It seems anyone who dares to have politics even marginally different from Jeremy Corbyn is considered to be a Tory by Corbynistas. To them, the words Conservative and Blairite have lost any coherent meaning. 'Tory' and 'Blairite' now simply mean 'anyone that I don't like' for Corbynistas.
Corbynistas vary, just like any other group. I know
It's frustrating.
She blew it.
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not burdening them with the liability of the trillions of debt that a Corbyn government would borrow and pass the interest burdens on to the under 40s and younger. U
The thing is the national debt is dwarfed by the real terms increase in house prices/housing costs - which, since the mid 70's, has transferred a pile of the nations wealth from non-property owners - and future property owners - to existing property owners.
The more property you owned, the wealthier you became.
The costs of the national debt are shared by everyone - the costs of the politically engineered house price boom have been piled onto the propertyless - the young and the poor.
Pumping up real property prices has become the whole point of the conservative party since thatcher. New labour are despised by the left because they bought into this scam.
If you don't own property - or are on a low rung of the property ladder - it's in your interests to vote corbyn.
The Tories problem is that they can only make the young become property owners by masshousing building*, and reducing house prices. This either requires a period of high inflation, with high interest rates, and either negative equity for their voters or reduced potential inheritance.
*house building is likely to require building on greenfield sites and also importing migrant labour, annoying 2 further strands of Tory voting.
Corbyn's Labour will get at least 2 terms.
It's a massive problem for them, electorally.
They have to redistribute money to potential voters from existing Tory voters. Something that Corbyn can sell better than any Tory.
Do you know what I fear Cornyn might not make it to the next election.
Once Cornyn is gone the Tories have a chance IMO.
Corbyn looks pretty healthy to me, but also Labour has rediscovered a winning formula.
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not burdening them with the liability of the trillions of debt that a Corbyn government would borrow and pass the interest burdens on to the under 40s and younger. U
The thing is the national debt is dwarfed by the real terms increase in house prices/housing costs - which, since the mid 70's, has transferred a pile of the nations wealth from non-property owners - and future property owners - to existing property owners.
The more property you owned, the wealthier you became.
The costs of the national debt are shared by everyone - the costs of the politically engineered house price boom have been piled onto the propertyless - the young and the poor.
Pumping up real property prices has become the whole point of the conservative party since thatcher. New labour are despised by the left because they bought into this scam.
If you don't own property - or are on a low rung of the property ladder - it's in your interests to vote corbyn.
The Tories problem is that they can only make the young become property owners by masshousing building*, and reducing house prices. This either requires a period of high inflation, with high interest rates, and either negative equity for their voters or reduced potential inheritance.
*house building is likely to require building on greenfield sites and also importing migrant labour, annoying 2 further strands of Tory voting.
Corbyn's Labour will get at least 2 terms.
It's a massive problem for them, electorally.
It is a massive problem electorally. However I would lay good money that Corbyn himself, if he became PM, would not last more than 6 months, so obviously unsuited is he to the position of PM. This is not a policy issue. The evidence is so clearly there to anyone who cares to look, and the events of the last 2 months, have changed absolutely nothing in that respect. It is a scandal that the Conservative campaign failed utterly to even attempt to focus on this in any meaningful respect.
And in policy terms, the fact that the Tories have a problem doesn't mean that Corbynism in practice would be electorally successful on a sustainable basis.
It seems anyone who dares to have politics even marginally different from Jeremy Corbyn is considered to be a Tory by Corbynistas. To them, the words Conservative and Blairite have lost any coherent meaning. 'Tory' and 'Blairite' now simply mean 'anyone that I don't like' for Corbynistas.
Corbynistas vary, just like any other group. I know
It's frustrating.
She blew it.
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not burdening them with the liability of the trillions of debt that a Corbyn government would borrow and pass the interest burdens on to the under 40s and younger. U
It's a massive problem for them, electorally.
They have to redistribute money to potential voters from existing Tory voters. Something that Corbyn can sell better than any Tory.
This was an interesting comment from Wolfgang Schaeuble in relation to Brexit:
It seems anyone who dares to have politics even marginally different from Jeremy Corbyn is considered to be a Tory by Corbynistas. To them, the words Conservative and Blairite have lost any coherent meaning. 'Tory' and 'Blairite' now simply mean 'anyone that I don't like' for Corbynistas.
Corbynistas vary, just like any other group. I know
It's frustrating.
She blew it.
The costs of the national debt are shared by everyone - the costs of the politically engineered house price boom have been piled onto the propertyless - the young and the poor.
Pumping up real property prices has become the whole point of the conservative party since thatcher. New labour are despised by the left because they bought into this scam.
If you don't own property - or are on a low rung of the property ladder - it's in your interests to vote corbyn.
The Tories problem is that they can only make the young become property owners by masshousing building*, and reducing house prices. This either requires a period of high inflation, with high interest rates, and either negative equity for their voters or reduced potential inheritance.
*house building is likely to require building on greenfield sites and also importing migrant labour, annoying 2 further strands of Tory voting.
Corbyn's Labour will get at least 2 terms.
It's a massive problem for them, electorally.
They have to redistribute money to potential voters from existing Tory voters. Something that Corbyn can sell better than any Tory.
Do you know what I fear Cornyn might not make it to the next election.
Once Cornyn is gone the Tories have a chance IMO.
Whilst most of the youth support for Labour is for the actual policies and manifesto there is defo a small element for whom it is Corbyn or bust. If these Corbyn or bust folk stay at home then Tories are defiinitley in with a good chance if they present an inspiring vision of their own, not least because the oldies that were put off this time by the dreadful Tory manifesto will vote Conservative again.
But Tories must be careful *most* (but not all) of the youth surge will still vote at the next election because their prospects are unlikely to have gotten better within 5 years.
I imagine Lab 46, Con 41 would give Lab a majority - because they would gain more in the marginals - they have already just about maxed out their vote in their heartlands.
