George Eaton @georgeeaton · 37m37 minutes ago Labour whip Grahame Morris has deleted tweet appearing to back sacking of shadow cabinet "mutineers".
Would Labour have been more or less disciplined in its use of twitter if it had been around in the 1980s?
What was it Dave said about Twitter?
The man's a visionary and practically a prophet.
If twitter were not likely to prove an ephemeral medium, that would probably be the only sentence that he'll be remembered for.
"Hug a hoodie" may live for many years but he didn't say that (Liam Byrne did).
I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
I wonder if a note written with intended humour has contributed more to the end of a political career than the one Byrne wrote.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
Usually such gaffes are forgotten by the public, and probably useless as props, but while that was the former with most people it was definitely useful as a prop in the GE, I think we saw it rolled out every time Cameron went anywhere it seemed, and I can't see them doing that if it was not to some extent effective.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I guess. But what a fool. Here's David Laws revealing it in 2010:
George Eaton @georgeeaton · 37m37 minutes ago Labour whip Grahame Morris has deleted tweet appearing to back sacking of shadow cabinet "mutineers".
Would Labour have been more or less disciplined in its use of twitter if it had been around in the 1980s?
What was it Dave said about Twitter?
The man's a visionary and practically a prophet.
If twitter were not likely to prove an ephemeral medium, that would probably be the only sentence that he'll be remembered for.
"Hug a hoodie" may live for many years but he didn't say that (Liam Byrne did).
I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
I wonder if a note written with intended humour has contributed more to the end of a political career than the one Byrne wrote.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
You could probably argue that ultimately that note got the Tories over the line to a majority.
The Tories played it well and they had to have the right opposition and the right economic condition, but it was the perfect hook to hang their attack on.
Bit like Major and his "back to basics" quote was perfect to blast the Tories with over sleaze.
This isn't good for either the country in general or the Conservative party in particular:
' The percentage of young people in the UK who own their own home is at its joint lowest level since 1996, according to data obtained by Labour.
It suggests 44.9% of 20 to 30-year-olds are homeowners ...
... Labour's figures, which include shared ownership and are based on analysis of Labour Force Survey figures, show home ownership among the under 30s reached its peak in 1999, when it was 62.7 '
It may not be good for the Tories. Mind you, if you believe the article in today's Telegraph, the Tories are busy annoying all remaining home owners with their stamp duty proposals.
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
In all seriousness, I might make a serious vote on the basis of who I think would be the least-bad PM for the country. In which case I would probably vote Theresa May if she was on the ballot paper - I think she has a bit more integrity than the other leading candidates and, as far as Tories go, wouldn't be too bad.
I definitely wouldn't vote for Boris. I think he'd probably be the Tories' most successful potential leader, but I personally think he's a prize prat and wouldn't want him making important decisions. Good for the Tories politically, but bad for the country - definitely not a good mix!
Nothing wrong with that. I'm with you on not voting for Boris, to be honest I doubt he will make the ballot. The bungling buffoon act works well for a city mayor, somewhat less so for a Prime Minister.
May could be a good bet, having survived the career killer that is the Home Office for so long. How would the lefty feminists deal with TWO female Tory PMs?
George Eaton @georgeeaton · 37m37 minutes ago Labour whip Grahame Morris has deleted tweet appearing to back sacking of shadow cabinet "mutineers".
Would Labour have been more or less disciplined in its use of twitter if it had been around in the 1980s?
What was it Dave said about Twitter?
The man's a visionary and practically a prophet.
If twitter were not likely to prove an ephemeral medium, that would probably be the only sentence that he'll be remembered for.
"Hug a hoodie" may live for many years but he didn't say that (Liam Byrne did).
I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
I wonder if a note written with intended humour has contributed more to the end of a political career than the one Byrne wrote.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
It seems to have been some sort of imitation of this:
' Upon being forced out of the post by the election defeat, Maudling left a note to his successor, James Callaghan, simply stating "Good luck, old cock.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess." '
Talking of Twitter the Tories on here might like to follow a mate of mine @bobfrost, he's a Tory councillor who's been suspended from the party a couple of times.
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
In all seriousness, I might make a serious vote on the basis of who I think would be the least-bad PM for the country. In which case I would probably vote Theresa May if she was on the ballot paper - I think she has a bit more integrity than the other leading candidates and, as far as Tories go, wouldn't be too bad.
I definitely wouldn't vote for Boris. I think he'd probably be the Tories' most successful potential leader, but I personally think he's a prize prat and wouldn't want him making important decisions. Good for the Tories politically, but bad for the country - definitely not a good mix!
It's one of the reasons (the other being a near-fanatical dislike of Corbyn) that I'm thinking of joining the Conservatives though I am not really one.
By thinking this way one is accepting that meaningful politics is now something that takes place within the Conservative Party. But then, that's where we are.
In fairness to Bryne, his note was pretty funny. ALthough it is interesting that the initial breaking of the existence of the note has him say it was meant as a joke, obviously, but sort of backtracks right at the start with the 'language that is used in the treasury' stuff, making it seem as though it was at some level serious (which is also probably true)
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I guess. But what a fool. Here's David Laws revealing it in 2010:
One question: why did David Laws give the note to the Conservatives?
Because he was a fool trying to curry favour with his masters.
I'd buy that as a theory were it not for the fact that David Laws left the Cabinet only a few days after he had joined it. Did he give the note to the Conservatives immediately?
I'd love to read a newspaper article that explored that aspect of that note. It was sufficiently politically important (and will probably remain so, just like the folklore about the dead being unburied in the Winter of Discontent) to justify knowing more about how the Conservatives came to own this bit of politics, literally as well as figuratively.
This isn't good for either the country in general or the Conservative party in particular:
' The percentage of young people in the UK who own their own home is at its joint lowest level since 1996, according to data obtained by Labour.
It suggests 44.9% of 20 to 30-year-olds are homeowners ...
... Labour's figures, which include shared ownership and are based on analysis of Labour Force Survey figures, show home ownership among the under 30s reached its peak in 1999, when it was 62.7 '
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I guess. But what a fool. Here's David Laws revealing it in 2010:
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I guess. But what a fool. Here's David Laws revealing it in 2010:
One question: why did David Laws give the note to the Conservatives?
Because he was a fool trying to curry favour with his masters.
I'd buy that as a theory were it not for the fact that David Laws left the Cabinet only a few days after he had joined it. Did he give the note to the Conservatives immediately?
I'd love to read a newspaper article that explored that aspect of that note. It was sufficiently politically important (and will probably remain so, just like the folklore about the dead being unburied in the Winter of Discontent) to justify knowing more about how the Conservatives came to own this bit of politics, literally as well as figuratively.
Sheet gut instinct says to me that very early on, still in the rose garden atmosphere, they probably made loads of copies and handed them out as a laugh to loads of members on both sides as useful to all of them, and that being the case handing over the original to Osborne early on, and through him to Cameron, was not seen as a big deal.
It seems to have been some sort of imitation of this:
' Upon being forced out of the post by the election defeat, Maudling left a note to his successor, James Callaghan, simply stating "Good luck, old cock.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess." '
I was told by a non-Labour civil servant in my poker group recently that notes like that were actually a long-standing Treasury tradition - he was amused that Byrne had been successfully portrayed as making a unique admission.
On topic, I'm with the Corbyn stays, Sadiq wins, Trump loses crowd.
Regarding life on Mars, I think it's effectively impossible next year as we (we meaning, er, NASA) don't have equipment on Mars that could conclusively establish the existence of life at present. However, I don't think the public's instinct is wrong in that if one extended the time-frame to, say, 2050, then it's about as likely we'll find life on Mars by then as that England get to the final of the Euros.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
It seems to have been some sort of imitation of this:
' Upon being forced out of the post by the election defeat, Maudling left a note to his successor, James Callaghan, simply stating "Good luck, old cock.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess." '
I was told by a non-Labour civil servant in my poker group recently that notes like that were actually a long-standing Treasury tradition - he was amused that Byrne had been successfully portrayed as making a unique admission.
A shame that such traditions have been lost in the modern age, but not the first or last such tradition lost I suspect. Not that politics was not cut throat previously, but there generally seems less humour about it now.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I guess. But what a fool. Here's David Laws revealing it in 2010:
One question: why did David Laws give the note to the Conservatives?
Because he was a fool trying to curry favour with his masters.
