Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling Matters / Political Betting Podcast with Ed Milband

SystemSystem Posts: 12,220
edited September 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling Matters / Political Betting Podcast with Ed Milband’s former spokesman James Stewart

In the latest PB / Polling Matters podcast, Keiran spoke to former Ed Miliband spokesman James Stewart about his experiences of the Scottish Referendum and General Election campaigns, why he thinks Ed Miliband was unable to win and what happens to Labour if Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader this weekend.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2015
    First!
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Damn. 1 minute too late.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    It's too late to listen to the whole thing, so I shall declare it pretty interesting/moronic/greatest thing since sliced bread, though I felt Keiran/Stewart's argument on [insert topic here] to be insightful/inciting.

    Good night all.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082

    JWisemann said:

    He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

    Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.
    And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Erm. Does the podcast link work? I even downloaded the app and it didn't run
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

    Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.
    And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.
    I shall be a doctor long after Jezza is deposed as leader!
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

    Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.
    And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.
    I shall be a doctor long after Jezza is deposed as leader!
    - and Dunwoody is proud! ;)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I see that my Idea of forming a legion to take on IS has support in the Antipodes:

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11510138
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    edited September 2015

    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

    Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.
    And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.
    I shall be a doctor long after Jezza is deposed as leader!
    The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long!
  • JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

    Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.
    And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.
    I shall be a doctor long after Jezza is deposed as leader!
    You deserve applause for eliciting wisemans reply.
    Quite priceless.
    The Left is clearly going more loopy by the day if the comments on this board are anything to go by.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

    Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.
    And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.
    I shall be a doctor long after Jezza is deposed as leader!
    The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long!
    I had a friend who always wanted to see his name in lights, so he changed his name to filament.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited September 2015
    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

    Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.
    And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.
    That says as much about the Labour Party as Corbyn. He really is a piss poor candidate. Can they scrape that barrel any harder?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2015
    FPT:

    A majority of Labour voters at the general election preferred Britain in 1985 to Britain today according to this report:

    "This earthquake in social attitudes, the key to our political landscape, was captured in a little-noticed poll of 12,000 voters on election day by Lord Ashcroft, the Tory peer. The vast majority - 71 per cent - of Tory voters sensibly agreed that “overall, life in Britain is better than it was 30 years ago”. Shockingly, despite the substantial improvements to medical technology, incomes and life expectancy of the past 30 years, 51 per cent of Labour supporters disagreed. To them, 1985 was a better time, despite the unavailability of so many of the goods and services we now take for granted, the violent strikes, the Brixton race riots, the discrimination, the limited opportunities for women and of course the crippling 11.4 per cent rate of unemployment."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11854403/A-bright-new-optimism-is-sweeping-Britain-and-it-hails-from-the-Right.html#comment-2245013983
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    I see that my Idea of forming a legion to take on IS has support in the Antipodes:

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11510138

    Perhaps best not to call it the International ...
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Two more stories about Hillary's travails - one on her farcical reboot, the other on the emails:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/hiilary-reboot/404398/
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/09/senior_intelligence_officials_said_128022.html

    The interesting thing about the latter is its thesis that senior intelligence officials are engaged in systematic leaking of damaging revelations about the emails, with the aim of setting Hillary up for prosecution. If that is true, then things could get really bad for her.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2015
    "Denmark has suspended all rail links with Germany after police stopped hundreds of migrants at the border.

    Danish police also closed a motorway between the two countries when some asylum seekers began walking north after being forced off a train.
    They say their destination is Sweden."


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34203366

    ""We are trying to talk to them and tell them that it is a really bad idea to walk on the motorway," a police spokeswoman said."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/11855047/Denmark-blocks-motorway-and-railway-links-with-Germany-to-stop-migrants.html
  • AndyJS said:

    FPT:

    A majority of Labour voters at the general election preferred Britain in 1985 to Britain today according to this report:

    UK number 1 thirty years ago this week!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=9G4jnaznUoQ
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Ashcroft polling:

    "More than half of Labour’s loyalist voters think it is more important to stick to the party’s principles than to temper those views to try to win an election, according to an opinion poll for the former Conservative party deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft.

    The poll also reveal a yawning gap between the views of Labour loyalists and voters who defected to another party at the last election, especially on the issues of welfare, the economy and immigration."


    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/10/labour-loyalists-put-principles-before-power-ashcroft-poll
  • Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Oh my word. The article referred to in this article is priceless. But even better are the comments. I particularly like the tips on how to be taken seriously given by Mark Lang.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423777/unc-student-op-ed-sexist-news-observer
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited September 2015
    Morning all.

    BBC - Voting in the Labour leadership contest closes at midday today, with the winner announced on Saturday. [...] As the campaign enters its final hours, hopefuls Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Kendall are expected to make a last push for votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34205212

    Unless the ‘last push’ involves naked mud wrestling, tis a little too late to change anything.


    Re podcast:

    Sorry, but it sounds like two nodding dogs from the same kennel, reaching a cosy consensus.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
    Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

    The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...
  • Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.

    Would you like a wine suggestion with each stage also? :D
  • RobD said:

    Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.

    Would you like a wine suggestion with each stage also? :D
    Sounds like a plan! :)
  • RobD said:

    Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.

    Would you like a wine suggestion with each stage also? :D
    I think you were missing an h from your suggestion for many of our Labour friends.
  • RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
    Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

    The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...
    You all miss the point. What the poll shows is that a Labour pensioner would like to be 30 years younger, whilst a Tory pensioner feels just fine the way they are.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.

