Two decades of Ipsos polling – politicalbetting.com
I like this chart because its starting date almost coincides with when PB was launched. Ipsos is just about the only pollster able to produce such an analysis because it has been operating in the UK since the 1970s.
'My main worry is what happened at Uxbridge in the July by election when the Tories did far far better than anybody predicted and indeed came within a few hundred votes of holding the seat.'
'My main worry is what happened at Uxbridge in the July by election when the Tories did far far better than anybody predicted and indeed came within a few hundred votes of holding the seat.'
Um, they did hold the seat.
Isn't going from a majority of 7,000 votes to a majority of 500 votes actually a good sign for Labour? I mean, that it was at all close suggests that seats with majorities under 10,000 could be in play, with enough tactical voting and such?
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
Worth pointing out that the older generations who benefited from all those things also benefited from a highly favourable demographic structure. In short, the working population was a much bigger proportion of the overall population. We, along with much of the western world, are going through a demographic transition from an age-sex diagram shaped like a pyramid to one shaped like an exotic skyscraper with a twiddly bit on the top to, potentially, one shaped like the Wyrmberg (the upside down mountain from Terry Pratchett's first Discworld book). This is painfully, preposterously expensive, particularly when 60 years ago policy decisions like pensions were made on the assumption that the pyramid would continue indefinitely. You have to get out of the ponzi scheme at some point, but it is seldom pleasant to do so.
So should I continue to work in my early 70s in order to mitigate what one might call an inverted pyramid of people, or should I give way to someone less than half my age so they can sustain me in idleness?
Very good.
Obviously if you can get away with it and can afford it, you give way to someone half your age.
But for the good of the country, retirement ages have to increase.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. When my grandfather was born, life expectancy for men was 52 years; when I was born it was 72. If life expectancies have increased by 20 years, I don’t think I can feel embittered if I have to work into my 70s. I’m still better off in terms of the number of non-working years I get at the end of my life (and indeed in having more life in general). And while the inverted pyramid of people means you can’t fund your retirement with the pension ponzi scheme previous generations relied on, the fact that we are working for longer makes it MUCH easier to save for a pension.
Basically, unless you would genuinely rather be dead, you are better off than previous generations.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
With a very weird blind spot on housing affordability.
Build more houses. Literally millions more houses.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
Worth pointing out that the older generations who benefited from all those things also benefited from a highly favourable demographic structure. In short, the working population was a much bigger proportion of the overall population. We, along with much of the western world, are going through a demographic transition from an age-sex diagram shaped like a pyramid to one shaped like an exotic skyscraper with a twiddly bit on the top to, potentially, one shaped like the Wyrmberg (the upside down mountain from Terry Pratchett's first Discworld book). This is painfully, preposterously expensive, particularly when 60 years ago policy decisions like pensions were made on the assumption that the pyramid would continue indefinitely. You have to get out of the ponzi scheme at some point, but it is seldom pleasant to do so.
So should I continue to work in my early 70s in order to mitigate what one might call an inverted pyramid of people, or should I give way to someone less than half my age so they can sustain me in idleness?
Very good.
Obviously if you can get away with it and can afford it, you give way to someone half your age.
But for the good of the country, retirement ages have to increase.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. When my grandfather was born, life expectancy for men was 52 years; when I was born it was 72. If life expectancies have increased by 20 years, I don’t think I can feel embittered if I have to work into my 70s. I’m still better off in terms of the number of non-working years I get at the end of my life (and indeed in having more life in general). And while the inverted pyramid of people means you can’t fund your retirement with the pension ponzi scheme previous generations relied on, the fact that we are working for longer makes it MUCH easier to save for a pension.
Basically, unless you would genuinely rather be dead, you are better off than previous generations.
The original reason that Bismarck set the pension age for men to 65 was that the Lower Orders had a decent tendency to die around that age. Which meant that the spending on old age pensions was minor.
Then the medical industry fucked that up, and suddenly you have hordes of people wanting to live the Middle Class Dream (19th Cent edition) for 30 years - a life of luxury and no work supported by investment in Consols.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
With a very weird blind spot on housing affordability.
Build more houses. Literally millions more houses.