I'd buy that as a theory were it not for the fact that David Laws left the Cabinet only a few days after he had joined it. Did he give the note to the Conservatives immediately?
I'd love to read a newspaper article that explored that aspect of that note. It was sufficiently politically important (and will probably remain so, just like the folklore about the dead being unburied in the Winter of Discontent) to justify knowing more about how the Conservatives came to own this bit of politics, literally as well as figuratively.
Sheet gut instinct says to me that very early on, still in the rose garden atmosphere, they probably made loads of copies and handed them out as a laugh to loads of members on both sides as useful to all of them, and that being the case handing over the original to Osborne early on, and through him to Cameron, was not seen as a big deal.
How do we know that Law ever handed over the original, rather than Osborne / Cameron just having the copies?
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I guess. But what a fool. Here's David Laws revealing it in 2010:
One question: why did David Laws give the note to the Conservatives?
Because he was a fool trying to curry favour with his masters.
I'd buy that as a theory were it not for the fact that David Laws left the Cabinet only a few days after he had joined it. Did he give the note to the Conservatives immediately?
I'd love to read a newspaper article that explored that aspect of that note. It was sufficiently politically important (and will probably remain so, just like the folklore about the dead being unburied in the Winter of Discontent) to justify knowing more about how the Conservatives came to own this bit of politics, literally as well as figuratively.
Sheet gut instinct says to me that very early on, still in the rose garden atmosphere, they probably made loads of copies and handed them out as a laugh to loads of members on both sides as useful to all of them, and that being the case handing over the original to Osborne early on, and through him to Cameron, was not seen as a big deal.
How do we know that Law ever handed over the original, rather than Osborne / Cameron just having the copies?
Fair point. But even if it was the original, how they got it and when is not likely to be sinister. Just that it helped all of them to share it.
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
In all seriousness, I might make a serious vote on the basis of who I think would be the least-bad PM for the country. In which case I would probably vote Theresa May if she was on the ballot paper - I think she has a bit more integrity than the other leading candidates and, as far as Tories go, wouldn't be too bad.
I definitely wouldn't vote for Boris. I think he'd probably be the Tories' most successful potential leader, but I personally think he's a prize prat and wouldn't want him making important decisions. Good for the Tories politically, but bad for the country - definitely not a good mix!
It's one of the reasons (the other being a near-fanatical dislike of Corbyn) that I'm thinking of joining the Conservatives though I am not really one.
By thinking this way one is accepting that meaningful politics is now something that takes place within the Conservative Party. But then, that's where we are.
I joined the Conservatives on the day Corbyn was elected Labour leader! While he remains in that job there is only one electable party in the country.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I guess. But what a fool. Here's David Laws revealing it in 2010:
One question: why did David Laws give the note to the Conservatives?
Because he was a fool trying to curry favour with his masters.
I'd buy that as a theory were it not for the fact that David Laws left the Cabinet only a few days after he had joined it. Did he give the note to the Conservatives immediately?
I'd love to read a newspaper article that explored that aspect of that note. It was sufficiently politically important (and will probably remain so, just like the folklore about the dead being unburied in the Winter of Discontent) to justify knowing more about how the Conservatives came to own this bit of politics, literally as well as figuratively.
My best guess is this: Laws is shown it. He won't be alone. There will be others in the room. Lots of people want to have a look at it. Someone- either explicitly or because it's easier - makes a copy (maybe more than one) so that it can be shown round. Maybe it is even someone in the Civil Service who gets a copy made, possibly someone taking their revenge for listening to soup instructions from Mr Byrne. Perhaps a copy is faxed or emailed to the PM's office. The original gets put away. In all the excitement and chaos of a new administration and the resignation of the Minister receiving the letter, the copy or copies get forgotten by most but someone in Tory HQ has it carefully filed away.
What it says is in the public domain and repeated from time to time. No-one thinks of it as a private letter. And, then, during the GE campaign, someone remembers to give that piece of paper to Dave so that he can flourish it theatrically when making the point which has been made so many times before.
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I guess. But what a fool. Here's David Laws revealing it in 2010:
One question: why did David Laws give the note to the Conservatives?
Because he was a fool trying to curry favour with his masters.
I'd buy that as a theory were it not for the fact that David Laws left the Cabinet only a few days after he had joined it. Did he give the note to the Conservatives immediately?
I'd love to read a newspaper article that explored that aspect of that note. It was sufficiently politically important (and will probably remain so, just like the folklore about the dead being unburied in the Winter of Discontent) to justify knowing more about how the Conservatives came to own this bit of politics, literally as well as figuratively.
Sheet gut instinct says to me that very early on, still in the rose garden atmosphere, they probably made loads of copies and handed them out as a laugh to loads of members on both sides as useful to all of them, and that being the case handing over the original to Osborne early on, and through him to Cameron, was not seen as a big deal.
How do we know that Law ever handed over the original, rather than Osborne / Cameron just having the copies?
Fair point. But even if it was the original, how they got it and when is not likely to be sinister. Just that it helped all of them to share it.
Don't disagree with that. I think every one, the Tories and Lib Dem front benches were pretty united (excluding Uncle Vince) in sticking the knives into the previous Labour government.
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
In all seriousness, I might make a serious vote on the basis of who I think would be the least-bad PM for the country. In which case I would probably vote Theresa May if she was on the ballot paper - I think she has a bit more integrity than the other leading candidates and, as far as Tories go, wouldn't be too bad.
I definitely wouldn't vote for Boris. I think he'd probably be the Tories' most successful potential leader, but I personally think he's a prize prat and wouldn't want him making important decisions. Good for the Tories politically, but bad for the country - definitely not a good mix!
It's one of the reasons (the other being a near-fanatical dislike of Corbyn) that I'm thinking of joining the Conservatives though I am not really one.
By thinking this way one is accepting that meaningful politics is now something that takes place within the Conservative Party. But then, that's where we are.
I joined the Conservatives on the day Corbyn was elected Labour leader! While he remains in that job there is only one electable party in the country.
You're right. OK, I'm going to do it. (lol - I realise no one gives a stuff but it does feel like a step. I'll probably go native and turn into Eric Pickles in five years.)
This isn't good for either the country in general or the Conservative party in particular:
' The percentage of young people in the UK who own their own home is at its joint lowest level since 1996, according to data obtained by Labour.
It suggests 44.9% of 20 to 30-year-olds are homeowners ...
... Labour's figures, which include shared ownership and are based on analysis of Labour Force Survey figures, show home ownership among the under 30s reached its peak in 1999, when it was 62.7 '
And, then, during the GE campaign, someone remembers to give that piece of paper to Dave so that he can flourish it theatrically when making the point which has been made so many times before.
It was never forgotten about. They were just waiting for the right moment to deploy it.
This isn't good for either the country in general or the Conservative party in particular:
' The percentage of young people in the UK who own their own home is at its joint lowest level since 1996, according to data obtained by Labour.
It suggests 44.9% of 20 to 30-year-olds are homeowners ...
... Labour's figures, which include shared ownership and are based on analysis of Labour Force Survey figures, show home ownership among the under 30s reached its peak in 1999, when it was 62.7 '
It may not be good for the Tories. Mind you, if you believe the article in today's Telegraph, the Tories are busy annoying all remaining home owners with their stamp duty proposals.
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
I dare say that under 25s being owner occupiers in present day London must be pretty exceptional but it certainly wasn't rare outside London in the 1990s.
My best guess is this: Laws is shown it. He won't be alone. There will be others in the room. Lots of people want to have a look at it. Someone- either explicitly or because it's easier - makes a copy (maybe more than one) so that it can be shown round. Maybe it is even someone in the Civil Service who gets a copy made, possibly someone taking their revenge for listening to soup instructions from Mr Byrne. Perhaps a copy is faxed or emailed to the PM's office. The original gets put away. In all the excitement and chaos of a new administration and the resignation of the Minister receiving the letter, the copy or copies get forgotten by most but someone in Tory HQ has it carefully filed away.
What it says is in the public domain and repeated from time to time. No-one thinks of it as a private letter. And, then, during the GE campaign, someone remembers to give that piece of paper to Dave so that he can flourish it theatrically when making the point which has been made so many times before.
Looking at pictures online, I think you were right first time. The letter that David Cameron brandished was in black ink on white paper. The letter that was originally released was in blue ink on expensive-looking cream paper. Only a photocopy was being waved around.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.