    Would you like a wine suggestion with each stage also? :D
    If Sadiq Khan wins the London gig then perhaps a soft drink so as not to offend muslim sensibilities. For Jezza then something deep red from the Seventies perhaps a Bulgarian Claret. It may be a little pat its best but that would be compensated for by its socialist origins. If Watson gets elected as nonce-finder general then surely only a draught of hemlock is required?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,979
    Five hours of voting left before the selectorate usher in The Labour Party: The Jeremy Corbyn Years Weeks.....
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    edited September 2015

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
    Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

    The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,040
    This contains some of the details of the announcements etc: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11848265/Labour-leadership-When-will-the-winner-be-announced.html

    Although I am presuming the idea that there could be any "winner" from this shambles is intentionally ironic. Certainly there will be no win for the Labour party.
  • RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
    Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

    The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    Just so.

  • JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

    Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.
    And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.
    That Corbyn is about to win the election has little to do with the man himself. He's simply been the conduit for his views and its they that'll have him elected.

    The measure of the ability of the man will be his performance in office.

    Of course, his apologists will claim he'll be unfairly treated by the 'Tory press' and others. Bollocks. Firstly, it's not a Tory press: any badly performing party leader will get the same kind of treatment - see John Major. It's not the Tories' fault that every Labour leader since Foot bar Blair and possibly Smith has been weird, useless or downright dangerous. Them's the rules of the game: if you don't like them, don't enter. It's the same for everyone and - as has been shown - they don't necessarily always apply anyway.

    Secondly, his past is not a surprise. If specific incidents are, their nature could easily have been predicted.

    Thirdly, in fact it was predicted. Labour is going to have to deal with the fact that most of their senior figures are already on record as describing their soon-to-be-leader as "unelectable".

    Fourthly, Corbyn has never run anything in his life and has consciously run from responsibility. He might surprise in office; he might not. But Labour chose a pig-in-a-poke in that respect over two former cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers. If it turns out badly, that was always a strong possibility from taking such a blind gamble on poor odds.

    And the list goes on but there's only so much space here.
  • Morning all.

    BBC - Voting in the Labour leadership contest closes at midday today, with the winner announced on Saturday. [...] As the campaign enters its final hours, hopefuls Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Kendall are expected to make a last push for votes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34205212

    Unless the ‘last push’ involves naked mud wrestling, tis a little too late to change anything.


    Re podcast:

    Sorry, but it sounds like two nodding dogs from the same kennel, reaching a cosy consensus.

    The key words there are "expected to" i.e. the BBC report is winging it and is lazily attributing to a postal vote campaign the practices of a ballot-box one.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
    Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

    The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    RobD said:

    Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.

    Would you like a wine suggestion with each stage also? :D
    Sounds like a plan! :)
    The problem is you need popcorn too. The date of the first challenge to the result is unknown.
  • RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
    Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

    The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

    We are a very blessed generation. The last of the Baby Boomers. Many things are better now than they were, but the world is also much smaller, more competitive and harsh. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful, but they have also stripped aeay layers of well paid jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,040

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
    Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

    The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    philiph said:

    RobD said:

    Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.

    Would you like a wine suggestion with each stage also? :D
    Sounds like a plan! :)
    The problem is you need popcorn too. The date of the first challenge to the result is unknown.
    Doesn't that actually revolve about who wins and by how much? A v small margin would indeed produce orders for popcorn, perhaps for months, meanwhile Labour continue to be paralysed. What not to like?
    The bad thing would be that the hectoring and shrill Harperson might have to say on , and I've heard enough from the old windbag to last me a lifetime.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Tim_B said:

    I had a friend who always wanted to see his name in lights, so he changed his name to filament.

    He will need to change it again, to P-N junction
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
    Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

    The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    In other words, things are falling apart.

    Society has become too complex to be sustainable.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Nice line

    @politicshome: Priti Patel tells @PolhomeEditor Labour has spent the summer "cementing their irrelevance". http://t.co/zfo8Nhy85r http://t.co/jvRpk28XO5
  • DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
    Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

    The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?

    Spot on.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,040
    RodCrosby said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!


    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    In other words, things are falling apart.

    Society has become too complex to be sustainable.
    No, not falling apart, probably richer and with a higher standard of living overall. But far less predictable, far less secure, far less tolerant of those of limited abilities or who make mistakes, just a lot more brutal. We have seen the casualisation of work for the poorly qualified and paid already and how hard that makes their lives. We shall see this spread up into the professions.

    It will be interesting to see what such a society does to peoples' politics.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
    Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

    The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    Doctors and Lawyers will always do well. We are very adept at finding new work to do when the old stuff becomes obsolete. There is some truth in GBS's quote that all professions are conspiracies against the general public. But there are a whole raft of previously stable white collar careers that have become a lot more precarious due to globalisation. Still better than being down the mine I suppose.

    Someone remarked the other day following the death of David Nobbs that the reason that the remake of Reggie Perin failed was not so much the actors and script, but rather down to the central theme of being trapped in a suffocating white collar job for 30 years no longer having any resonance.

    One reason Fox jr is so pro EU is that he wants the option of living and working there, it may be the only place he can afford a house of his own.
  • DavidL said:

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

    Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.
  • DavidL said:

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

    Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.
    Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

    You may well have others in mind.

  • DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!
    Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

    The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    Doctors and Lawyers will always do well. We are very adept at finding new work to do when the old stuff becomes obsolete. There is some truth in GBS's quote that all professions are conspiracies against the general public. But there are a whole raft of previously stable white collar careers that have become a lot more precarious due to globalisation. Still better than being down the mine I suppose.

    Someone remarked the other day following the death of David Nobbs that the reason that the remake of Reggie Perin failed was not so much the actors and script, but rather down to the central theme of being trapped in a suffocating white collar job for 30 years no longer having any resonance.

    One reason Fox jr is so pro EU is that he wants the option of living and working there, it may be the only place he can afford a house of his own.

    Not sure about lawyers. A lot of their work is being commoditised. And good luck to any student planning a career at the bar.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    DavidL said:

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

    Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.
    Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

    You may well have others in mind.

    All out atomic war? That was a spectre that hovered over the eighties but gone now.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,040

    DavidL said:

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

    Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.
    I see even large companies hollowing themselves out with ever fewer direct employees. Even local government is doing this now. The Reggie Perin point by fox seems spot on to me.

    As far as law is concerned I fear that two trends are causing problems. Firstly, a lot of traditional legal work is being deskilled, conveyancing being an obvious example, reducing the work. Secondly, intelligent software is having an ever bigger impact on the job and the skill set required.

    These trends have made law firms completely different animals from what they were 30 years ago. Getting to stay around until what might be thought of as a normal retirement age is becoming increasingly unusual.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    FPT [seems there was a bit of activity after I left]: Mr. T, excellent Greek reference.

    Mr. Tyson, the policy of the UK would still be correct even if we did let the views of foreign nations weigh heavily in the scales. Merkel's policy is to blame, a siren call that will see many hundreds/thousands more die needlessly, whilst enriching people smugglers (including those who fund ISIS) and creating a potentially unstable, even explosive, situation in the EU.

    There's a reason borders exist.

    The Sun's headline was not created by the Government, or the armed forces, or the vast majority of Britons who support the killing of murderous terrorists who sought to orchestrate terrorism in the UK.

    I don't believe in dehumanising migrants. I don't want more of them to place their life savings and their lives in the hands of people traffickers, risking death making dangerous journeys. I also don't believe in Germany dictating policy to the whole EU.

    Mr. F, I've long been of the view that the EU is unsustainable (trying to apply a one-size-fits-all, undemocratic approach to various nation states). I'd still be surprised if this is what breaks it, but it does show the system up.
  • AndyJS said:

    Ashcroft polling:

    "More than half of Labour’s loyalist voters think it is more important to stick to the party’s principles than to temper those views to try to win an election, according to an opinion poll for the former Conservative party deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft.

    The poll also reveal a yawning gap between the views of Labour loyalists and voters who defected to another party at the last election, especially on the issues of welfare, the economy and immigration."


    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/10/labour-loyalists-put-principles-before-power-ashcroft-poll

    Labour are voluntarily surrendering any prospect of forming a government following GE2020.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2015

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

    We are a very blessed generation. The last of the Baby Boomers. Many things are better now than they were, but the world is also much smaller, more competitive and harsh. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful, but they have also stripped aeay layers of well paid jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

    OTOH we are a very blessed generation, the younger generations of today. Many things are better than they were, the world is much smaller, more competitive and open. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful and we have also stripped away layers of obsolete jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

    Besides having to pay for the unfunded pensions of Baby Boomers and the debt of Brown etc such that interest payments are a considerable burden we do not have much to complain about.

    EDIT: I'm 33 and a father, am I allowed to still consider myself part of the younger generations?
  • DavidL said:

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

    Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.
    Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

    You may well have others in mind.

    The threat of imminent nuclear annihilation - Reagan and the Cold War and all that - or on a more local level, IRA bombings are two. Industrial relations are far better, despite the odd strike on the Underground. You could also probably expand the list of medical improvements greatly but you're right that the threat of AIDS was hyped greatly in retrospect.

    I'm sure others could add to the list but I need to go off to work now.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

    Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.
    I see even large companies hollowing themselves out with ever fewer direct employees. Even local government is doing this now. The Reggie Perin point by fox seems spot on to me.

    As far as law is concerned I fear that two trends are causing problems. Firstly, a lot of traditional legal work is being deskilled, conveyancing being an obvious example, reducing the work. Secondly, intelligent software is having an ever bigger impact on the job and the skill set required.

    These trends have made law firms completely different animals from what they were 30 years ago. Getting to stay around until what might be thought of as a normal retirement age is becoming increasingly unusual.
    Law firms have changed but equally, and you may be removed from this, the American influence means that if you can continue to generate billables you can stay for longer. For example, Reed Smith has a formal retirement age in the mid70s. in essence it's far more performance related than it was 30 years ago.
  • When I think back on when I started out doing what I do now - we used to lay pages out on grids by cutting out galleys sent to us by typesetters. We used to send them back by messenger to get the proofs then send these to the printers. We dealt with four or five different companies (typesetters, messengers, printers) who all went through a multitude of processes, most of which involved skilled, well-paid individuals. Now a couple of people do it all on computer.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,979
    Scott_P said:

    Nice line

    @politicshome: Priti Patel tells @PolhomeEditor Labour has spent the summer "cementing their irrelevance". http://t.co/zfo8Nhy85r http://t.co/jvRpk28XO5

    Excellent line. The labour Party now seems to now exist solely for its own self-indulgence. It isn't listening to those who would elect it.