More people require more houses; yes, obviously. BUT. Those do not have to be privately built and owned houses. You can have state owned, high quality housing that is rented for under market price. Why do this? To create a standard of living threshold and a price for that in the market place. If we did what Vienna did and built high rises with access to green space and pools and gyms and rented them out dirt cheap instead of just building high rises and leave people to rot in them or sell of all our social housing stock, or define affordable housing as 80% of market value - people would have good options to choose over crappy flats owned by landlords.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
I think you overstate the importance of precarity. If the size of the labour pool increases, there is downward pressure on wages. That's not all there is to it, but that's 90% of it. Throughout British history, the times when those at the bottom of the pile have been worst off* have been when there has been a glut of labour; the times when they have been best off* has been when there has been a shortage. So a situation in which the lqbour of the world can come here and sell their labour will be bad news for those of us who currently sell our labour.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
So unemployed people who want your job will join a union with you to help you get a payrise?
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
No, that absolutely does not add up. Your counter argument should be that there is not a finite pool of jobs, and that new workers will lead to new jobs.
I don't think this is true - or at least, to the extent that it is true it doesn't outweigh downward pressure in wages - and the empirical evidence from history would suggest it is not, unless we are in a position like the early USA with effectively limitless land and resources - but is at least plausible.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
Ye-es - can I ask if you have ever been unemployed? Because when you are, what you want is work. Being paid something - anything - is better than nothing.
'My main worry is what happened at Uxbridge in the July by election when the Tories did far far better than anybody predicted and indeed came within a few hundred votes of holding the seat.'
Um, they did hold the seat.
Isn't going from a majority of 7,000 votes to a majority of 500 votes actually a good sign for Labour? I mean, that it was at all close suggests that seats with majorities under 10,000 could be in play, with enough tactical voting and such?
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
With a very weird blind spot on housing affordability.
Build more houses. Literally millions more houses.
More people require more houses; yes, obviously. BUT. Those do not have to be privately built and owned houses. You can have state owned, high quality housing that is rented for under market price. Why do this? To create a standard of living threshold and a price for that in the market place. If we did what Vienna did and built high rises with access to green space and pools and gyms and rented them out dirt cheap instead of just building high rises and leave people to rot in them or sell of all our social housing stock, or define affordable housing as 80% of market value - people would have good options to choose over crappy flats owned by landlords.
That works, and building private houses also works. (I'm an advocate of the-state-as-private-developer.) The tenure is relatively unimportant for the purposes of killing off unaffordability as a major issue. What matters is the numbers. Ifwe grow the population by 30% in 30 years but don't growthe housing stock by 30%, we will have an affordability problem.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
Ye-es - can I ask if you have ever been unemployed? Because when you are, what you want is work. Being paid something - anything - is better than nothing.
Yes, I have been unemployed. And homeless. And part time employed. And full time employed. I like working, to a degree. But running a household is work. Keeping a garden is work. Painting the fence is work. Just because you aren’t labouring for a wage, doesn’t mean you won’t do things. And if you’re saying that the threat of starvation will make people scab - that’s what solidarity is for. Community action, pooling of resources, extending strike funds to others - these are all things that can be done in the meantime to help people live together before the point of concession from business.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
With a very weird blind spot on housing affordability.
Build more houses. Literally millions more houses.
More people require more houses; yes, obviously. BUT. Those do not have to be privately built and owned houses. You can have state owned, high quality housing that is rented for under market price. Why do this? To create a standard of living threshold and a price for that in the market place. If we did what Vienna did and built high rises with access to green space and pools and gyms and rented them out dirt cheap instead of just building high rises and leave people to rot in them or sell of all our social housing stock, or define affordable housing as 80% of market value - people would have good options to choose over crappy flats owned by landlords.
I made no comment on ownership or market mix, merely said that millions of new houses need to be built.
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
What is particularly interesting in that chart is how sustained a poll lead Ed Miliband's Labour had after Gordon Brown lost in 2010 and Cameron became PM, lasting until 2014 at least.