Which is to say "not at all".
You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.
Wrong. There is such a thing as English Law. There is also English Criminal Law, English property law and English Trust law. All are separate from Scots law although both are ultimately subject to the UK Supreme Court.
You mean the Law of England and Wales. England does not have it's own legal system.
Once again Dair your ignorance of history is only matched by your arrogant certainty of the correctness of your opinion and prejudice. For the legal status of Wales see Edward I and the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 - 1542.
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
In all seriousness, I might make a serious vote on the basis of who I think would be the least-bad PM for the country. In which case I would probably vote Theresa May if she was on the ballot paper - I think she has a bit more integrity than the other leading candidates and, as far as Tories go, wouldn't be too bad.
I definitely wouldn't vote for Boris. I think he'd probably be the Tories' most successful potential leader, but I personally think he's a prize prat and wouldn't want him making important decisions. Good for the Tories politically, but bad for the country - definitely not a good mix!
It's one of the reasons (the other being a near-fanatical dislike of Corbyn) that I'm thinking of joining the Conservatives though I am not really one.
By thinking this way one is accepting that meaningful politics is now something that takes place within the Conservative Party. But then, that's where we are.
I joined the Conservatives on the day Corbyn was elected Labour leader! While he remains in that job there is only one electable party in the country.
So long as Corbyn is leader, there's only one party to vote for in 150 or so seats.
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
Most European countries have never got into the home-owning fetish - my peer group were making about £100K/year in the 1990s in Switzerland but it never crossed our minds to do anything but rent. Worry worry worry about the roof, the boiler, the floors, the walls, the garden fence - who needs it? Life is too short. It didn't really take off in Britain AFAICR until it was made tax-deductible for a while.
Obviously a bad landlord is worse than anything, but with a good one he does the tedious stuff and lets you live. My hob stopped working the other day - I reported it, next day there was a new hob - no need to get in an engineer, seasrch for a replacement, take time off work, etc. etc. Bliss!
To be fair it's started to change over the Channel and home ownership is creeping up across the Continent. But it's still a minority pastime.
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
In all seriousness, I might make a serious vote on the basis of who I think would be the least-bad PM for the country. In which case I would probably vote Theresa May if she was on the ballot paper - I think she has a bit more integrity than the other leading candidates and, as far as Tories go, wouldn't be too bad.
I definitely wouldn't vote for Boris. I think he'd probably be the Tories' most successful potential leader, but I personally think he's a prize prat and wouldn't want him making important decisions. Good for the Tories politically, but bad for the country - definitely not a good mix!
It's one of the reasons (the other being a near-fanatical dislike of Corbyn) that I'm thinking of joining the Conservatives though I am not really one.
By thinking this way one is accepting that meaningful politics is now something that takes place within the Conservative Party. But then, that's where we are.
I joined the Conservatives on the day Corbyn was elected Labour leader! While he remains in that job there is only one electable party in the country.
So long as Corbyn is leader, there's only one party to vote for in 150 or so seats.
Monster Raving Loony Party certainly looking a much more attractive option ;-)
By the way, does anyone know how long before a Tory leadership contest one needs to be a party member in order to be eligible to vote?
You want to vote in the Tory leader election? I think it's six months before the election is called, we certainly don't allow any old Tom, Dick or Trot to register after the election is called!
The MPs will give only two names to the members after their own preliminary contest.
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
In all seriousness, I might make a serious vote on the basis of who I think would be the least-bad PM for the country. In which case I would probably vote Theresa May if she was on the ballot paper - I think she has a bit more integrity than the other leading candidates and, as far as Tories go, wouldn't be too bad.
I definitely wouldn't vote for Boris. I think he'd probably be the Tories' most successful potential leader, but I personally think he's a prize prat and wouldn't want him making important decisions. Good for the Tories politically, but bad for the country - definitely not a good mix!
It's one of the reasons (the other being a near-fanatical dislike of Corbyn) that I'm thinking of joining the Conservatives though I am not really one.
By thinking this way one is accepting that meaningful politics is now something that takes place within the Conservative Party. But then, that's where we are.
I joined the Conservatives on the day Corbyn was elected Labour leader! While he remains in that job there is only one electable party in the country.
You're right. OK, I'm going to do it. (lol - I realise no one gives a stuff but it does feel like a step. I'll probably go native and turn into Eric Pickles in five years.)
Well done!
I wonder how many more floaters Labour voter @Danny365 can persuade to join the Tories
Amazing how many respond to Dim Dair (and the Jockanese Clowns):
When it comes to trolling these folks could in-breed with Auntie-Hortence and still ignore the consequences....
Ouch.
In all seriousness we do have the one party state SGE2016 election to look forward to as well.
Brisket, you sound as if you are one of those rare Tory voters, or is it Lib Dem or Labour. Never happy unless they are whinging , unhappy that the SNP are popular and that they are doing it deliberately to boot.
I accept that many Yessers are also unhappy with their one party state if that's what you're after.
Show us some proof then, the SNP remain popular because they are doing what people want. All these claims that people are unhappy and one state is just our grapes from losers. They are the democratically elected winners and will be again next year by a large margin. The weak minded useless opposition carp from the sidelines about one party states, they should be ashamed of themselves, long term losers with no policies and no principles.
Don't worry Malky - elections not till next year - you never know what might happen. I can feel the great responsibility weighting heavily with your great power right now
Amazing how many respond to Dim Dair (and the Jockanese Clowns):
When it comes to trolling these folks could in-breed with Auntie-Hortence and still ignore the consequences....
Ouch.
In all seriousness we do have the one party state SGE2016 election to look forward to as well.
Brisket, you sound as if you are one of those rare Tory voters, or is it Lib Dem or Labour. Never happy unless they are whinging , unhappy that the SNP are popular and that they are doing it deliberately to boot.
I accept that many Yessers are also unhappy with their one party state if that's what you're after.
Show us some proof then, the SNP remain popular because they are doing what people want. All these claims that people are unhappy and one state is just our grapes from losers. They are the democratically elected winners and will be again next year by a large margin. The weak minded useless opposition carp from the sidelines about one party states, they should be ashamed of themselves, long term losers with no policies and no principles.
Don't worry Malky - elections not till next year - you never know what might happen. I can feel the great responsibility weighting heavily with your great power right now
LOL, it will be a walkover , men against donkeys
Oh it will be a walkover alright - enjoy your one party state
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.
Which is to say "not at all".
You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.
Wrong. There is such a thing as English Law. There is also English Criminal Law, English property law and English Trust law. All are separate from Scots law although both are ultimately subject to the UK Supreme Court.
You mean the Law of England and Wales. England does not have it's own legal system.
Once again Dair your ignorance of history is only matched by your arrogant certainty of the correctness of your opinion and prejudice. For the legal status of Wales see Edward I and the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 - 1542.
He is a prize numpty isn't he?
The Acts of Union 1707 weren't passed by the "Parliament of England and Wales", they were passed by the "Parliament of England". We had and still have what was correctly called English law, not "Law of England and Wales". If any of the four home nations could be said not to have existed politically before devolution it was Wales, not England.
This isn't good for either the country in general or the Conservative party in particular:
' The percentage of young people in the UK who own their own home is at its joint lowest level since 1996, according to data obtained by Labour.
It suggests 44.9% of 20 to 30-year-olds are homeowners ...
... Labour's figures, which include shared ownership and are based on analysis of Labour Force Survey figures, show home ownership among the under 30s reached its peak in 1999, when it was 62.7 '
It may not be good for the Tories. Mind you, if you believe the article in today's Telegraph, the Tories are busy annoying all remaining home owners with their stamp duty proposals.
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
" 44.9% of 20 to 30-year-olds are homeowners"
That seems a stunningly high figure to me. With all the complaining that we read on here and elsewhere about how difficult it is to become a first time buyer, the fact that not far short of 50% of the twenty-somethings have already bought a home is remarkable.
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
In all seriousness, I might make a serious vote on the basis of who I think would be the least-bad PM for the country. In which case I would probably vote Theresa May if she was on the ballot paper - I think she has a bit more integrity than the other leading candidates and, as far as Tories go, wouldn't be too bad.
I definitely wouldn't vote for Boris. I think he'd probably be the Tories' most successful potential leader, but I personally think he's a prize prat and wouldn't want him making important decisions. Good for the Tories politically, but bad for the country - definitely not a good mix!