    They are locked in a world where they are pandering to an electorate they wish existed, rather the one that does.
  • DavidL said:

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

    Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.
    Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

    You may well have others in mind.

    The threat of imminent nuclear annihilation - Reagan and the Cold War and all that - or on a more local level, IRA bombings are two. Industrial relations are far better, despite the odd strike on the Underground. You could also probably expand the list of medical improvements greatly but you're right that the threat of AIDS was hyped greatly in retrospect.

    I'm sure others could add to the list but I need to go off to work now.
    Bless you. I never worried about nukes after the Cuba crisis passed of peacefully, and never understood why other people didn't take the same view (usually turned out they had some military connection or other!). In fact I worry about them far more now, what with Da'esh & co.

    Industrial relations are not better - strikes are effectively illegal, which is not at all the same thing.

  • The threat of imminent nuclear annihilation - Reagan and the Cold War and all that - or on a more local level, IRA bombings are two. Industrial relations are far better, despite the odd strike on the Underground. You could also probably expand the list of medical improvements greatly but you're right that the threat of AIDS was hyped greatly in retrospect.

    I'm sure others could add to the list but I need to go off to work now.

    I'm not sure the threat of AIDS was hyped too greatly, Africans certainly may take issue with that claim. Plus there is the fact that safe sex has become far more common as a result of the AIDS scare which in itself helps not just prevent the spread of it between the two people involved in having safe sex but any possible future sexual partners too. A kind of "herd immunity".

    In a counterfactual without the AIDS scare, there is every possibility AIDS in Europe could have been every bit as devastating as it is on Africa.
  • The other side of the story, of course, is that it is now much, much easier to start a publishing/information business than it was 20 years ago.

    As I tell my kids, the thing to do is work for yourself, start your own business. That is the future.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    When I think back on when I started out doing what I do now - we used to lay pages out on grids by cutting out galleys sent to us by typesetters. We used to send them back by messenger to get the proofs then send these to the printers. We dealt with four or five different companies (typesetters, messengers, printers) who all went through a multitude of processes, most of which involved skilled, well-paid individuals. Now a couple of people do it all on computer.

    With the result that the industry creates a lot more output employing people in different jobs that are complemented by computers. Not the mass employment that some people predict from machines replacing all those jobs.
  • When I think back on when I started out doing what I do now - we used to lay pages out on grids by cutting out galleys sent to us by typesetters. We used to send them back by messenger to get the proofs then send these to the printers. We dealt with four or five different companies (typesetters, messengers, printers) who all went through a multitude of processes, most of which involved skilled, well-paid individuals. Now a couple of people do it all on computer.

    Are you saying that's a good or a bad thing? I'd say its a good thing, Luddites (not saying you are one) have complained about the loss of obsolete jobs since the 19th century but we don't all need to be pre-industrial textile weavers.
  • The threat of imminent nuclear annihilation - Reagan and the Cold War and all that - or on a more local level, IRA bombings are two. Industrial relations are far better, despite the odd strike on the Underground. You could also probably expand the list of medical improvements greatly but you're right that the threat of AIDS was hyped greatly in retrospect.

    I'm sure others could add to the list but I need to go off to work now.

    I'm not sure the threat of AIDS was hyped too greatly, Africans certainly may take issue with that claim. Plus there is the fact that safe sex has become far more common as a result of the AIDS scare which in itself helps not just prevent the spread of it between the two people involved in having safe sex but any possible future sexual partners too. A kind of "herd immunity".

    In a counterfactual without the AIDS scare, there is every possibility AIDS in Europe could have been every bit as devastating as it is on Africa.
    Don't worry, Philip. David and I have a long history of misquoting each other on here.

  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited September 2015

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

    We are a very blessed generation. The last of the Baby Boomers. Many things are better now than they were, but the world is also much smaller, more competitive and harsh. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful, but they have also stripped aeay layers of well paid jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

    OTOH we are a very blessed generation, the younger generations of today. Many things are better than they were, the world is much smaller, more competitive and open. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful and we have also stripped away layers of obsolete jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

    Besides having to pay for the unfunded pensions of Baby Boomers and the debt of Brown etc such that interest payments are a considerable burden we do not have much to complain about.

    EDIT: I'm 33 and a father, am I allowed to still consider myself part of the younger generations?
    One major difference is that the majority of people who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s could realistically expect to buy their own property. That is a shrinking prospect for many young people today, many of whom have to spend a third or more of their income on rent.

    Thatcher's great achievement was to bring about a property-owning democracy of people who felt they had a stake in society, who in turn fell into conservative thinking and voting patterns. It will be a great failure of the current government if they allow that to collapse. It will end in the majority of the public being in council housing (and thus having a socialist state-dependent mentality) or private rentals (and thus wanting the state to protect them from the capitalist class).

    It's not enough to have a few flagship policies you can talk about on the doorstep when questioned on the issue. You have to actually increase the number of houses per capita in the country or our culture will shift. That means adding substantially to the housing stock or limiting population growth.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,955
    edited September 2015

    RobD said:

    Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.

    Would you like a wine suggestion with each stage also? :D
    If Sadiq Khan wins the London gig then perhaps a soft drink so as not to offend muslim sensibilities. For Jezza then something deep red from the Seventies perhaps a Bulgarian Claret. It may be a little pat its best but that would be compensated for by its socialist origins. If Watson gets elected as nonce-finder general then surely only a draught of hemlock is required?

