbreviations, and point on spectrum.
Polling stations have been open for last three weeks and close at 8pm Swedish time tonight (7pm English time).
I might post a little from the results shows, but maybe not staying up all that late, as was at a black tie event til nearly 3 last night and the body is waning.
PR system, with 4% threshold to get into parliament. The main thing to get your head around is that all 8 of the parliamentary parties are “left” in a global context, even the supposed “conservatives”.
Currently 8 parliamentary parties:
Two “Labour” parties:
S - Social Democrats, think centrist/sensible Labour; currently the sole governing party, weak minority government
V - Vänsterpartiet (’Left Party’), formerly the Communists, far-left; back the Social Democrats
One Green party:
MP - Miljöpartiet (’Environment Party’), what it says on the tin, pretty leftist; back the Social Democrats
Two conservative parties:
M - Moderates, think Tory wets; currently the principal Opposition party
KD - Christian Democrats, ultra-liberal Jesus fans when compared to every other Christian political movement; back the Moderates
Two ”Lib Dem” parties:
C - Centre Party, formerly the Agrarians, pro small-business liberals with a greenish tinge, still strongest in rural Sweden; back the Social Democrats
L - Liberals, classic urban liberal party; oppose the Social Democrats
One far-right party:
SD - Sweden Democrats, think BNP-lite/UKIP/Farage, but rarely talk about Europe; bang on about immigration literally non-stop; other policies pretty left wing; back the Moderates
Anyway he's gone and good riddance.
The stories I've heard of the bullying and abuse of trainees shocked me to my core.
However, when you compare that with the paper gains to be made by taking out a mortgage... Something's not right.
SA 148 - 8 lead of 108
One was made partner in a British firm quite early and as far as I can tell lives the life of Riley.
The other is trying to make partner in a U.S. firm, never sees his family or friends, and has serious health issues which I attribute to stress.
Go back even 30 years ago, there were many jobs that offered a decent career where you didn't need a degree.
Hell, go back further and, with jobs like accountancy and law, it was not uncommon for people to leave school at 16, start at the bottom and then become partners. As others have said, for many jobs, it's on the job learning that counts.
That's all gone. Now, as you said, to even be considered, you need a degree. It's become a negative motivating factor, rather than a positive ie you need to have one to avoid being blocked, not because it gives you an inherent advantage.
And I understand completely why young people today need to do one.
Perhaps if the Government did something for young people like built houses or sorted out tuition fees and transport costs, perhaps they'd be more willing to vote for you and listen to what you say. Instead you condescend and tell us we're all brainwashed wokies and we like to eat avocados on toast.
Thatcher won the youth vote!
A few random thoughts having watched just the last bit: -
1. How beautiful is Edinburgh.
2. The tractors all lined up in a field. Surprisingly touching.
3. The quietness of the crowds. There was a restraint very appropriate for HMQ.
4. Very few people making the sign of the cross. I realise this is the Italian Catholic in me but I was taught that when you see a funeral cortège that's what you do and I always have done. Not a criticism of those not doing it. Just something I noticed.
5. The commendable self-discipline of the police officers with their backs to the cortège and not turning round to get a look.
And, finally, everyone raising their phones. I really do not get this. Why not experience the moment rather than think you can only experience it by trying to capture it (badly) on something the size of a postage stamp which I'll bet no-one ever looks at again.
Probably I'm showing my age .....
Given that rents have been falling relative to CPI inflation for years and years - according to the official surveys of what people actually pay, rather than the advertised rentals for the 0.x% of properties currently on the market used by media outrage-bots for their articles, I'm quite skeptical about the affordability claim. Perhaps London is a outlier, but then London is always a outlier.
Remember this lot saying they might vote Labour! ROFL
Left 8.0%
Social Democrats 28.3%
Greens 4.4%
Centre 8.6%
Liberals 5.5%
Moderates 19.8%
Christian Democrats 6.3%
Sweden Democrats 17.5%
oth 1.6%
Turnout was 87.2%
Incidentally, that is the standard way all media presents the 8 parliamentary parties, from left to right.
Johnson must have been hoping Truss would fall on her arse and he would be called back to put the show back on the road (temporarily) for the funeral. She hasn't.
Imagine the distaste the Queen must have had for Johnson's tomfoolery that she made it over the line to avert the humiliation he would undoubtedly have dealt her and the nation.
Ma'am we salute you!
Supply is the core problem, but I agree that interest rates and the tax system present as the nearest and most addressable issues.
I suggest we leave this conversation here before other posters tell us to
I guess the energy price cap announcement may help her too?