It's one of the reasons (the other being a near-fanatical dislike of Corbyn) that I'm thinking of joining the Conservatives though I am not really one.
By thinking this way one is accepting that meaningful politics is now something that takes place within the Conservative Party. But then, that's where we are.
I joined the Conservatives on the day Corbyn was elected Labour leader! While he remains in that job there is only one electable party in the country.
You're right. OK, I'm going to do it. (lol - I realise no one gives a stuff but it does feel like a step. I'll probably go native and turn into Eric Pickles in five years.)
LOL....I bet that idea really confused Wiggins...a man interested in little less other than winning...
That's a quote and a half for the next Tory leader to bring to the election debates. What is politics if not the persuit of power to change things? To a professional sportsman that would have been a very bemusing quote indeed.
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
Most European countries have never got into the home-owning fetish - my peer group were making about £100K/year in the 1990s in Switzerland but it never crossed our minds to do anything but rent. Worry worry worry about the roof, the boiler, the floors, the walls, the garden fence - who needs it? Life is too short. It didn't really take off in Britain AFAICR until it was made tax-deductible for a while.
Obviously a bad landlord is worse than anything, but with a good one he does the tedious stuff and lets you live. My hob stopped working the other day - I reported it, next day there was a new hob - no need to get in an engineer, seasrch for a replacement, take time off work, etc. etc. Bliss!
To be fair it's started to change over the Channel and home ownership is creeping up across the Continent. But it's still a minority pastime.
Making £100k pa working abroad 20 years ago and now supporting Corbyn, interesting.
My best guess is this: Laws is shown it. He won't be alone. There will be others in the room. Lots of people want to have a look at it. Someone- either explicitly or because it's easier - makes a copy (maybe more than one) so that it can be shown round. Maybe it is even someone in the Civil Service who gets a copy made, possibly someone taking their revenge for listening to soup instructions from Mr Byrne. Perhaps a copy is faxed or emailed to the PM's office. The original gets put away. In all the excitement and chaos of a new administration and the resignation of the Minister receiving the letter, the copy or copies get forgotten by most but someone in Tory HQ has it carefully filed away.
What it says is in the public domain and repeated from time to time. No-one thinks of it as a private letter. And, then, during the GE campaign, someone remembers to give that piece of paper to Dave so that he can flourish it theatrically when making the point which has been made so many times before.
Looking at pictures online, I think you were right first time. The letter that David Cameron brandished was in black ink on white paper. The letter that was originally released was in blue ink on expensive-looking cream paper. Only a photocopy was being waved around.
It is a Tory and Cameron to boot , what more could you expect. Born to lie.
My best guess is this: Laws is shown it. He won't be alone. There will be others in the room. Lots of people want to have a look at it. Someone- either explicitly or because it's easier - makes a copy (maybe more than one) so that it can be shown round. Maybe it is even someone in the Civil Service who gets a copy made, possibly someone taking their revenge for listening to soup instructions from Mr Byrne. Perhaps a copy is faxed or emailed to the PM's office. The original gets put away. In all the excitement and chaos of a new administration and the resignation of the Minister receiving the letter, the copy or copies get forgotten by most but someone in Tory HQ has it carefully filed away.
What it says is in the public domain and repeated from time to time. No-one thinks of it as a private letter. And, then, during the GE campaign, someone remembers to give that piece of paper to Dave so that he can flourish it theatrically when making the point which has been made so many times before.
Looking at pictures online, I think you were right first time. The letter that David Cameron brandished was in black ink on white paper. The letter that was originally released was in blue ink on expensive-looking cream paper. Only a photocopy was being waved around.
Yup: sometimes the answer is the simplest and most obvious one.
I've never thought of the Tories as diabolical. I've often thought they were wrong but not that. A lot of people clearly do think of them as evil but to me they are just a stodgy centre-right party that has run the country for most of the last century, not always optimally but not disastrously either. I think we could often have done better than Conservative rule but we should as hell could have done a lot worse.
Amazing how many respond to Dim Dair (and the Jockanese Clowns):
When it comes to trolling these folks could in-breed with Auntie-Hortence and still ignore the consequences....
Ouch.
In all seriousness we do have the one party state SGE2016 election to look forward to as well.
Brisket, you sound as if you are one of those rare Tory voters, or is it Lib Dem or Labour. Never happy unless they are whinging , unhappy that the SNP are popular and that they are doing it deliberately to boot.
I accept that many Yessers are also unhappy with their one party state if that's what you're after.
Show us some proof then, the SNP remain popular because they are doing what people want. All these claims that people are unhappy and one state is just our grapes from losers. They are the democratically elected winners and will be again next year by a large margin. The weak minded useless opposition carp from the sidelines about one party states, they should be ashamed of themselves, long term losers with no policies and no principles.
Don't worry Malky - elections not till next year - you never know what might happen. I can feel the great responsibility weighting heavily with your great power right now
LOL, it will be a walkover , men against donkeys
Just a shame you cannot convince the majority of your compatriots to vote for independance.
My best guess is this: Laws is shown it. He won't be alone. There will be others in the room. Lots of people want to have a look at it. Someone- either explicitly or because it's easier - makes a copy (maybe more than one) so that it can be shown round. Maybe it is even someone in the Civil Service who gets a copy made, possibly someone taking their revenge for listening to soup instructions from Mr Byrne. Perhaps a copy is faxed or emailed to the PM's office. The original gets put away. In all the excitement and chaos of a new administration and the resignation of the Minister receiving the letter, the copy or copies get forgotten by most but someone in Tory HQ has it carefully filed away.
What it says is in the public domain and repeated from time to time. No-one thinks of it as a private letter. And, then, during the GE campaign, someone remembers to give that piece of paper to Dave so that he can flourish it theatrically when making the point which has been made so many times before.
Looking at pictures online, I think you were right first time. The letter that David Cameron brandished was in black ink on white paper. The letter that was originally released was in blue ink on expensive-looking cream paper. Only a photocopy was being waved around.
Phoney Cameron as ever, eh? Can't even use the real note.
With regards to the Byrne memo - I think some people, mention no names *cough*. are willingly forgetting it was Smithson who promoted it here and got a bit of an exclusive that these in-jokey memos were par for the course.
I wonder if Corbyn may keep Benn in the cabinet, whilst all the other warmongers moderates are booted out.
Of course he will.
He'll give him a senior sounding position, albeit a clear demotion (because the Leader and the SFS need to be aligned on foreign policy) and dare him to walk out.
Let's say Benn is offered Shadow Business: he looks like an arrogant tosser if he says "that's not good enough" but it's clearly a signal to everyone else that he is unimportant. At the same time you clear out the junior ranks to make sure he doesn't have the numbers. They won't matter because no one normal has ever heard of Vernon Croker. Not even his own family.
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
Most European countries have never got into the home-owning fetish - my peer group were making about £100K/year in the 1990s in Switzerland but it never crossed our minds to do anything but rent. Worry worry worry about the roof, the boiler, the floors, the walls, the garden fence - who needs it? Life is too short. It didn't really take off in Britain AFAICR until it was made tax-deductible for a while.
Obviously a bad landlord is worse than anything, but with a good one he does the tedious stuff and lets you live. My hob stopped working the other day - I reported it, next day there was a new hob - no need to get in an engineer, seasrch for a replacement, take time off work, etc. etc. Bliss!
To be fair it's started to change over the Channel and home ownership is creeping up across the Continent. But it's still a minority pastime.
Making £100k pa working abroad 20 years ago and now supporting Corbyn, interesting.
I don't think it's surprising that relatively well-heeled people are supporting Corbyn. Conservative rule poses no threat to them.
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Thank you.
I am not at all sanguine about the long term effect of those inward capital flows. They seem to fall into three categories:
1. Genuine investment in UK industry (e.g. Toyota and Honda building factories) 2. Asset stripping (e.g Kraft take over of Cadbury) 3. Milking where the UK consumer is bled for the benefit of foreign investors (e.g. Thames Water and, indeed, most of the utilities)
Categories 2 and 3, which seem to be the majority are not to the long term benefit of the UK and actually serve to impoverish us as they suck wealth out.
Category 2 is not as clear cut.
Yes, we are selling intangible assets (the brand) but for a a price that the owners think is worth selling for. If the premium released is reinvested into building new businesses it is not necessarily a bad thing.