    No.

    Jezza was a Frisky Socialist once.

    Babycham.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited September 2015
    DavidL said:

    RodCrosby said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!


    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    In other words, things are falling apart.

    Society has become too complex to be sustainable.
    No, not falling apart, probably richer and with a higher standard of living overall. But far less predictable, far less secure, far less tolerant of those of limited abilities or who make mistakes, just a lot more brutal. We have seen the casualisation of work for the poorly qualified and paid already and how hard that makes their lives. We shall see this spread up into the professions.

    It will be interesting to see what such a society does to peoples' politics.
    'Overall' and averages mean nothing. The fact is the UK is a more unequal place, whether measured by income, health or life expectancy than ever before, at least since 1918.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,955
    edited September 2015

    DavidL said:

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

    Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.
    Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

    You may well have others in mind.

    The threat of imminent nuclear annihilation - Reagan and the Cold War and all that - or on a more local level, IRA bombings are two. Industrial relations are far better, despite the odd strike on the Underground. You could also probably expand the list of medical improvements greatly but you're right that the threat of AIDS was hyped greatly in retrospect.

    I'm sure others could add to the list but I need to go off to work now.
    Bless you. I never worried about nukes after the Cuba crisis passed of peacefully, and never understood why other people didn't take the same view (usually turned out they had some military connection or other!). In fact I worry about them far more now, what with Da'esh & co.

    Industrial relations are not better - strikes are effectively illegal, which is not at all the same thing.

    Which is why the Tube Drivers never go on strike. Oh wait.

    It seems to me that Mr Tebbit saved the Trades Unions from their somewhat mad leaderships by forcing them to be a little more democratic.

    Deciding strike action by mass meetings where those making the wrong vote could be victimised later belongs in the dustbin of history.

    In many cases we are in the same position now.

  • When I think back on when I started out doing what I do now - we used to lay pages out on grids by cutting out galleys sent to us by typesetters. We used to send them back by messenger to get the proofs then send these to the printers. We dealt with four or five different companies (typesetters, messengers, printers) who all went through a multitude of processes, most of which involved skilled, well-paid individuals. Now a couple of people do it all on computer.

    Are you saying that's a good or a bad thing? I'd say its a good thing, Luddites (not saying you are one) have complained about the loss of obsolete jobs since the 19th century but we don't all need to be pre-industrial textile weavers.

    It's very good thing for us. But a lot of well-pad jobs no longer exist as a result of this progress. That is not a bad thing in itself. The problem arises if they are not replaced by other well paid jobs. That is the challenge ad I am not sure it is one that is currently being met. It's not a party political point - much of this is beyond government - but if people do not feel they have a stake in a society then in the end that society is not going to function.

  • JEO said:

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

    We are a very blessed generation. The last of the Baby Boomers. Many things are better now than they were, but the world is also much smaller, more competitive and harsh. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful, but they have also stripped aeay layers of well paid jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

    OTOH we are a very blessed generation, the younger generations of today. Many things are better than they were, the world is much smaller, more competitive and open. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful and we have also stripped away layers of obsolete jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

    Besides having to pay for the unfunded pensions of Baby Boomers and the debt of Brown etc such that interest payments are a considerable burden we do not have much to complain about.

    EDIT: I'm 33 and a father, am I allowed to still consider myself part of the younger generations?
    One major difference is that the majority of people who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s could realistically expect to buy their own property. That is a shrinking prospect for many young people today, many of whom have to spend a third or more of their income on rent.

    Thatcher's great achievement was to bring about a property-owning democracy of people who felt they had a stake in society, who in turn fell into conservative thinking and voting patterns. It will be a great failure of the current government if they allow that to collapse. It will end in the majority of the public being in council housing (and thus having a socialist state-dependent mentality) or private rentals (and thus wanting the state to protect them from the capitalist class).

    It's not enough to have a few flagship policies you can talk about on the doorstep when questioned on the issue. You have to actually increase the number of houses per capita in the country or our culture will shift. That means adding substantially to the housing stock or limiting population growth.
    That's my concern.

    I don't really share the worries of those who think we're heading for mass unemployment or poorly paid employment. Similar concerns have been around since the industrial revolution - the economy simply restructures around different services and more leisure. I do agree that careers in future will be more flexible and unpredictable, but that can be liberating and interesting rather than worrying.

    But the affordability of housing is a big issue, particularly for the Conservatives, and there will be troue ahead if it's not tackled.
  • RodCrosby said:

    DavidL said:

    RodCrosby said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!


    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    snip
    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    In other words, things are falling apart.

    Society has become too complex to be sustainable.
    No, not falling apart, probably richer and with a higher standard of living overall. But far less predictable, far less secure, far less tolerant of those of limited abilities or who make mistakes, just a lot more brutal. We have seen the casualisation of work for the poorly qualified and paid already and how hard that makes their lives. We shall see this spread up into the professions.

    It will be interesting to see what such a society does to peoples' politics.
    'Overall' and averages mean nothing. The fact is the UK is a more unequal place, whether measured by income, health or life expectancy than ever before, at least since 1918.
    This cannot be true in any real sense. One only has to read of people's ordinary, lived experiences in, say 1920s or 30s, to question the meaning of these kinds of stats, which may be right in some technical way but fail to capture something. Look, for example, at Alan Silitoe's description of life in rented slums in 1930s. Or Orwell.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,955
    Serious question.