Sunday Times doesn't give figures for other parties but 87% for main two parties is surely extraordinary - leaves very little for anyone else.
I also think that given the last few weeks, Con being 5% behind is hardly a disaster - a new leader in a honeymoon with a much more popular manifesto and they could easily come back from that.
As for the debate below re young / old and property prices - well it didn't stop Con being absolutely miles ahead when the GE was called - so it doesn't mean Con can't win again under the current situation.
Conclusion: Anything can happen - next GE isn't far off a 50:50 bet, though Lab must be slight favourites.
I still believe that the best bet for Con is to run this Parliament as long as possible and try to time Corbyn out - either on age grounds or if not that then at least make him look much less new and fresh. He also won't have the advantage of surprise next time - Con should, in theory, be better prepared to take him on next time and they will hope to be aided by a far better leader.
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not burdening them with the liability of the trillions of debt that a Corbyn government would borrow and pass the interest burdens on to the under 40s and younger. U
The thing is the national debt is dwarfed by the real terms increase in house prices/housing costs - which, since the mid 70's, has transferred a pile of the nations wealth from non-property owners - and future property owners - to existing property owners.
The more property you owned, the wealthier you became.
The costs of the national debt are shared by everyone - the costs of the politically engineered house price boom have been piled onto the propertyless - the young and the poor.
Pumping up real property prices has become the whole point of the conservative party since thatcher. New labour are despised by the left because they bought into this scam.
If you don't own property - or are on a low rung of the property ladder - it's in your interests to vote corbyn.
The Tories problem is that they can only make the young become property owners by masshousing building*, and reducing house prices. This either requires a period of high inflation, with high interest rates, and either negative equity for their voters or reduced potential inheritance.
*house building is likely to require building on greenfield sites and also importing migrant labour, annoying 2 further strands of Tory voting.
Corbyn's Labour will get at least 2 terms.
It's a massive problem for them, electorally.
They have to redistribute money to potential voters from existing Tory voters. Something that Corbyn can sell better than any Tory.
I think if Dave & George were facing a popular Corbyn, they would have attempted to split apart his coalition - like giving the £27k tuition fees back to graduates as a state-subsidized house deposit - or something insane like that.
In the tory economic bubble, that kind of policy can be made to work.
Suck the energy out of the corbyn surge by peeling off potential, aspiring tories - and whatever you do, keep the ponzi scheme going. The longterm benefits to the tory client vote outweighs the upfront costs to the state - and can be loaded onto the not-property owners anyhow.
You can't run a country like that though. Even if we were to get a Corbyn government, the public is unlikely to agree with everything Corbyn says.
I'm 99% certain that most Labour voters have no bloody idea what Corbyn and McDonnell really stand for, they just heard the "free stuff" at election time and went for it. They could do with a lot wider and deeper scrutiny as some of the things they are for are properly mad.
I'm 99% certain that most Leave voters have no bloody idea what leaving the EU really means, they just heard the "free stuff" at referendum time and went for it.
I don't actually think that, but I don't see why it is acceptable to patronise one group of voters but not another?
I keep on telling people that Brexit and Corbynism are two cheeks of the same arse.
And again you and the other Remoaners are the hole in the middle.
It seems anyone who dares to have politics even marginally different from Jeremy Corbyn is considered to be a Tory by Corbynistas. To them, the words Conservative and Blairite have lost any coherent meaning. 'Tory' and 'Blairite' now simply mean 'anyone that I don't like' for Corbynistas.
Corbynistas vary, just like any other group. I know
It's frustrating.
A dynamic conservatism *should* have appeal to the young. It should have an idealism to it. It should be continually attacking the parasitic entrenched interests that try to attach themselves to the party.
I had a brief hope that the constitutional zero-day that is brexit - combined with TM's (I believe) genuine desire to make conservatism work for the JAMS could have given the tories the necessary - once in a generation - reboot.
She blew it.
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not burdening them with the liability of the trillions of debt that a Corbyn government would borrow and pass the interest burdens on to the under 40s and younger. U
..
The costs of the national debt are shared by everyone - the costs of the politically engineered house price boom have been piled onto the propertyless - the young and the poor.
Pumping up real property prices has become the whole point of the conservative party since thatcher. New labour are despised by the left because they bought into this scam.
If you don't own property - or are on a low rung of the property ladder - it's in your interests to vote corbyn.
The Tories problem is that they can only make the young become property owners by masshousing building*, and reducing house prices. This either requires a period of high inflation, with high interest rates, and either negative equity for their voters or reduced potential inheritance.
*house building is likely to require building on greenfield sites and also importing migrant labour, annoying 2 further strands of Tory voting.
Corbyn's Labour will get at least 2 terms.
Nah, just build newtowns in the top 100 lab marginals. Borrow 500B @0% over 100y for 'infrastructure' and challenge Corbyn/Mcdonnell to oppose.
5m houses, each with a bit of garden and a garage . Compulsory land purchase, cheap land, massively subsidised government guaranteed mortgages. Lots of new connecting motorways, shops, schools, hospitals. Corbo Labour will oppose everything except the borrowing.. and be annihilated at the next elex. Its economics, init.
Councils are testing their Towers to make sure they are safe. But what about properties that have been bought under "right to buy"? Say the council is told every flat needs refurbishing will they pay for the refurbishment of now privatley owned homes as well for free? Are they able to force people in private homes to evacuate?
Councils are testing their Towers to make sure they are safe. But what about properties that have been bought under "right to buy"? Say the council is told every flat needs refurbishing will they pay for the refurbishment of now privatley owned homes as well for free? Are they able to force people in private homes to evacuate?
Why should the council pay for the private flats ? It is the risk the owners take. They should be charged for their share as per deed of sale. Just like painting of common parts.
I don't the council or anybody has the legal authority to make anyone evacuate until they produce the proper letter and which says the tenants are being asked to do sounder whatever legal powers. Word of mouth or the police will come round in not lawful.