I wonder if Corbyn may keep Benn in the cabinet, whilst all the other warmongers moderates are booted out.
Of course he will.
He'll give him a senior sounding position, albeit a clear demotion (because the Leader and the SFS need to be aligned on foreign policy) and dare him to walk out.
Let's say Benn is offered Shadow Business: he looks like an arrogant tosser if he says "that's not good enough" but it's clearly a signal to everyone else that he is unimportant. At the same time you clear out the junior ranks to make sure he doesn't have the numbers. They won't matter because no one normal has ever heard of Vernon Croker. Not even his own family.
He doesn't need to say "that's not good enough" though, just decline the position. In the context of a purge of other moderates, the story is not going to be "Benn flounces out".
With regards to the Byrne memo - I think some people, mention no names *cough*. are willingly forgetting it was Smithson who promoted it here and got a bit of an exclusive that these in-jokey memos were par for the course.
I seem to recall reading that Byrne was quite pally with his Tory shadow in the run up to the election (who's name I don't recall), was aware of the tradition of slightly silly notes and thought it would be seen as a private in-joke between friends. What he wasn't expecting was for the LD minister Laws to receive the note, unaware of the tradition behind it.
The angriest and most pessimistic people in America are the people we used to call Middle Americans. Middle-class and middle-aged; not rich and not poor; people who are irked when asked to press 1 for English, and who wonder how white male became an accusation rather than a description.
You can measure their pessimism in polls that ask about their expectations for their lives—and for those of their children. On both counts, whites without a college degree express the bleakest view. You can see the effects of their despair in the new statistics describing horrifying rates of suicide and substance-abuse fatality among this same group, in middle age.
With regards to the Byrne memo - I think some people, mention no names *cough*. are willingly forgetting it was Smithson who promoted it here and got a bit of an exclusive that these in-jokey memos were par for the course.
I seem to recall reading that Byrne was quite pally with his Tory shadow in the run up to the election (who's name I don't recall), was aware of the tradition of slightly silly notes and thought it would be seen as a private in-joke. What he wasn't expecting was for the LD minister in Laws to receive the note, unaware of the tradition behind it.
I wonder if Corbyn may keep Benn in the cabinet, whilst all the other warmongers moderates are booted out.
Of course he will.
He'll give him a senior sounding position, albeit a clear demotion (because the Leader and the SFS need to be aligned on foreign policy) and dare him to walk out.
Let's say Benn is offered Shadow Business: he looks like an arrogant tosser if he says "that's not good enough" but it's clearly a signal to everyone else that he is unimportant. At the same time you clear out the junior ranks to make sure he doesn't have the numbers. They won't matter because no one normal has ever heard of Vernon Croker. Not even his own family.
That's why he'll be neutered if he stays. He may become a nonentity if he resigns but at least he can star in his own political life. It's a risk but he can - if he wants to - set out a principled basis for leaving. If he stays, neutered, he's still a nonentity but one whose teeth have been drawn. And he risks being tainted by whatever failures/disasters/ludicrous/offensive sayings the Corbynistas come out with while he's there writing a policy on business that neither Corbyn nor anyone in the business world will care two hoots about.
I've never thought of the Tories as diabolical. I've often thought they were wrong but not that. A lot of people clearly do think of them as evil but to me they are just a stodgy centre-right party that has run the country for most of the last century, not always optimally but not disastrously either. I think we could often have done better than Conservative rule but we should as hell could have done a lot worse.
We certainly could have done worse and for a couple of periods we did (to my mind the Attlee government was the worst that the UK has ever had, though the Blair/Brown partnership probably runs it a very close second). However, perhaps most of the errors of governments of the 20th century were those of omission, a failure to do something. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
With regards to the Byrne memo - I think some people, mention no names *cough*. are willingly forgetting it was Smithson who promoted it here and got a bit of an exclusive that these in-jokey memos were par for the course.
I seem to recall reading that Byrne was quite pally with his Tory shadow in the run up to the election (who's name I don't recall), was aware of the tradition of slightly silly notes and thought it would be seen as a private in-joke between friends. What he wasn't expecting was for the LD minister Laws to receive the note, unaware of the tradition behind it.
Smithson went large on it (i.e a whole blog-post!). Fairly sure the A4 waving was supposed to be for us lot paying attenion...
The foreign subsidiaries of British firms make remittances (payments) back to the UK; likewise, the British subsidiaries of foreign firms make remittances back to their parents. There are also other investment flows, such as interest payments on government debt to foreign investors, and - for example - the fact that I might own shares in a company in the US, and which pays me dividends.
Of late, this previously substantial flow has been quite weak.
There are a number of reasons for this (and it's a complex subjects), but the largest component is probably that the net investment position of the UK has worsened quite considerably over the past 30 years. More of Britain is owned by foreigners, and less of the rest of the world is owned by the British. Therefore what used to be a very significant flow of money into the UK has become much diminished.
In 2008, there was a surplus of £33.2bn from investment income. In 2011 Britain it was £22.7bn. There was a deficit of £17bn in 2013. Its good that people invest here. It creates jobs and prosperity. Its better here than elsewhere.
When I was a kid there was a very substantial net inflow from British Invisibles - we were living off the stock of investments that our ancestors made.
IIRC, there was a cross-over in the mids 2000s (around 2004/2005, I think) where the stock of British owned foreign assets fell below the stock of foreign owned British assets for the first time since the Victorian era.
We still earned substantially more on our investment income than we paid out to foreign investors, but even that gap has eroded now - and as you note was in deficit in 2013
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
Edit: No Mr @Danny565 , the £1 option doesn't let you vote in the leadership contest.
I haven't paid my membership dues for years, but they still send me voting forms...
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
Most European countries have never got into the home-owning fetish - my peer group were making about £100K/year in the 1990s in Switzerland but it never crossed our minds to do anything but rent. Worry worry worry about the roof, the boiler, the floors, the walls, the garden fence - who needs it? Life is too short. It didn't really take off in Britain AFAICR until it was made tax-deductible for a while.
Obviously a bad landlord is worse than anything, but with a good one he does the tedious stuff and lets you live. My hob stopped working the other day - I reported it, next day there was a new hob - no need to get in an engineer, seasrch for a replacement, take time off work, etc. etc. Bliss!
To be fair it's started to change over the Channel and home ownership is creeping up across the Continent. But it's still a minority pastime.
Making £100k pa working abroad 20 years ago and now supporting Corbyn, interesting.
I don't think it's surprising that relatively well-heeled people are supporting Corbyn. Conservative rule poses no threat to them.
Well heeled people working in finance in Switzerland wouldn't spring to mind as Corbyn's target market. Well done Jezza I say, it just goes to show that champagne socialists will vote for him.
With regards to the Byrne memo - I think some people, mention no names *cough*. are willingly forgetting it was Smithson who promoted it here and got a bit of an exclusive that these in-jokey memos were par for the course.
I seem to recall reading that Byrne was quite pally with his Tory shadow in the run up to the election (who's name I don't recall), was aware of the tradition of slightly silly notes and thought it would be seen as a private in-joke between friends. What he wasn't expecting was for the LD minister Laws to receive the note, unaware of the tradition behind it.
It's the kind of statement that is best said rather than written. Between friends or even good acquaintances, with a laugh, it can be taken for what it probably was meant as - a humorous tongue-in-cheek remark. But as everyone knows (see the many email / chat disasters that have befallen a variety of people) when it is written down it takes on a whole new level of seriousness and, above all, it lasts.......
He must have been out of his tiny mind writing that letter. Even now after more than five years, I cannot begin to fathom what he was thinking when he did it. He encapsulated the entire Conservative attack against Labour in a single soundbite and signed it at the bottom for David Cameron to wave around in an election campaign. Never mind his own political career, it played a substantial part in ending Ed Miliband's political career also.
He almost certainly thought that his successor would never make it public.
I guess. But what a fool. Here's David Laws revealing it in 2010:
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
Most European countries have never got into the home-owning fetish - my peer group were making about £100K/year in the 1990s in Switzerland but it never crossed our minds to do anything but rent. Worry worry worry about the roof, the boiler, the floors, the walls, the garden fence - who needs it? Life is too short. It didn't really take off in Britain AFAICR until it was made tax-deductible for a while.