If Sunak loses and PM Starmer fails to get a grip on the economy the new Conservative Leader may find it rather more fruitful in opposition, at least in polling terms, than Hague did after the 1997 landslide defeat when New Labour managed the economy relatively well
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
Labour isn't the only source of value. Innovations mean that some "work" can happen more or less automatically. The question of where the extra surplus from such labour-saving innovation goes, that's the key question of our time that often goes unaddressed.
Automated labour is still labour - I didn’t say human labour is the only source of value; animal labour also creates value (for example). And if most work is automated and people need to work less - good. The outputs of that automated labour should be shared amongst the people and not hoarded by the so called owners of those automatons. That is why workers should own the means of production.
With a few hours to next kickoff, my first few predictions for this weekend (repeat from a few days ago). Weds ITA v URU. This could be an entertaining game as teams are effectively playing off for 3rd place in group. Italy by 15.
Thurs FRA v NAM. If France decide to turn up this could be a record breaking score. But as against Uruguay I suspect that France wont try too hard and will win ‘only’ by 40.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.
I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
Labour isn't the only source of value. Innovations mean that some "work" can happen more or less automatically. The question of where the extra surplus from such labour-saving innovation goes, that's the key question of our time that often goes unaddressed.
Automated labour is still labour - I didn’t say human labour is the only source of value; animal labour also creates value (for example). And if most work is automated and people need to work less - good. The outputs of that automated labour should be shared amongst the people and not hoarded by the so called owners of those automatons. That is why workers should own the means of production.
So the profits from labour shouldn't automatically go to the person/device performing that labour, that's what you're saying, right?
Marx wrote 500 pages to come to the realisation that this isn't what happens.
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
I predicted I'd get that response from you: "But you don't even live here" in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
When you get challenged on the specifics, you always hide. Which means people will naturally doubt the generalities.
You said there are many. It can't be that hard.
You can doubt as much as you like, but to abolish 97% of 30mph limits across Wales has created this situation with the uproar we are experiencing
Imagine Starmer abolished 97% of England's 30 mph zones and see just how many would be deemed unnecessary
Oh God the lectern at no 10 has the latest slogan from the Tories , this apparently will appear at their conference.
“Long-term decisions . For a brighter future .”
Someone pass me the sick bag .
Ironic given that the story of the day is about the Government's inability to stick to long term decisions.
As Ford's angry statement today said, "Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three."
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
I predicted I'd get that response from you: "But you don't even live here" in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
When you get challenged on the specifics, you always hide. Which means people will naturally doubt the generalities.
You said there are many. It can't be that hard.
You can doubt as much as you like, but to abolish 97% of 30mph limits across Wales has created this situation with the uproar we are experiencing
Imagine Starmer abolished 97% of England's 30 mph zones and see just how many would be deemed unnecessary
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
Labour isn't the only source of value. Innovations mean that some "work" can happen more or less automatically. The question of where the extra surplus from such labour-saving innovation goes, that's the key question of our time that often goes unaddressed.
Automated labour is still labour - I didn’t say human labour is the only source of value; animal labour also creates value (for example). And if most work is automated and people need to work less - good. The outputs of that automated labour should be shared amongst the people and not hoarded by the so called owners of those automatons. That is why workers should own the means of production.
So the profits from labour shouldn't automatically go to the person/device performing that labour, that's what you're saying, right?
Let’s go back to the 2000 labourers example. If they all run the factory that they all work in together, democratically - what will they do? Is it in their interest to say “we should fire half the workforce and leave the other half to starve” or say “we can all work half as much and still make a living wage”? In the case of automation, if those 2000 workers own the automaton, what would make more sense to them? “We should make ourselves all unemployed and only allow one or two individuals benefit from the robot labour” or would they say “we all work as much as we want and benefit from the labour of the robot as much as we need”? You could say they should use their surplus labour to create surplus product to sell - but at some point surplus product is unnecessary. So why work more than you have to?
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.
I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
We are not talking about the town but all the roads in Colwyn Bay to Llandudno
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
So your argument is this 1person does 40 hours labour and is paid at £x produces 1000 doohickeys
2 people could do 20 hours each and produce 1000 doohickeys between them and both get paid £x. I wonder what that does to the price of doohickeys?
If he had the power, the Speaker would recall the house immediately – and he is writing to the prime minister today to express that view in the strongest of terms.