It seems anyone who dares to have politics even marginally different from Jeremy Corbyn is considered to be a Tory by Corbynistas. To them, the words Conservative and Blairite have lost any coherent meaning. 'Tory' and 'Blairite' now simply mean 'anyone that I don't like' for Corbynistas.
Corbynistas vary, just like any other group. I know
I had a brief hope that the constitutional zero-day that is brexit - combined with TM's (I believe) genuine desire to make conservatism work for the JAMS could have given the tories the necessary - once in a generation - reboot.
She blew it.
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not burdening them with the liability of the trillions of debt that a Corbyn government would borrow and pass the interest burdens on to the under 40s and younger. U
..
The costs of the national debt are shared by everyone - the costs of the politically engineered house price boom have been piled onto the propertyless - the young and the poor.
Pumping up real property prices has become the whole point of the conservative party since thatcher. New labour are despised by the left because they bought into this scam.
If you don't own property - or are on a low rung of the property ladder - it's in your interests to vote corbyn.
The Tories problem is that they can only make the young become property owners by masshousing building*, and reducing house prices. This either requires a period of high inflation, with high interest rates, and either negative equity for their voters or reduced potential inheritance.
*house building is likely to require building on greenfield sites and also importing migrant labour, annoying 2 further strands of Tory voting.
Corbyn's Labour will get at least 2 terms.
Nah, just build newtowns in the top 100 lab marginals. Borrow 500B @0% over 100y for 'infrastructure'and challenge Corbyn/Mcdonnell to oppose.
5m houses, each with a bit of garden and a garage . Compulsory land purchase, cheap land, massively subsidised government guaranteed mortgages. Lots of new connecting motorways, shops, schools, hospitals. Corbo Labour will oppose everything except the borrowing.. and be annihilated at the next elex. Its economics, init.
Ironically, exactly what Corbyn and McDonnell would do and they would be slated for that.
Councils are testing their Towers to make sure they are safe. But what about properties that have been bought under "right to buy"? Say the council is told every flat needs refurbishing will they pay for the refurbishment of now privatley owned homes as well for free? Are they able to force people in private homes to evacuate?
Why should the council pay for the private flats ? It is the risk the owners take. They should be charged for their share as per deed of sale. Just like painting of common parts.
I don't the council or anybody has the legal authority to make anyone evacuate until they produce the proper letter and which says the tenants are being asked to do sounder whatever legal powers. Word of mouth or the police will come round in not lawful.
I think nunu is talking about tower blocks where a subset of the flats are privately owned. Would they only remove cladding on the council-owned flats, leaving the fire risk present?
Councils are testing their Towers to make sure they are safe. But what about properties that have been bought under "right to buy"? Say the council is told every flat needs refurbishing will they pay for the refurbishment of now privatley owned homes as well for free? Are they able to force people in private homes to evacuate?
Council flats in highrises should never have been sold under right to buy, precisely because of issues like this.
It's a wholly unsuitable ownership structure.
CPO them and have a housing association manage the whole block.
Councils are testing their Towers to make sure they are safe. But what about properties that have been bought under "right to buy"? Say the council is told every flat needs refurbishing will they pay for the refurbishment of now privatley owned homes as well for free? Are they able to force people in private homes to evacuate?
Council flats in highrises should never have been sold under right to buy, precisely because of issues like this.
It's a wholly unsuitable ownership structure.
CPO them and have a housing association manage the whole block.
Do we know what the agreement was regarding costs like these when the flat was sold? It might include a clause saying they are liable towards costs for refurbishment when safety issues are found. Calling them wholly unsuitable is a bit OTT.
Councils are testing their Towers to make sure they are safe. But what about properties that have been bought under "right to buy"? Say the council is told every flat needs refurbishing will they pay for the refurbishment of now privatley owned homes as well for free? Are they able to force people in private homes to evacuate?
Why should the council pay for the private flats ? It is the risk the owners take. They should be charged for their share as per deed of sale. Just like painting of common parts.
I don't the council or anybody has the legal authority to make anyone evacuate until they produce the proper letter and which says the tenants are being asked to do sounder whatever legal powers. Word of mouth or the police will come round in not lawful.
I think nunu is talking about tower blocks where a subset of the flats are privately owned. Would they only remove cladding on the council-owned flats, leaving the fire risk present?
THe decision will be of the Management and the council presumably will be the majority owners. The minority just will be sent their portion of the bill.
Can private owners refuse to pay for external repairs or painting of the common parts ? This rule exists even if the block was 100% privately owned.
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not burdening them with the liability of the trillions of debt that a Corbyn government would borrow and pass the interest burdens on to the under 40s and younger. U
The thing is the national debt is dwarfed by the real terms increase in house prices/housing costs - which, since the mid 70's, has transferred a pile of the nations wealth from non-property owners - and future property owners - to existing property owners.
The more property you owned, the wealthier you became.
The costs of the national debt are shared by everyone - the costs of the politically engineered house price boom have been piled onto the propertyless - the young and the poor.
Pumping up real property prices has become the whole point of the conservative party since thatcher. New labour are despised by the left because they bought into this scam.
If you don't own property - or are on a low rung of the property ladder - it's in your interests to vote corbyn.
The Tories problem is that they can only make the young become property owners by masshousing building*, and reducing house prices. This either requires a period of high inflation, with high interest rates, and either negative equity for their voters or reduced potential inheritance.
*house building is likely to require building on greenfield sites and also importing migrant labour, annoying 2 further strands of Tory voting.
Corbyn's Labour will get at least 2 terms.
It's a massive problem for them, electorally.
It is a massive problem electorally. However I would lay good money that Corbyn himself, if he became PM, would not last more than 6 months, so obviously unsuited is he to the position of PM. This is not a policy issue. The evidence is so clearly there to anyone who cares to look, and the events of the last 2 months, have changed absolutely nothing in that respect. It is a scandal that the Conservative campaign failed utterly to even attempt to focus on this in any meaningful respect.