    What legal action can be taken against the Labour Party given that they are an unincorporated association?

    I don't think they can be sued, and it is limited to breaches of the rule book by internal appeal.
  • JEO said:

    One major difference is that the majority of people who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s could realistically expect to buy their own property. That is a shrinking prospect for many young people today, many of whom have to spend a third or more of their income on rent.

    Thatcher's great achievement was to bring about a property-owning democracy of people who felt they had a stake in society, who in turn fell into conservative thinking and voting patterns. It will be a great failure of the current government if they allow that to collapse. It will end in the majority of the public being in council housing (and thus having a socialist state-dependent mentality) or private rentals (and thus wanting the state to protect them from the capitalist class).

    It's not enough to have a few flagship policies you can talk about on the doorstep when questioned on the issue. You have to actually increase the number of houses per capita in the country or our culture will shift. That means adding substantially to the housing stock or limiting population growth.

    I'm not entirely certain that's correct, at least in my part of the North-West home ownership still seems possible. I was born in the 80s and people started saying in the 2000s that my generation (and those born in the 90s) would struggle to buy a first home. I had to save a few years to get a deposit but do own my own home now and the assumption its going to be difficult has shifted now to the next generation but it was put on ours. I'm sure that's going to be the case for my daughter's generation too, they'll have to save but it will be possible (with people then saying that their children's generation will struggle).

    I think this government has done a few good things to encourage this, the Help To Buy ISA announced towards the tail end of the last Parliament for encouraging people to save for their first deposit was a very good idea for that. The problem prior to 2008 was people buying homes without saving enough, we need to encourage people to save and it is possible.

    I agree completely that new houses need to be built. My own home is a new build and my town has had thousands of new homes built in recent years and has just announced a new development of over a thousand more to be started soon. Perhaps that's why I have such a sunny outlook where others don't. We need to make sure that land is available to build on in a sensible manner.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @IsabelOakeshott: Jon Cruddas casts doubt on very future of Labour Party. V bleak assessment. "It could just collapse" @BBCr4today
  • RodCrosby said:

    DavidL said:

    RodCrosby said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!


    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    In other words, things are falling apart.

    Society has become too complex to be sustainable.
    No, not falling apart, probably richer and with a higher standard of living overall. But far less predictable, far less secure, far less tolerant of those of limited abilities or who make mistakes, just a lot more brutal. We have seen the casualisation of work for the poorly qualified and paid already and how hard that makes their lives. We shall see this spread up into the professions.

    It will be interesting to see what such a society does to peoples' politics.
    'Overall' and averages mean nothing. The fact is the UK is a more unequal place, whether measured by income, health or life expectancy than ever before, at least since 1918.
    Do you have a source for that claim?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    RodCrosby said:

    DavidL said:

    RodCrosby said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!


    Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    snip
    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    In other words, things are falling apart.

    Society has become too complex to be sustainable.
    No, not falling apart, probably richer and with a higher standard of living overall. But far less predictable, far less secure, far less tolerant of those of limited abilities or who make mistakes, just a lot more brutal. We have seen the casualisation of work for the poorly qualified and paid already and how hard that makes their lives. We shall see this spread up into the professions.

    It will be interesting to see what such a society does to peoples' politics.
    'Overall' and averages mean nothing. The fact is the UK is a more unequal place, whether measured by income, health or life expectancy than ever before, at least since 1918.
    This cannot be true in any real sense. One only has to read of people's ordinary, lived experiences in, say 1920s or 30s, to question the meaning of these kinds of stats, which may be right in some technical way but fail to capture something. Look, for example, at Alan Silitoe's description of life in rented slums in 1930s. Or Orwell.
    I think your general point is true, but Sillitoe was post-war.

    He wrote of 1950s Nottingham.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JasonGroves1: Jon Cruddas on Labour's intellectual poverty: 'We haven't had much to say since Blair...'
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCJLandale: Jon Cruddas warns Corbyn-led Labour could be an "early 80s Trotskyist tribute act" that collapses in front of electorate @BBCr4today
  • AndyJS said:

    Ashcroft polling:

    "More than half of Labour’s loyalist voters think it is more important to stick to the party’s principles than to temper those views to try to win an election, according to an opinion poll for the former Conservative party deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft.

    The poll also reveal a yawning gap between the views of Labour loyalists and voters who defected to another party at the last election, especially on the issues of welfare, the economy and immigration."


    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/10/labour-loyalists-put-principles-before-power-ashcroft-poll

    Labour are voluntarily surrendering any prospect of forming a government following GE2020.
    They don't care. Or at least the Corbyn, 3-quidders don't. Of course, its not over yet. As I keep saying, the two polls we have may be utter balderdash, as may the size of the very loud Corbyn crowd.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    When I think back on when I started out doing what I do now - we used to lay pages out on grids by cutting out galleys sent to us by typesetters. We used to send them back by messenger to get the proofs then send these to the printers. We dealt with four or five different companies (typesetters, messengers, printers) who all went through a multitude of processes, most of which involved skilled, well-paid individuals. Now a couple of people do it all on computer.