Obviously a bad landlord is worse than anything, but with a good one he does the tedious stuff and lets you live. My hob stopped working the other day - I reported it, next day there was a new hob - no need to get in an engineer, seasrch for a replacement, take time off work, etc. etc. Bliss!
To be fair it's started to change over the Channel and home ownership is creeping up across the Continent. But it's still a minority pastime.
Making £100k pa working abroad 20 years ago and now supporting Corbyn, interesting.
I don't think it's surprising that relatively well-heeled people are supporting Corbyn. Conservative rule poses no threat to them.
Well heeled people working in finance in Switzerland wouldn't spring to mind as Corbyn's target market. Well done Jezza I say, it just goes to show that champagne socialists will vote for him.
Given how expensive Switzerland is 100K probably doesn't make you rich at all.
I wonder if Corbyn may keep Benn in the cabinet, whilst all the other warmongers moderates are booted out.
Of course he will.
He'll give him a senior sounding position, albeit a clear demotion (because the Leader and the SFS need to be aligned on foreign policy) and dare him to walk out.
Let's say Benn is offered Shadow Business: he looks like an arrogant tosser if he says "that's not good enough" but it's clearly a signal to everyone else that he is unimportant. At the same time you clear out the junior ranks to make sure he doesn't have the numbers. They won't matter because no one normal has ever heard of Vernon Croker. Not even his own family.
That's why he'll be neutered if he stays. He may become a nonentity if he resigns but at least he can star in his own political life. It's a risk but he can - if he wants to - set out a principled basis for leaving. If he stays, neutered, he's still a nonentity but one whose teeth have been drawn. And he risks being tainted by whatever failures/disasters/ludicrous/offensive sayings the Corbynistas come out with while he's there writing a policy on business that neither Corbyn nor anyone in the business world will care two hoots about.
If he accepts a neutering non-job he's completely spineless, as Corbyn will only want him there at all to prevent him leading the rebellion. Worse, he will be seen as spineless by his colleagues and will start losing the goodwill he has built up so far. Was it David Miliband that didn't resign the night that Purnell did? A decision that with hindsight might have cost him the chance to be leader himself.
I'm considering it, yes. I want to vote for the Tory candidate who is statistically tied even with Corbyn in "best PM" polls
Ha. Fair play, at least you're honest.
https://www.conservatives.com/join it's £25 a year for full membership with voting rights. The earliest day that Dave will realistically stand down is the day after the EU referendum, so you'd need to join three months before that to be sure.
Be warned that Tory MPs are better than Labour MPs when it comes to keeping the the more extreme party fringe off the ballot paper, the party will generally be happy with either name as leader. In the meantime they'll be more than happy for your £25 donation
Edit: No Mr @Danny565 , the £1 option doesn't let you vote in the leadership contest.
I haven't paid my membership dues for years, but they still send me voting forms...
To be fair, they let Ken Clarke stand for the leadership when he was not even a member.
Our return from overseas investments has fallen as the world economy stutters, whilst the return on investments that foreigners own here have risen. There has been a significant decline in the return on our investment income. It has an effect on balance of payments, which is at the moment being balanced by capital inflows from overseas.
Thank you.
I am not at all sanguine about the long term effect of those inward capital flows. They seem to fall into three categories:
1. Genuine investment in UK industry (e.g. Toyota and Honda building factories) 2. Asset stripping (e.g Kraft take over of Cadbury) 3. Milking where the UK consumer is bled for the benefit of foreign investors (e.g. Thames Water and, indeed, most of the utilities)
Categories 2 and 3, which seem to be the majority are not to the long term benefit of the UK and actually serve to impoverish us as they suck wealth out.
Category 2 is not as clear cut.
Yes, we are selling intangible assets (the brand) but for a a price that the owners think is worth selling for. If the premium released is reinvested into building new businesses it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Fair comment, Mr. Charles, the intellectual property rights go off-shore as do the jobs but as long as new more valuable businesses are created we end up as net winners. The problem seems to be the second part of the equation does not seem to be happening.
As you note on another post, our "invisibles" have gone negative and our "physical" trade position is even further in the shitter than it has ever been. The result is increasing national poverty and a gentle decline in the standards of, amongst other things, our public services. Mr. RCS1000, notes that we are only financing our present national life-style by borrowing huge amounts of money.
I fear that all the time politicians are squabbling about decimal places in GDP growth (a measure that not one in ten of MPs could explain) the country will continue its genteel slide into poverty.
Perhaps worth remembering at this point that Laws was gone before the week (?) was out.
Yep, another expenses fiddler. I did actually have a little sympathy with his circumstances, having to come out to his parents before the newspapers went to print, but he still cheated the taxpayer.
The angriest and most pessimistic people in America are the people we used to call Middle Americans. Middle-class and middle-aged; not rich and not poor; people who are irked when asked to press 1 for English, and who wonder how white male became an accusation rather than a description.
You can measure their pessimism in polls that ask about their expectations for their lives—and for those of their children. On both counts, whites without a college degree express the bleakest view. You can see the effects of their despair in the new statistics describing horrifying rates of suicide and substance-abuse fatality among this same group, in middle age.
A section of the population which attracts little interest or sympathy from their rulers.
I wonder if Corbyn may keep Benn in the cabinet, whilst all the other warmongers moderates are booted out.
That's why he'll be neutered if he stays. He may become a nonentity if he resigns but at least he can star in his own political life. It's a risk but he can - if he wants to - set out a principled basis for leaving. If he stays, neutered, he's still a nonentity but one whose teeth have been drawn. And he risks being tainted by whatever failures/disasters/ludicrous/offensive sayings the Corbynistas come out with while he's there writing a policy on business that neither Corbyn nor anyone in the business world will care two hoots about.
If he accepts a neutering non-job he's completely spineless, as Corbyn will only want him there at all to prevent him leading the rebellion. Worse, he will be seen as spineless by his colleagues and will start losing the goodwill he has built up so far. Was it David Miliband that didn't resign the night that Purnell did? A decision that with hindsight might have cost him the chance to be leader himself.
I agree. Corbyn certainly has a mandate. But it's open to a member of the Labour party to argue that, despite his mandate, his views about what Labour should be and where it should go, are wrong and that there is an alternative and what that alternative should be. He may not be listened to. That's the risk. He certainly is not being listened to now. That's the reality. If he speaks up, there is a chance - maybe only a negligible one - that what he says will resonate and that it may be picked up later. If he stays and says nothing, why should anyone listen to what he may say later. If he allows himself to be sacked or demoted, again why should anyone see him in future as a possible leader.
I may be assuming that Benn is not a Corbyn supporter. For all we know he does support Corbyn and simply disagrees on this one aspect of foreign policy, possibly the worst possible basis on which to campaign for an alternative view in today's Labour party.
But his speech seemed to me to be the closest we have seen since May (and for some time before that) where someone has made the moral case for a decent Labour party which actually acts on the values it claims to believe in.
Corbyn's view of Labour is wrong-headed, malicious and likely to harm not just Britain but liberal values. I would like for there to be an alternative and more humane, liberal view in Labour. But if not then we need a new properly social democratic left of centre party.
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
Most European countries have never got into the home-owning fetish - my peer group were making about £100K/year in the 1990s in Switzerland but it never crossed our minds to do anything but rent. Worry worry worry about the roof, the boiler, the floors, the walls, the garden fence - who needs it? Life is too short. It didn't really take off in Britain AFAICR until it was made tax-deductible for a while.
Obviously a bad landlord is worse than anything, but with a good one he does the tedious stuff and lets you live. My hob stopped working the other day - I reported it, next day there was a new hob - no need to get in an engineer, seasrch for a replacement, take time off work, etc. etc. Bliss!
To be fair it's started to change over the Channel and home ownership is creeping up across the Continent. But it's still a minority pastime.
Sorry Nick but that simply isn't true. The Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Finland, Cyprus, Portugal, Greece, Slovenia, Spain, the Czech Republic, Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania and Romania all have higher percentages of owner occupancy than the UK.
In fact the UK is 24th out of 29 EU countries in terms of Owner Occupancy.
Whoops. Apparently Lemmy's family and friends have asked everyone to listen to Motörhead turned up to 11 as a tribute. Sounds like a plan, although I'll pass on the whole bottle of Jack that the mad man used to drink before he went on stage! Rest in Noise! https://youtube.com/uvQjTYTpx2E
The angriest and most pessimistic people in America are the people we used to call Middle Americans. Middle-class and middle-aged; not rich and not poor; people who are irked when asked to press 1 for English, and who wonder how white male became an accusation rather than a description.