And in policy terms, the fact that the Tories have a problem doesn't mean that Corbynism in practice would be electorally successful on a sustainable basis.
However, within six months of Corbyn taking over, there will be a general election.
Councils are testing their Towers to make sure they are safe. But what about properties that have been bought under "right to buy"? Say the council is told every flat needs refurbishing will they pay for the refurbishment of now privatley owned homes as well for free? Are they able to force people in private homes to evacuate?
Why should the council pay for the private flats ? It is the risk the owners take. They should be charged for their share as per deed of sale. Just like painting of common parts.
I don't the council or anybody has the legal authority to make anyone evacuate until they produce the proper letter and which says the tenants are being asked to do sounder whatever legal powers. Word of mouth or the police will come round in not lawful.
I think nunu is talking about tower blocks where a subset of the flats are privately owned. Would they only remove cladding on the council-owned flats, leaving the fire risk present?
THe decision will be of the Management and the council presumably will be the majority owners. The minority just will be sent their portion of the bill.
Can private owners refuse to pay for external repairs or painting of the common parts ? This rule exists even if the block was 100% privately owned.
I would assume that would be the case, but wondered if we knew for sure.
Feels right. I think the fire disaster was actually broadly neutral in party political terms, for the good reason that it's generally seen as shoddy design and inspection more than party political, but it's contributed to the general loss of confidence in May. Corbyn continues to ride the wave in Zen surfer style as the only politician actually offering a positive perspective - the Tory mantra seems to be the morose "It's all very difficult but we'll get you through it somehow", which is probably true as far as it goes (society is not about to collapse) but lacks inspiration.
Tories will be happy the Labour lead is only 5% after all the shit poured on May for the last few days.
Councils are testing their Towers to make sure they are safe. But what about properties that have been bought under "right to buy"? Say the council is told every flat needs refurbishing will they pay for the refurbishment of now privatley owned homes as well for free? Are they able to force people in private homes to evacuate?
Council flats in highrises should never have been sold under right to buy, precisely because of issues like this.
It's a wholly unsuitable ownership structure.
CPO them and have a housing association manage the whole block.
Pure guesswork here, but flats are surely sold leasehold, and not freehold? This means a ground rent (sometimes nominal) should be being paid to the freeholder, perhaps with an additional service charge as well.
A dynamic conservatism *should* have appeal to the young. It should have an idealism to it. It should be continually attacking the parasitic entrenched interests that try to attach themselves to the party.
I had a brief hope that the constitutional zero-day that is brexit - combined with TM's (I believe) genuine desire to make conservatism work for the JAMS could have given the tories the necessary - once in a generation - reboot.
She blew it.
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not burdening them with the liability of the trillions of debt that a Corbyn government would borrow and pass the interest burdens on to the under 40s and younger. U
The thing is the national debt is dwarfed by the real terms increase in house prices/housing costs - which, since the mid 70's, has transferred a pile of the nations wealth from non-property owners - and future property owners - to existing property owners.
The more property you owned, the wealthier you became.
The costs of the national debt are shared by everyone - the costs of the politically engineered house price boom have been piled onto the propertyless - the young and the poor.
Pumping up real property prices has become the whole point of the conservative party since thatcher. New labour are despised by the left because they bought into this scam.
If you don't own property - or are on a low rung of the property ladder - it's in your interests to vote corbyn.
How is the distinct possibility of negative equity in the interests of any property owner?
If you intend to trade up then as long as you can afford the mortgage, you're always better off with lower prices, even if it means you are underwater on your current property. Lower prices mean the rungs of the ladder are closer together.
I remember buying my first house in 92, after a couple of years of negative equity and uncertainty whether there would be more.
12% interest rates were a problem, but even bigger problems were that valuations were low, and banks were very unwilling to offer mortgages of more than 80%. The deposit was unaffordable even for a junior doctor with good prospects. It was a real struggle to find the deposit.
I bought a 2 bed terrace in a fashionable street of Leicester, for £42 000, but it was the limit of affordibility.
I bought my first house in Chiswick in '90 just at the peak for 135k with 99k endowment mortgage. I still own the house!
Re Softer PB Tories and Corbyn, I think it may be just GIN. Even DavidL and TSE - two moderate Conservatives - aren't exactly Corbyn's biggest fans!
I'v e detected some Pulpstar leftwards leanings....Corbyn is quite infectious and contagious...and reaches some places people previously thought impossible
Corbyn is like an STD.
I shall do a thread on such a comparison towards the end of next week.
Corbyn even got TSE to vote tactically against Clegg to elect a Corbynite Labour MP
I voted Lib Dem in Sheffield Hallam this time.
Did a vote swap with a Lib Dem in North East Derbyshire, which helped elect a Tory MP.
Boo.
Mind you TBF Pro Fracking Pro Green Belt building Engel was the person that made NE Derbyshire go Tory.
Apperently she has said at todays CLP in NE Derbyshire she wants to stand again
I doubt she will I reckon disabled Corbynite Dean Collins will be the next MP after Lee Rowley unless its an All Woman Shortlist!!
No wonder. I couldn't understand why she lost amidst the Corbyn surge.
Re Softer PB Tories and Corbyn, I think it may be just GIN. Even DavidL and TSE - two moderate Conservatives - aren't exactly Corbyn's biggest fans!
I'v e detected some Pulpstar leftwards leanings....Corbyn is quite infectious and contagious...and reaches some places people previously thought impossible
Yes, it's a shame. Pulpstar used to be very sensible but has slipped over the last few years.
I have a vague memory that his girlfriend is more lefty than he is (?) and that's probably more of an influence than Corbyn. Apologies to Pulpstar if I've misremembered.
Says one of the *very sensible* PBtories who paid £3 to elect Corbyn.
Re Softer PB Tories and Corbyn, I think it may be just GIN. Even DavidL and TSE - two moderate Conservatives - aren't exactly Corbyn's biggest fans!