    Are you saying that's a good or a bad thing? I'd say its a good thing, Luddites (not saying you are one) have complained about the loss of obsolete jobs since the 19th century but we don't all need to be pre-industrial textile weavers.
    The Luddite (and later Swing riots) were quite a complex response to industrialisation. I think that it was very much in line with Marx's thinking on the alienation of the workers from the means of production. Prior to the Luddites most of the textile workers were self employed outworkers often doing some cloth work from home. The industrialisation of the textile industry was a large part of the creation of an urban working class. In the end it was the home workers of the world who were put out of business by the exported goods of England.

    http://www.luddites200.org.uk/theLuddites.html

    What we see now is the reversal of the alienation process, with the cheap textiles coming from abroad, and the British worker having to adapt back to the pre-Luddite existence of self employment, working from home and regaining control over how and when they work.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited September 2015


    Do you have a source for that claim?

    Of course.
    http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/transformations/gis/papers/dannydorling_publication_id0584.pdf

    It seems equality by these measures peaked around 1960...
  • Scott_P said:

    @BBCJLandale: Jon Cruddas warns Corbyn-led Labour could be an "early 80s Trotskyist tribute act" that collapses in front of electorate @BBCr4today

    On at your local working man's club for only £3.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Scott_P said:

    @IsabelOakeshott: Jon Cruddas casts doubt on very future of Labour Party. V bleak assessment. "It could just collapse" @BBCr4today

    That just helps Corbyn if he wins, as while a party collapsing is always possible, labour seem to have a very high floor, and large numbers of embers and supporters who will not go anywhere else no matter what, whichmakes Corbyn doing better than predicted easier.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    DavidL said:

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

    Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.
    Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

    You may well have others in mind.

    Cultural change - e.g. tolerance of homosexuality (both on a personal level and legally)
  • On Labour's leadership I'm not remotely convinced that Corbyn is dead set for the leadership. The polls are meaningless, there have only been two and not for a month - and even then YouGov haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently.

    Noise on Twitter etc is utterly irrelevant when it comes to voting, as again was shown at the election.

    My current gut estimate of the chances is ~50% Corbyn, ~40% Cooper, ~10% Burnham and ~0% Kendall (Cooper boosted to final round due to Kendall's early elimination).
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,139
    edited September 2015
    I quite agree on housing. We are hugely failing anyone under 45 as a country.

    Other than houses, most things in this country are not difficult or expensive. But housing makes life very difficult for people under 45. We are not short of space as a country. It's only the antiquated planning system we stick to that makes housing almost impossible to build where people want to live. One day, we'll reform it. Can't come soon enough.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    I have little sympathy for people like Cruddas who elected not to stand.

    Corbyn will have won because his opponents were poor. The fault lies with the candidates put up against Corbyn.

    If you don’t stand yourself, you have no right to complain when someone who is not as competent as you stands and wins.
  • RodCrosby said:

    DavidL said:

    RodCrosby said:

    DavidL said:

    RobD said:

    Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

    And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!


    Psnip

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    snip
    In other words, things are falling apart.

    Society has become too complex to be sustainable.
    No, not falling apart, probably richer and with a higher standard of living overall. But far less predictable, far less secure, far less tolerant of those of limited abilities or who make mistakes, just a lot more brutal. We have seen the casualisation of work for the poorly qualified and paid already and how hard that makes their lives. We shall see this spread up into the professions.

    It will be interesting to see what such a society does to peoples' politics.
    'Overall' and averages mean nothing. The fact is the UK is a more unequal place, whether measured by income, health or life expectancy than ever before, at least since 1918.
    This cannot be true in any real sense. One only has to read of people's ordinary, lived experiences in, say 1920s or 30s, to question the meaning of these kinds of stats, which may be right in some technical way but fail to capture something. Look, for example, at Alan Silitoe's description of life in rented slums in 1930s. Or Orwell.
    I think your general point is true, but Sillitoe was post-war.

    He wrote of 1950s Nottingham.
    I was actually thinking of his memories of growing up in an early time. He came from a desperately poor background in pre-war slum Nottingham. You right though, the books are set in 1950s - things we looking a bit brighter by then, at least for skilled workers who liked to drink ten pints on Saturday night.
  • (snip)
    Someone remarked the other day following the death of David Nobbs that the reason that the remake of Reggie Perin failed was not so much the actors and script, but rather down to the central theme of being trapped in a suffocating white collar job for 30 years no longer having any resonance.

    One reason Fox jr is so pro EU is that he wants the option of living and working there, it may be the only place he can afford a house of his own.

    Being 'trapped in a suffocating white collar job' was sadly true for many people. My dad knew a man for about thirty years; the man had always been in the same job, in the same office. On the day of his retirement, he said to my dad: "I've hated every minute here."

    We have so many more opportunities now. Heck, society's changed enough to allow Mrs J to work whilst I look after the kid, without me getting too many strange looks and comments (at least for that). When I decide to go back to work, I might try and do something totally different as a career. i might not have found that so easy in the 1980s.

    Also: I missed most of the fear of the cold war. But there was a period in the mid-eighties, whilst I was in my teens, that it really shook me. Fortunately that particular threat ended/evolved before too long.

    Are we (as generally successful people) looking back at the past with rose-tinted glasses? After all 'we' - doctors, lawyers, etc, succeeded. Many people did not.
  • Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

    Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.
    Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

    You may well have others in mind.

    Cultural change - e.g. tolerance of homosexuality (both on a personal level and legally)
    I have a London-centric view, so would date that change earlier. May well have been different in the sticks!