You can measure their pessimism in polls that ask about their expectations for their lives—and for those of their children. On both counts, whites without a college degree express the bleakest view. You can see the effects of their despair in the new statistics describing horrifying rates of suicide and substance-abuse fatality among this same group, in middle age.
If you go into any diversity training course the categories which will be talked about will include:-
- race - ethnicity - gender - sexuality - ability/disability - country of origin / nationality - religion
Spot the one category which is almost invariably missing but which, certainly in the UK (and probably elsewhere as well), has more to do with your chances in life.
Why it is missing is a mystery given how obsessed we are with it in every other respect.
You're right. OK, I'm going to do it. (lol - I realise no one gives a stuff but it does feel like a step. I'll probably go native and turn into Eric Pickles in five years.)
You need a very long spoon to sup with the devil
You should credit St Dunstan with that image! (He was also notable for tweaking the devil's nose with a pair of sugar tongs...)
You probably wouldn't like him though - classic Tory: he restructured the monastical system to make it cashflow positive (in his role as ++Cantab), cut government spending in his simultaneous position as Chancellor and still found time to write the Coronation Service that is still largely used today
I wonder if Corbyn may keep Benn in the cabinet, whilst all the other warmongers moderates are booted out.
Of course he will.
He'll give him a senior sounding position, albeit a clear demotion (because the Leader and the SFS need to be aligned on foreign policy) and dare him to walk out.
Let's say Benn is offered Shadow Business: he looks like an arrogant tosser if he says "that's not good enough" but it's clearly a signal to everyone else that he is unimportant. At the same time you clear out the junior ranks to make sure he doesn't have the numbers. They won't matter because no one normal has ever heard of Vernon Croker. Not even his own family.
He doesn't need to say "that's not good enough" though, just decline the position. In the context of a purge of other moderates, the story is not going to be "Benn flounces out".
Seems a bit strange allowing a free vote so the majority of the shadow cabinet can vote against the leader and then planning to sack them all because they did. Is it really going to happen?
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
Most European countries have never got into the home-owning fetish - my peer group were making about £100K/year in the 1990s in Switzerland but it never crossed our minds to do anything but rent. Worry worry worry about the roof, the boiler, the floors, the walls, the garden fence - who needs it? Life is too short. It didn't really take off in Britain AFAICR until it was made tax-deductible for a while.
Obviously a bad landlord is worse than anything, but with a good one he does the tedious stuff and lets you live. My hob stopped working the other day - I reported it, next day there was a new hob - no need to get in an engineer, seasrch for a replacement, take time off work, etc. etc. Bliss!
To be fair it's started to change over the Channel and home ownership is creeping up across the Continent. But it's still a minority pastime.
Sorry Nick but that simply isn't true. The Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Finland, Cyprus, Portugal, Greece, Slovenia, Spain, the Czech Republic, Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania and Romania all have higher percentages of owner occupancy than the UK.
In fact the UK is 24th out of 29 EU countries in terms of Owner Occupancy.
At such a young age, though i.e. before they were 30?
Whoops. Apparently Lemmy's family and friends have asked everyone to listen to Motörhead turned up to 11 as a tribute. Sounds like a plan, although I'll pass on the whole bottle of Jack that the mad man used to drink before he went on stage! Rest in Noise! https://youtube.com/uvQjTYTpx2E
If you haven't seen it, the Lemmy (2010) documentary, is an interesting watch.
It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".
Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.
England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.
Which is to say "not at all".
You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.
Wrong. There is such a thing as English Law. There is also English Criminal Law, English property law and English Trust law. All are separate from Scots law although both are ultimately subject to the UK Supreme Court.
You mean the Law of England and Wales. England does not have it's own legal system.
No I mean English Law. It is defined as English law and from 1948 was designated as applicable to England and Wales.
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
Most European countries have never got into the home-owning fetish - my peer group were making about £100K/year in the 1990s in Switzerland but it never crossed our minds to do anything but rent. Worry worry worry about the roof, the boiler, the floors, the walls, the garden fence - who needs it? Life is too short. It didn't really take off in Britain AFAICR until it was made tax-deductible for a while.
Obviously a bad landlord is worse than anything, but with a good one he does the tedious stuff and lets you live. My hob stopped working the other day - I reported it, next day there was a new hob - no need to get in an engineer, seasrch for a replacement, take time off work, etc. etc. Bliss!
To be fair it's started to change over the Channel and home ownership is creeping up across the Continent. But it's still a minority pastime.
Sorry Nick but that simply isn't true. The Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Finland, Cyprus, Portugal, Greece, Slovenia, Spain, the Czech Republic, Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania and Romania all have higher percentages of owner occupancy than the UK.
In fact the UK is 24th out of 29 EU countries in terms of Owner Occupancy.
Here's a funny one: excluding resource exporters, there's a strong statistical correlation between home ownership and current account deficits. Countries where people own their own homes are much more likely to have current account deficits than countries where people rent. The R^2 is about 0.7 or 0.8. I have a chart somewhere that I like to show people.
So: US and UK, high levels of home ownership and current account deficits; Germany, Switzerland, low levels of home ownership and current account surpluses.
I'm not sure if there's any obvious causal link (except perhaps that people who own properties tend to feel more financially secure, and therefore spend more of their income), but it's interesting nonetheless.
the SNP remain popular because they are doing what people want.
Quite right.
The people wanted a Tory government, and Swinney gave them a Tory budget in Scotland.
Everyone's happy.
I kind of disagree with this.
But the Stupidity of "the Vow/FFA/Yessers" was pretty clear when it became clear that that was already the case ; the stupid Yessers had just forgot about the tax powers they had.
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
Most European countries have never got into the home-owning fetish - my peer group were making about £100K/year in the 1990s in Switzerland but it never crossed our minds to do anything but rent. Worry worry worry about the roof, the boiler, the floors, the walls, the garden fence - who needs it? Life is too short. It didn't really take off in Britain AFAICR until it was made tax-deductible for a while.
Obviously a bad landlord is worse than anything, but with a good one he does the tedious stuff and lets you live. My hob stopped working the other day - I reported it, next day there was a new hob - no need to get in an engineer, seasrch for a replacement, take time off work, etc. etc. Bliss!
To be fair it's started to change over the Channel and home ownership is creeping up across the Continent. But it's still a minority pastime.
Sorry Nick but that simply isn't true. The Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Finland, Cyprus, Portugal, Greece, Slovenia, Spain, the Czech Republic, Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania and Romania all have higher percentages of owner occupancy than the UK.
In fact the UK is 24th out of 29 EU countries in terms of Owner Occupancy.
At such a young age, though i.e. before they were 30?
No idea. But since home ownership in 11 of those countries is above 80% I suspect it must start fairly early.
Home ownership in the UK is only 65% - almost identical to that of the US and France.
Whoops. Apparently Lemmy's family and friends have asked everyone to listen to Motörhead turned up to 11 as a tribute. Sounds like a plan, although I'll pass on the whole bottle of Jack that the mad man used to drink before he went on stage! Rest in Noise! https://youtube.com/uvQjTYTpx2E
If you haven't seen it, the Lemmy (2010) documentary, is an interesting watch.
I wonder if Corbyn may keep Benn in the cabinet, whilst all the other warmongers moderates are booted out.
Of course he will.
He'll give him a senior sounding position, albeit a clear demotion (because the Leader and the SFS need to be aligned on foreign policy) and dare him to walk out.
Let's say Benn is offered Shadow Business: he looks like an arrogant tosser if he says "that's not good enough" but it's clearly a signal to everyone else that he is unimportant. At the same time you clear out the junior ranks to make sure he doesn't have the numbers. They won't matter because no one normal has ever heard of Vernon Croker. Not even his own family.
He doesn't need to say "that's not good enough" though, just decline the position. In the context of a purge of other moderates, the story is not going to be "Benn flounces out".
Seems a bit strange allowing a free vote so the majority of the shadow cabinet can vote against the leader and then planning to sack them all because they did. Is it really going to happen?
I wonder if Corbyn may keep Benn in the cabinet, whilst all the other warmongers moderates are booted out.
Of course he will.
He'll give him a senior sounding position, albeit a clear demotion (because the Leader and the SFS need to be aligned on foreign policy) and dare him to walk out.