This is a major policy shift, and it should have been announced when the house was sitting. Members with very different views on this issue have expressed their disquiet on the way this has been handled, especially as the Commons rose early last night, so there was plenty of time for this statement to be made.
Instead, the unelected House of Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise this change in direction this afternoon, when it hears the government’s response to a private notice question on this issue.
This is not the way to do business. Ministers are answerable to MPs – we do not have a presidential system here.
The House of Commons is where laws are made, national debates are had – and where statements should be made.
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
So your argument is this 1person does 40 hours labour and is paid at £x produces 1000 doohickeys
2 people could do 20 hours each and produce 1000 doohickeys between them and both get paid £x. I wonder what that does to the price of doohickeys?
Why build more doohickeys then are needed? If there is a glut of doohickeys then yes, the value of the doohickey goes down. But if the worker decides how many doohickies to make why would they make a surplus? Capitalists need surpluses to extract ever greater value from labour - but labour alone doesn’t need to do that.
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.
I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
We are not talking about the town but all the roads in Colwyn Bay to Llandudno
Ok. We’re getting closer. Slowly. Can you give us some street names? Or a grid reference for some of the roads where you think 20 is unwarranted? Or even a what3words to keep Leon happy?
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.
I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
We are not talking about the town but all the roads in Colwyn Bay to Llandudno
Ok. We’re getting closer. Slowly. Can you give us some street names? Or a grid reference for some of the roads where you think 20 is unwarranted? Or even a what3words to keep Leon happy?
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
So your argument is this 1person does 40 hours labour and is paid at £x produces 1000 doohickeys
2 people could do 20 hours each and produce 1000 doohickeys between them and both get paid £x. I wonder what that does to the price of doohickeys?
Why build more doohickeys then are needed? If there is a glut of doohickeys then yes, the value of the doohickey goes down. But if the worker decides how many doohickies to make why would they make a surplus? Capitalists need surpluses to extract ever greater value from labour - but labour alone doesn’t need to do that.
I didnt say there were surplus doohickeys....clue for you a company doesnt make more doohickeys than it could sell. You are evading the question here because you know damn well paying twice as much for the same labour is the issue here. If labour is a large part of the cost of a doohickey then the price of each doohickey goes up substantially
The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from
I expect most people support that poll question
So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
You may be surprised but there are many
I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.
I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
We are not talking about the town but all the roads in Colwyn Bay to Llandudno
You mean like here - the main road from Colwyn Bay to Llandudno:
To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead." The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it. Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
Oh God the lectern at no 10 has the latest slogan from the Tories , this apparently will appear at their conference.
“Long-term decisions . For a brighter future .”
Someone pass me the sick bag .
Wait, what?
A week ago they told BMW they were sticking to 2030.
Long term decisions?
I don't think they understand how climate change works. It's not necessarily going to get brighter (well it might actually, sunshine hours in the UK are increasing a little especially in winter months).
What's striking about the Ipsos chart is indeed the relentless downward trend in the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives under Sunak are even polling lower now (at 24%) than they were at the nadir of Truss's brief reign (26%). The general findings of most other pollsters is that the Conservatives bounced back a fair bit initially under Sunak although the bounce has since dissipated, such that the Conservative share has broadly flatlined since November. So Ipsos are standing out from the crowd.
-“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households” -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035” -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes” -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500” -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”
If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?
I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.
Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
@148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.
What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.
For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.
Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.
If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.
Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.
Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.
Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.
Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.
Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.
Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.
Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
That's gloriously incoherent.
How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
If I'm working 5 days a week, I want paying for all of that. I don't want to share it withsomeone who doesn't want to work at all. Thinking I will do so fundamentally misunderstands human nature. If what you're saying however is that it should be possible to work part time, then I agree.
Comments
Um, they did hold the seat.
Lying about putting a known sexual predator in a position of authority was utterly corrosive and would have become worse if Johnson hadn't quit.
I spent today trying to buy some venison.
I was offered four halves of carcasses, but when I added it up it was just two deer.
Obviously if you can get away with it and can afford it, you give way to someone half your age.