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,517

    JWisemann said:

    JWisemann said:

    He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

    Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.
    And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.
    I shall be a doctor long after Jezza is deposed as leader!
    You deserve applause for eliciting wisemans reply.
    Quite priceless.
    The Left is clearly going more loopy by the day if the comments on this board are anything to go by.
    One day long in the future the may even get as loopy as the right wing frothers
  • On Labour's leadership I'm not remotely convinced that Corbyn is dead set for the leadership. The polls are meaningless, there have only been two and not for a month - and even then YouGov haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently.

    Noise on Twitter etc is utterly irrelevant when it comes to voting, as again was shown at the election.

    My current gut estimate of the chances is ~50% Corbyn, ~40% Cooper, ~10% Burnham and ~0% Kendall (Cooper boosted to final round due to Kendall's early elimination).

    You may find this analysis interesting (and hopefully), if you've not already seen it:

    http://labourlist.org/2015/09/the-leadership-result-is-going-to-be-closer-than-you-think/
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,517

    DavidL said:

    It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

    Personally speaking, life was great in the25s by the end of this Parliament.

    I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.
    The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

    I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?
    I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

    Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.
    Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

    You may well have others in mind.

    All out atomic war? That was a spectre that hovered over the eighties but gone now.
    It was as imaginary as the rubbish they use nowadays to justify buying their willy waving toys etc. Just manipulation of the sheeple by politicians and the media.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656


    I'm not entirely certain that's correct, at least in my part of the North-West home ownership still seems possible. I was born in the 80s and people started saying in the 2000s that my generation (and those born in the 90s) would struggle to buy a first home. I had to save a few years to get a deposit but do own my own home now and the assumption its going to be difficult has shifted now to the next generation but it was put on ours. I'm sure that's going to be the case for my daughter's generation too, they'll have to save but it will be possible (with people then saying that their children's generation will struggle).

    I think this government has done a few good things to encourage this, the Help To Buy ISA announced towards the tail end of the last Parliament for encouraging people to save for their first deposit was a very good idea for that. The problem prior to 2008 was people buying homes without saving enough, we need to encourage people to save and it is possible.

    I agree completely that new houses need to be built. My own home is a new build and my town has had thousands of new homes built in recent years and has just announced a new development of over a thousand more to be started soon. Perhaps that's why I have such a sunny outlook where others don't. We need to make sure that land is available to build on in a sensible manner.

    Even if there are parts of the country where the problem is less acute, the change is very clear:

    http://www.goldmadesimplenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/home-ownership-uk.png
    http://www.economicshelp.org/images/housing/ftb-hp-earnings-2014-q3.jpg

  • Fishing said:

    I quite agree on housing. We are hugely failing anyone under 45 as a country.

    Other than houses, most things in this country are not difficult or expensive. But housing makes life very difficult for people under 45. We are not short of space as a country. It's only the antiquated planning system we stick to that makes housing almost impossible to build where people want to live. One day, we'll reform it. Can't come soon enough.

    Well, we do have a high population density. Of course, if you're in the housing development game, your comment is pretty much a condition of employment.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    On Labour's leadership I'm not remotely convinced that Corbyn is dead set for the leadership. The polls are meaningless, there have only been two and not for a month - and even then YouGov haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently.

    Noise on Twitter etc is utterly irrelevant when it comes to voting, as again was shown at the election.

    My current gut estimate of the chances is ~50% Corbyn, ~40% Cooper, ~10% Burnham and ~0% Kendall (Cooper boosted to final round due to Kendall's early elimination).

    Cooper has next to no chance in the final round due to more Burnham voters p referencing Corbyn than Cooper voters yougov is taking a risk leaving its final poll a month old though agreed
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    On Labour's leadership I'm not remotely convinced that Corbyn is dead set for the leadership. The polls are meaningless, there have only been two and not for a month - and even then YouGov haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently.

    Noise on Twitter etc is utterly irrelevant when it comes to voting, as again was shown at the election.

    My current gut estimate of the chances is ~50% Corbyn, ~40% Cooper, ~10% Burnham and ~0% Kendall (Cooper boosted to final round due to Kendall's early elimination).

    I don't think Corbyn will get 50% first prefs.

    I am Green on all outcomes bar Burnham winning (and then only slightly red). I do best if Corbyn wins on less than 50% 1st preferences, with Stella as deputy. Enough to pay for my Leicester City season ticket.

    I think Kendall will get more votes than expected and that most of these will transfer to Cooper. It is not impossible that she might win. There are "shy tories" in the Labour party too is my hunch

  • glwglw Posts: 9,956
    edited September 2015

    Bless you. I never worried about nukes after the Cuba crisis passed of peacefully, and never understood why other people didn't take the same view (usually turned out they had some military connection or other!)

    The world was incredibly fortunate during the Cold War, there were far, far more bombs, many of them on alert (launch on warning), and the safe guards were in some cases non-existant and a best nothing like as robust as those used on more modern weapons.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Scott_P said:

    @IsabelOakeshott: Jon Cruddas casts doubt on very future of Labour Party. V bleak assessment. "It could just collapse" @BBCr4today

    He is right, it is an irrelevance, a tribute act.

    Voting for labour because they stand up for the working class is like buying Paul McCartneys new crap and justifying it by saying he used to be in the Beatles.
Sign In or Register to comment.