Let's say Benn is offered Shadow Business: he looks like an arrogant tosser if he says "that's not good enough" but it's clearly a signal to everyone else that he is unimportant. At the same time you clear out the junior ranks to make sure he doesn't have the numbers. They won't matter because no one normal has ever heard of Vernon Croker. Not even his own family.
He doesn't need to say "that's not good enough" though, just decline the position. In the context of a purge of other moderates, the story is not going to be "Benn flounces out".
Seems a bit strange allowing a free vote so the majority of the shadow cabinet can vote against the leader and then planning to sack them all because they did. Is it really going to happen?
It's being pretty heavily trailed.
It's being so heavily trailed that if it doesn't happen it'll be described as a climbdown.
The angriest and most pessimistic people in America are the people we used to call Middle Americans. Middle-class and middle-aged; not rich and not poor; people who are irked when asked to press 1 for English, and who wonder how white male became an accusation rather than a description.
You can measure their pessimism in polls that ask about their expectations for their lives—and for those of their children. On both counts, whites without a college degree express the bleakest view. You can see the effects of their despair in the new statistics describing horrifying rates of suicide and substance-abuse fatality among this same group, in middle age.
If you go into any diversity training course the categories which will be talked about will include:-
- race - ethnicity - gender - sexuality - ability/disability - country of origin / nationality - religion
Spot the one category which is almost invariably missing but which, certainly in the UK (and probably elsewhere as well), has more to do with your chances in life.
Why it is missing is a mystery given how obsessed we are with it in every other respect.
The other categories don't affect vested interests.
Comments
The Tories played it well and they had to have the right opposition and the right economic condition, but it was the perfect hook to hang their attack on.
Bit like Major and his "back to basics" quote was perfect to blast the Tories with over sleaze.
But how do the figures on home ownership compare with other European countries? After all, to be a homeowner in the first half of your 20's is pretty exceptional.
The figures for those in their late 30's/early 40's still renting would be more interesting.
May could be a good bet, having survived the career killer that is the Home Office for so long. How would the lefty feminists deal with TWO female Tory PMs?
' Upon being forced out of the post by the election defeat, Maudling left a note to his successor, James Callaghan, simply stating "Good luck, old cock.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess." '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Maudling
By thinking this way one is accepting that meaningful politics is now something that takes place within the Conservative Party. But then, that's where we are.
I'd love to read a newspaper article that explored that aspect of that note. It was sufficiently politically important (and will probably remain so, just like the folklore about the dead being unburied in the Winter of Discontent) to justify knowing more about how the Conservatives came to own this bit of politics, literally as well as figuratively.
In an interview with Sir Bradley, who was guest editing BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the Labour leader revealed that he is "not that competitive.""
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12072524/Jeremy-Corbyn-tells-Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-Politics-is-not-about-winning.html
After all, we don't know that what Cameron was waving around was the original rather than a copy.
Certainly, if I were shown a "smoking gun" document, I'd be sure to get a copy if I couldn't get to keep the original.
Regarding life on Mars, I think it's effectively impossible next year as we (we meaning, er, NASA) don't have equipment on Mars that could conclusively establish the existence of life at present. However, I don't think the public's instinct is wrong in that if one extended the time-frame to, say, 2050, then it's about as likely we'll find life on Mars by then as that England get to the final of the Euros.
A shame that such traditions have been lost in the modern age, but not the first or last such tradition lost I suspect. Not that politics was not cut throat previously, but there generally seems less humour about it now.
What it says is in the public domain and repeated from time to time. No-one thinks of it as a private letter. And, then, during the GE campaign, someone remembers to give that piece of paper to Dave so that he can flourish it theatrically when making the point which has been made so many times before.
Anyway, must go, have a good day everyone.
Obviously a bad landlord is worse than anything, but with a good one he does the tedious stuff and lets you live. My hob stopped working the other day - I reported it, next day there was a new hob - no need to get in an engineer, seasrch for a replacement, take time off work, etc. etc. Bliss!
To be fair it's started to change over the Channel and home ownership is creeping up across the Continent. But it's still a minority pastime.
I wonder how many more floaters Labour voter @Danny365 can persuade to join the Tories
The Acts of Union 1707 weren't passed by the "Parliament of England and Wales", they were passed by the "Parliament of England". We had and still have what was correctly called English law, not "Law of England and Wales". If any of the four home nations could be said not to have existed politically before devolution it was Wales, not England.
That seems a stunningly high figure to me. With all the complaining that we read on here and elsewhere about how difficult it is to become a first time buyer, the fact that not far short of 50% of the twenty-somethings have already bought a home is remarkable.
Edit - Beaten to the gag, I see.
He'll give him a senior sounding position, albeit a clear demotion (because the Leader and the SFS need to be aligned on foreign policy) and dare him to walk out.
Let's say Benn is offered Shadow Business: he looks like an arrogant tosser if he says "that's not good enough" but it's clearly a signal to everyone else that he is unimportant. At the same time you clear out the junior ranks to make sure he doesn't have the numbers. They won't matter because no one normal has ever heard of Vernon Croker. Not even his own family.
Yes, we are selling intangible assets (the brand) but for a a price that the owners think is worth selling for. If the premium released is reinvested into building new businesses it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Shade belated, but np, Miss Plato.
IIRC, there was a cross-over in the mids 2000s (around 2004/2005, I think) where the stock of British owned foreign assets fell below the stock of foreign owned British assets for the first time since the Victorian era.
We still earned substantially more on our investment income than we paid out to foreign investors, but even that gap has eroded now - and as you note was in deficit in 2013
Couldn't it just be something that they whipped up in the back office?
As you note on another post, our "invisibles" have gone negative and our "physical" trade position is even further in the shitter than it has ever been. The result is increasing national poverty and a gentle decline in the standards of, amongst other things, our public services. Mr. RCS1000, notes that we are only financing our present national life-style by borrowing huge amounts of money.
I fear that all the time politicians are squabbling about decimal places in GDP growth (a measure that not one in ten of MPs could explain) the country will continue its genteel slide into poverty.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3377701/ISIS-leader-linked-Paris-massacre-mastermind-killed-Syria-drone-strike.html
I may be assuming that Benn is not a Corbyn supporter. For all we know he does support Corbyn and simply disagrees on this one aspect of foreign policy, possibly the worst possible basis on which to campaign for an alternative view in today's Labour party.
But his speech seemed to me to be the closest we have seen since May (and for some time before that) where someone has made the moral case for a decent Labour party which actually acts on the values it claims to believe in.
Corbyn's view of Labour is wrong-headed, malicious and likely to harm not just Britain but liberal values. I would like for there to be an alternative and more humane, liberal view in Labour. But if not then we need a new properly social democratic left of centre party.
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/681822443862765568
In fact the UK is 24th out of 29 EU countries in terms of Owner Occupancy.
https://youtube.com/uvQjTYTpx2E
- race
- ethnicity
- gender
- sexuality
- ability/disability
- country of origin / nationality
- religion
Spot the one category which is almost invariably missing but which, certainly in the UK (and probably elsewhere as well), has more to do with your chances in life.
Why it is missing is a mystery given how obsessed we are with it in every other respect.
You probably wouldn't like him though - classic Tory: he restructured the monastical system to make it cashflow positive (in his role as ++Cantab), cut government spending in his simultaneous position as Chancellor and still found time to write the Coronation Service that is still largely used today
The people wanted a Tory government, and Swinney gave them a Tory budget in Scotland.
Everyone's happy.
Is it really going to happen?
So: US and UK, high levels of home ownership and current account deficits; Germany, Switzerland, low levels of home ownership and current account surpluses.
I'm not sure if there's any obvious causal link (except perhaps that people who own properties tend to feel more financially secure, and therefore spend more of their income), but it's interesting nonetheless.
But the Stupidity of "the Vow/FFA/Yessers" was pretty clear when it became clear that that was already the case ; the stupid Yessers had just forgot about the tax powers they had.
Home ownership in the UK is only 65% - almost identical to that of the US and France.
- race
- ethnicity
- gender
- sexuality
- ability/disability
- country of origin / nationality
- religion
Spot the one category which is almost invariably missing but which, certainly in the UK (and probably elsewhere as well), has more to do with your chances in life.
Why it is missing is a mystery given how obsessed we are with it in every other respect.
The other categories don't affect vested interests.