I'v e detected some Pulpstar leftwards leanings....Corbyn is quite infectious and contagious...and reaches some places people previously thought impossible
Yes, it's a shame. Pulpstar used to be very sensible but has slipped over the last few years.
I have a vague memory that his girlfriend is more lefty than he is (?) and that's probably more of an influence than Corbyn. Apologies to Pulpstar if I've misremembered.
Says one of the *very sensible* PBtories who paid £3 to elect Corbyn.
lolz.
The best £3 he ever spent. Thanks to Plato too!
The influence of the £3ers is overstated. He would have won without them
It seems anyone who dares to have politics even marginally different from Jeremy Corbyn is considered to be a Tory by Corbynistas. To them, the words Conservative and Blairite have lost any coherent meaning. 'Tory' and 'Blairite' now simply mean 'anyone that I don't like' for Corbynistas.
Corbynistas vary, just like any other group. I know lots, but can only think of two who correspond to your stereotype, which actually rather resembles the way they describe Tories as "all the same". With respect, PB works better when we don't generalise about each other.
But while at present I know what Corbyn's Labour is for, while the purpose of Conservatives (to stop Corbyn and get some unspecified kind of Brexit?) and the LibDems (another referendum and...?) is largely shrouded in mystery. That was ALSO true of Labour in 2010 - speaking as a candidate, it was all about "stop the Tories". I think that the explosion of youth interest in Corbyn is that he's brought idealism back into fashion - the Tories will be making a mistake if they think that just addressing tuition fees will make much differemnce.
It's frustrating.
A dynamic conservatism *should* have appeal to the young. It should have an idealism to it. It should be continually attacking the parasitic entrenched interests that try to attach themselves to the party.
I had a brief hope that the constitutional zero-day that is brexit - combined with TM's (I believe) genuine desire to make conservatism work for the JAMS could have given the tories the necessary - once in a generation - reboot.
She blew it.
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not sure if anyone else saw this - apologies if it's already been posted. Potentially significant for the tories?...
The average @Conservative voter is getting older and older at a faster rate than the U.K population is ageing. This should concern the party pic.twitter.com/5ALnAPgym7
It seems anyone who dares to have politics even marginally different from Jeremy Corbyn is considered to be a Tory by Corbynistas. To them, the words Conservative and Blairite have lost any coherent meaning. 'Tory' and 'Blairite' now simply mean 'anyone that I don't like' for Corbynistas.
Corbynistas vary, just like any other group. I know
I had a brief hope that the constitutional zero-day that is brexit - combined with TM's (I believe) genuine desire to make conservatism work for the JAMS could have given the tories the necessary - once in a generation - reboot.
She blew it.
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not burdening them with the liability of the trillions of debt that a Corbyn government would borrow and pass the interest burdens on to the under 40s and younger. U
..
The costs of the national debt are shared by everyone - the costs of the politically engineered house price boom have been piled onto the propertyless - the young and the poor.
Pumping up real property prices has become the whole point of the conservative party since thatcher. New labour are despised by the left because they bought into this scam.
If you don't own property - or are on a low rung of the property ladder - it's in your interests to vote corbyn.
The Tories problem is that they can only make the young become property owners by masshousing building*, and reducing house prices. This either requires a period of high inflation, with high interest rates, and either negative equity for their voters or reduced potential inheritance.
*house building is likely to require building on greenfield sites and also importing migrant labour, annoying 2 further strands of Tory voting.
Corbyn's Labour will get at least 2 terms.
Nah, just build newtowns in the top 100 lab marginals. Borrow 500B @0% over 100y for 'infrastructure'and challenge Corbyn/Mcdonnell to oppose.
5m houses, each with a bit of garden and a garage . Compulsory land purchase, cheap land, massively subsidised government guaranteed mortgages. Lots of new connecting motorways, shops, schools, hospitals. Corbo Labour will oppose everything except the borrowing.. and be annihilated at the next elex. Its economics, init.
Ironically, exactly what Corbyn and McDonnell would do and they would be slated for that.
Re Softer PB Tories and Corbyn, I think it may be just GIN. Even DavidL and TSE - two moderate Conservatives - aren't exactly Corbyn's biggest fans!
I'v e detected some Pulpstar leftwards leanings....Corbyn is quite infectious and contagious...and reaches some places people previously thought impossible
Yes, it's a shame. Pulpstar used to be very sensible but has slipped over the last few years.
I have a vague memory that his girlfriend is more lefty than he is (?) and that's probably more of an influence than Corbyn. Apologies to Pulpstar if I've misremembered.
Says one of the *very sensible* PBtories who paid £3 to elect Corbyn.
lolz.
The best £3 he ever spent. Thanks to Plato too!
The influence of the £3ers is overstated. He would have won without them
Still looks value tho.
Who else could have neutalised Labour Remain during the ref and is now going to guarantee A50 and actual brexit?
However perhaps one can be forgiven for hoping that is the end of his superpowers.
Looks like the lib dems are never going to have the leader they need. Norman Lamb is a top MP and reaches out to many
Conservative partisans always say the LDs have the wrong leader - apparently Labour always has the wrong leader as well.
So we can safely ignore that viewpoint.
I do think a contest would be helpful as OGH argues. I don't have an issue with Vince being more on the Labour side of the street - nobody's talking Coalition or anything like that. The aim will and has to be to begin the rebuild of the local base which has taken years of battering.
With the thick end of 9000 Conservative Councillors out there there's going to be plenty of potential targets in the next few years starting with London next year. The possibility of regaining Richmond and Kingston from Conservative control would be helped with Vince in charge but I suspect after the GE a number of the capital's 600 Conservative Councillors will be feeling vulnerable.
Can you tell me when I have ever said the lib dems have the wrong leader. I have no problem with Vince Cable but Norman Lamb is excellent on social care and very sensible on most things. As far as labour is concerned I voted for Blair twice so your first sentence is an assumption that is not born out by facts
I thought Norman Lamb was a Tory.