But for the good of the country, retirement ages have to increase.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. When my grandfather was born, life expectancy for men was 52 years; when I was born it was 72. If life expectancies have increased by 20 years, I don’t think I can feel embittered if I have to work into my 70s. I’m still better off in terms of the number of non-working years I get at the end of my life (and indeed in having more life in general). And while the inverted pyramid of people means you can’t fund your retirement with the pension ponzi scheme previous generations relied on, the fact that we are working for longer makes it MUCH easier to save for a pension.
Basically, unless you would genuinely rather be dead, you are better off than previous generations.
Build more houses. Literally millions more houses.
Then the medical industry fucked that up, and suddenly you have hordes of people wanting to live the Middle Class Dream (19th Cent edition) for 30 years - a life of luxury and no work supported by investment in Consols.
Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)
Support 46%
Oppose 34%
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610
And I think they'd cut the balls off the stag, so it was a still no fucking eye deer.
I expect most people support that poll question
If the size of the labour pool increases, there is downward pressure on wages. That's not all there is to it, but that's 90% of it.
Throughout British history, the times when those at the bottom of the pile have been worst off* have been when there has been a glut of labour; the times when they have been best off* has been when there has been a shortage.
So a situation in which the lqbour of the world can come here and sell their labour will be bad news for those of us who currently sell our labour.
*Relative to the rest of society.
Your counter argument should be that there is not a finite pool of jobs, and that new workers will lead to new jobs.
I don't think this is true - or at least, to the extent that it is true it doesn't outweigh downward pressure in wages - and the empirical evidence from history would suggest it is not, unless we are in a position like the early USA with effectively limitless land and resources - but is at least plausible.
Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
If Sunak loses and PM Starmer fails to get a grip on the economy the new Conservative Leader may find it rather more fruitful in opposition, at least in polling terms, than Hague did after the 1997 landslide defeat when New Labour managed the economy relatively well
Weds ITA v URU. This could be an entertaining game as teams are effectively playing off for 3rd place in group. Italy by 15.
Thurs FRA v NAM. If France decide to turn up this could be a record breaking score. But as against Uruguay I suspect that France wont try too hard and will win ‘only’ by 40.
“Long-term decisions . For a brighter future .”
Someone pass me the sick bag .
I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
Imagine Starmer abolished 97% of England's 30 mph zones and see just how many would be deemed unnecessary
It is a daft question.
As Ford's angry statement today said, "Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three."
@wesstreeting
·
1h
Rishi Sunak is making Liz Truss look competent and Boris Johnson look principled.
Extraordinary.
2 people could do 20 hours each and produce 1000 doohickeys between them and both get paid £x. I wonder what that does to the price of doohickeys?
A week ago they told BMW they were sticking to 2030.
Long term decisions?
If he had the power, the Speaker would recall the house immediately – and he is writing to the prime minister today to express that view in the strongest of terms.
This is a major policy shift, and it should have been announced when the house was sitting. Members with very different views on this issue have expressed their disquiet on the way this has been handled, especially as the Commons rose early last night, so there was plenty of time for this statement to be made.
Instead, the unelected House of Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise this change in direction this afternoon, when it hears the government’s response to a private notice question on this issue.
This is not the way to do business. Ministers are answerable to MPs – we do not have a presidential system here.
The House of Commons is where laws are made, national debates are had – and where statements should be made.
The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it.
Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.
It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3125996,-3.7652262,3a,75y,324.57h,80.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6yFPl6km37gq0bhwIdYLJg!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=6yFPl6km37gq0bhwIdYLJg&cb_client=search.revgeo_and_fetch.gps&w=96&h=64&yaw=48.43832&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
I see footpaths and houses. The sort of place you get pedestrians. If this isn't where you are referring to, please put me straight.
Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
What's striking about the Ipsos chart is indeed the relentless downward trend in the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives under Sunak are even polling lower now (at 24%) than they were at the nadir of Truss's brief reign (26%). The general findings of most other pollsters is that the Conservatives bounced back a fair bit initially under Sunak although the bounce has since dissipated, such that the Conservative share has broadly flatlined since November. So Ipsos are standing out from the crowd.
I've definitely cycled on the A470 though, so that's 20mph all the way.
If what you're saying however is that it should be possible to work part time, then I agree.