It seems anyone who dares to have politics even marginally different from Jeremy Corbyn is considered to be a Tory by Corbynistas. To them, the words Conservative and Blairite have lost any coherent meaning. 'Tory' and 'Blairite' now simply mean 'anyone that I don't like' for Corbynistas.
Actually I have never voted for Corbyn as I have made clear in PB a hundred times.
The point though is after an articulate, thought-provoking and interesting statement by Lamb -- you merely responded with a slur, he’s a Tory.
It is fine to criticise the statement or the underlying politics, but you were just derisory and abusive.
That's your fucking opinion and you are entitled to it. How could his statement be "thought-provoking and interesting" - as I said he is a bloody Tory !
No wonder. I couldn't understand why she lost amidst the Corbyn surge.
Just part of the bigger regional picture in that cluster of North Derbyshire, North Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire seats. Almost all of them had hefty swings towards the Conservatives.
Mansfield (Con gain too), Ashfield, Chesterfield, Bolsover, Bassetlaw, Amber Valley, Rotherham, Rother Valley, Don Valley, Sheffield SE, Penistone & Stocksbridge, Barnsley E, Hemsworth... All with Labour to Conservative swings between 3% and 9%.
Nothing special about NE Derbyshire within the context of the region. It's more that that whole area went against the national trend.
Looks like the lib dems are never going to have the leader they need. Norman Lamb is a top MP and reaches out to many
Conservative partisans always say the LDs have the wrong leader - apparently Labour always has the wrong leader as well.
So we can safely ignore that viewpoint.
I do think a contest would be helpful as OGH argues. I don't have an issue with Vince being more on the Labour side of the street - nobody's talking Coalition or anything like that. The aim will and has to be to begin the rebuild of the local base which has taken years of battering.
With the thick end of 9000 Conservative Councillors out there there's going to be plenty of potential targets in the next few years starting with London next year. The possibility of regaining Richmond and Kingston from Conservative control would be helped with Vince in charge but I suspect after the GE a number of the capital's 600 Conservative Councillors will be feeling vulnerable.
Can you tell me when I have ever said the lib dems have the wrong leader. I have no problem with Vince Cable but Norman Lamb is excellent on social care and very sensible on most things. As far as labour is concerned I voted for Blair twice so your first sentence is an assumption that is not born out by facts
I thought Norman Lamb was a Tory.
It seems anyone who dares to have politics even marginally different from Jeremy Corbyn is considered to be a Tory by Corbynistas. To them, the words Conservative and Blairite have lost any coherent meaning. 'Tory' and 'Blairite' now simply mean 'anyone that I don't like' for Corbynistas.
Actually I have never voted for Corbyn as I have made clear in PB a hundred times.
The point though is after an articulate, thought-provoking and interesting statement by Lamb -- you merely responded with a slur, he’s a Tory.
It is fine to criticise the statement or the underlying politics, but you were just derisory and abusive.
That's your fucking opinion and you are entitled to it. How could his statement be "thought-provoking and interesting" - as I said he is a bloody Tory !
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not sure if anyone else saw this - apologies if it's already been posted. Potentially significant for the tories?...
The average @Conservative voter is getting older and older at a faster rate than the U.K population is ageing. This should concern the party pic.twitter.com/5ALnAPgym7
Between 2015 and 2017, a whole one percentage point [ in national terms ] Tory vote just died ! RIP !
This is very similar to the Republican party. Doesn't stop them from controlling everything though. You have to compare to who actually votes not the general public as a whole.
Between 2015 and 2017, a whole one percentage point [ in national terms ] Tory vote just died ! RIP !
Replaced by younger voters maturing
Only until those still economically active realise the consequences of their putting political obsession before a strong economy. Thereafter, you might as well rename the Tories as the Pensioner Party.
This was written a few months ago, but I think - in light of the unexpected Corbyn result - and despite the world seeming to normalise a bit since trump/brexit - it captures the big picture;
"in the 1930s, we rejected the individuality of the ’20s and before. After the crash and the Depression, we finally put the corporate class and bankers to the sidelines. Whether it was Keynesianism or the New Deal in the West, or state fascism or the advent of Stalinism, you saw more government control over the economy. This was good for workers and large governments. It was more nationalistic and led, obviously, to the next conflict. But the rise of government planning and government involvement was good for nominal GDPs. It was not good for the asset-holding classes — stocks and bonds did terribly over that period, right? You wanted to be a worker, you wanted to be labor, not capital.
The period from the late 1970s to 1980 changed all that. You had Thatcher and the U.K. and Reagan in the U.S. Mao died in 1976, the Solidarity movement in Poland began in 1978, and the Soviet Union peaked in power in 1979. You saw that the pendulum had gone too far and now we’re going to cut taxes on capital, we’re going to be more globalistic, and trade was going to improve. Since then, capital has risen and assets have done better than labor. Taxes have been light on financial assets and heavy on labor. Everything was reversed on its head.
If we look at the events of 2016 — Brexit, the Italian referendum, Trump, and the rise of nationalist China — are these the harbingers of something bigger? Or are they just a coincidence? The ground seems to be fertile for things to change globally. If so, does this give rise to a more nationalistic, protectionist, statist scenario? Are labor prices going to go up again? Are we going to tax capital and emphasize wages?"
I think the answer to these qu's ^ is "more likely than not." If there's an investment/betting angle, it's to lay the status quo.
There is usually a gap between how politicians are perceived by the public and the way they are in private. In the case of Theresa May there is no gap. There is a chasm. She has a reputation for being cold, remote and robotic but also as a politician who got things done.
The more voters got to know her, the less they liked her. Her reputation as a wise and effective politician who knows how to judge the mood of the people now lies in tatters. All that is left is the cold, hard, unfriendly, indeed downright odd individual to whom no one warms.
How accurate is that portrait? My own experience of May in private revealed a totally different person from the image. I was employed to write her speeches for a year when she was home secretary. I found her to be the opposite of the brittle, calculating politician of endless newspaper articles: she was a polite, thoughtful and thoroughly decent woman. She was always kind and helpful to me. She was never aggressive or difficult.
There is usually a gap between how politicians are perceived by the public and the way they are in private. In the case of Theresa May there is no gap. There is a chasm. She has a reputation for being cold, remote and robotic but also as a politician who got things done.
The more voters got to know her, the less they liked her. Her reputation as a wise and effective politician who knows how to judge the mood of the people now lies in tatters. All that is left is the cold, hard, unfriendly, indeed downright odd individual to whom no one warms.
How accurate is that portrait? My own experience of May in private revealed a totally different person from the image. I was employed to write her speeches for a year when she was home secretary. I found her to be the opposite of the brittle, calculating politician of endless newspaper articles: she was a polite, thoughtful and thoroughly decent woman. She was always kind and helpful to me. She was never aggressive or difficult.
Despite the entertaining photo, this article is a pitiful attempt to redbuild May's reputation and blame everything on two departed Spads.
Are Tory senior politicians this useless and impotent? Why did Mrs M appoint, trust, and allow these two immature individuals such power and influence, and what does this say about her personality and judgement?
A cartoon in a Dutch newspaper depicts Mrs May whacking herself over the head with a mallet. Another Dutch publication has the prime minister entering the Brexit negotiations with her severed head cradled under her arm. It is not just the Netherlands that is having a good giggle. Britain’s prime minister – and, by extension, Britain itself – is an object of torrential mockery across Europe. Though European leaders are too polite to put it so bluntly, they think that this country, once thought to be a nation of level-headed pragmatists, has taken leave of its senses.
The coming months will illustrate the advantages of having a minority government. Obsessions that excite only Tories are not going to waste the time of parliament. So there won’t be a vote to overturn the law on fox hunting. Free lunches for primary school children won’t be scrapped. There won’t be a dash to create more grammar schools. Restrained by their lack of mandate and majority, ministers will be obliged to concentrate on doing some sensible things that won’t provoke much controversy, such as curbing insurance frauds and tackling domestic abuse. There is a gathering consensus that the election result signalled a national impatience with austerity.
I’m not going to tell you how this will end because I don’t know. I think we can be fairly confident that we have not heard the last of being laughed at.
There is usually a gap between how politicians are perceived by the public and the way they are in private. In the case of Theresa May there is no gap. There is a chasm. She has a reputation for being cold, remote and robotic but also as a politician who got things done.
The more voters got to know her, the less they liked her. Her reputation as a wise and effective politician who knows how to judge the mood of the people now lies in tatters. All that is left is the cold, hard, unfriendly, indeed downright odd individual to whom no one warms.
How accurate is that portrait? My own experience of May in private revealed a totally different person from the image. I was employed to write her speeches for a year when she was home secretary. I found her to be the opposite of the brittle, calculating politician of endless newspaper articles: she was a polite, thoughtful and thoroughly decent woman. She was always kind and helpful to me. She was never aggressive or difficult.
There is usually a gap between how politicians are perceived by the public and the way they are in private. In the case of Theresa May there is no gap. There is a chasm. She has a reputation for being cold, remote and robotic but also as a politician who got things done.
The more voters got to know her, the less they liked her. Her reputation as a wise and effective politician who knows how to judge the mood of the people now lies in tatters. All that is left is the cold, hard, unfriendly, indeed downright odd individual to whom no one warms.
How accurate is that portrait? My own experience of May in private revealed a totally different person from the image. I was employed to write her speeches for a year when she was home secretary. I found her to be the opposite of the brittle, calculating politician of endless newspaper articles: she was a polite, thoughtful and thoroughly decent woman. She was always kind and helpful to me. She was never aggressive or difficult.
Why did Mrs M appoint, trust, and allow these two immature individuals such power and influence
As the writer writes - 'I don't know'......
As it was behind the Murdoch paywall, I didn't get that far. Nevertheless it is a nonsense to try and blame two advisors for everything. Blaming the guys who just got fired is the easiest and oldest game in the book, but in politics is simply another form of denial.
What have the tories to offer anyone under 40 ? Ok you could claim sensible economics but that isnt going to wash anymore.
Not burdening them with the liability of the trillions of debt that a Corbyn government would borrow and pass the interest burdens on to the under 40s and younger. U
The thing is the national debt is dwarfed by the real terms increase in house prices/housing costs - which, since the mid 70's, has transferred a pile of the nations wealth from non-property owners - and future property owners - to existing property owners.
The more property you owned, the wealthier you became.
The costs of the national debt are shared by everyone - the costs of the politically engineered house price boom have been piled onto the propertyless - the young and the poor.
Pumping up real property prices has become the whole point of the conservative party since thatcher. New labour are despised by the left because they bought into this scam.
If you don't own property - or are on a low rung of the property ladder - it's in your interests to vote corbyn.
The Tories problem is that they can only make the young become property owners by masshousing building*, and reducing house prices. This either requires a period of high inflation, with high interest rates, and either negative equity for their voters or reduced potential inheritance.
*house building is likely to require building on greenfield sites and also importing migrant labour, annoying 2 further strands of Tory voting.
Corbyn's Labour will get at least 2 terms.
It's a massive problem for them, electorally.
It is a massive problem electorally. However I would lay good money that Corbyn himself, if he became PM, would not last more than 6 months, so obviously unsuited is he to the position of PM. This is not a policy issue. The evidence is so clearly there to anyone who cares to look, and the events of the last 2 months, have changed absolutely nothing in that respect. It is a scandal that the Conservative campaign failed utterly to even attempt to focus on this in any meaningful respect.
And in policy terms, the fact that the Tories have a problem doesn't mean that Corbynism in practice would be electorally successful on a sustainable basis.
However, within six months of Corbyn taking over, there will be a general election.
My comment was about a Corbyn govt full stop. E.g. post an election and with a healthy majority.
There is usually a gap between how politicians are perceived by the public and the way they are in private. In the case of Theresa May there is no gap. There is a chasm. She has a reputation for being cold, remote and robotic but also as a politician who got things done.
The more voters got to know her, the less they liked her. Her reputation as a wise and effective politician who knows how to judge the mood of the people now lies in tatters. All that is left is the cold, hard, unfriendly, indeed downright odd individual to whom no one warms.
How accurate is that portrait? My own experience of May in private revealed a totally different person from the image. I was employed to write her speeches for a year when she was home secretary. I found her to be the opposite of the brittle, calculating politician of endless newspaper articles: she was a polite, thoughtful and thoroughly decent woman. She was always kind and helpful to me. She was never aggressive or difficult.
Despite the entertaining photo, this article is a pitiful attempt to redbuild May's reputation and blame everything on two departed Spads.
Are Tory senior politicians this useless and impotent? Why did Mrs M appoint, trust, and allow these two immature individuals such power and influence, and what does this say about her personality and judgement?
A problem might be that there are very few general elections, and therefore very few tried-and-trusted senior wonks who're proven to be good at them. These two individuals might, perhaps, have looked good on other campaigns, but turned out to be not very good when it came to this task. It'd be interesting to know their backgrounds.
Or perhaps no-one, however good, could have produced a good campaign under May's direction. If the boss is giving you a poor direction it's hard to produce a success.
It shows that May's sharp departure from the teams that 'won' the 2010 and 2015 general elections has been a disastrous mistake.
There is usually a gap between how politicians are perceived by the public and the way they are in private. In the case of Theresa May there is no gap. There is a chasm. She has a reputation for being cold, remote and robotic but also as a politician who got things done.
The more voters got to know her, the less they liked her. Her reputation as a wise and effective politician who knows how to judge the mood of the people now lies in tatters. All that is left is the cold, hard, unfriendly, indeed downright odd individual to whom no one warms.
How accurate is that portrait? My own experience of May in private revealed a totally different person from the image. I was employed to write her speeches for a year when she was home secretary. I found her to be the opposite of the brittle, calculating politician of endless newspaper articles: she was a polite, thoughtful and thoroughly decent woman. She was always kind and helpful to me. She was never aggressive or difficult.
Despite the entertaining photo, this article is a pitiful attempt to redbuild May's reputation and blame everything on two departed Spads.
Are Tory senior politicians this useless and impotent? Why did Mrs M appoint, trust, and allow these two immature individuals such power and influence, and what does this say about her personality and judgement?
A problem might be that there are very few general elections, and therefore very few tried-and-trusted senior wonks who're proven to be good at them. These two individuals might, perhaps, have looked good on other campaigns, but turned out to be not very good when it came to this task. It'd be interesting to know their backgrounds.
Or perhaps no-one, however good, could have produced a good campaign under May's direction. If the boss is giving you a poor direction it's hard to produce a success.
It shows that May's sharp departure from the teams that 'won' the 2010 and 2015 general elections has been a disastrous mistake.
And, further, their appointed role is to advise on and support policy marking and the work of government. What possessed Mrs May to think they were suitable people to be allowed to boss senior politicians around on the business of electioneering?
There is usually a gap between how politicians are perceived by the public and the way they are in private. In the case of Theresa May there is no gap. There is a chasm. She has a reputation for being cold, remote and robotic but also as a politician who got things done.
The more voters got to know her, the less they liked her. Her reputation as a wise and effective politician who knows how to judge the mood of the people now lies in tatters. All that is left is the cold, hard, unfriendly, indeed downright odd individual to whom no one warms.
How accurate is that portrait? My own experience of May in private revealed a totally different person from the image. I was employed to write her speeches for a year when she was home secretary. I found her to be the opposite of the brittle, calculating politician of endless newspaper articles: she was a polite, thoughtful and thoroughly decent woman. She was always kind and helpful to me. She was never aggressive or difficult.
Why did Mrs M appoint, trust, and allow these two immature individuals such power and influence
As the writer writes - 'I don't know'......
As it was behind the Murdoch paywall, I didn't get that far. Nevertheless it is a nonsense to try and blame two advisors for everything. Blaming the guys who just got fired is the easiest and oldest game in the book, but in politics is simply another form of denial.
Mrs May carries the can for hiring these two and leaving them in place. Harry Truman noted where the buck stopped.
Councils are testing their Towers to make sure they are safe. But what about properties that have been bought under "right to buy"? Say the council is told every flat needs refurbishing will they pay for the refurbishment of now privatley owned homes as well for free? Are they able to force people in private homes to evacuate?
Why should the council pay for the private flats ? It is the risk the owners take. They should be charged for their share as per deed of sale. Just like painting of common parts.
I don't the council or anybody has the legal authority to make anyone evacuate until they produce the proper letter and which says the tenants are being asked to do sounder whatever legal powers. Word of mouth or the police will come round in not lawful.
Because the council failed in it's duty of care to ensure the refurbishment was safe. The chance of councils recovering money from private tenants for remedying this is slim (and one should note that May has committed government to providing funds if needed - though we'll have to see what that promise means). The chance of councils recovering money from contractors who have not gone bust might be somewhat better.
Comments
60 oddgains is not that easy.
And in policy terms, the fact that the Tories have a problem doesn't mean that Corbynism in practice would be electorally successful on a sustainable basis.
Is this a post-midnight PB competition?
Sunday Times doesn't give figures for other parties but 87% for main two parties is surely extraordinary - leaves very little for anyone else.
I also think that given the last few weeks, Con being 5% behind is hardly a disaster - a new leader in a honeymoon with a much more popular manifesto and they could easily come back from that.
As for the debate below re young / old and property prices - well it didn't stop Con being absolutely miles ahead when the GE was called - so it doesn't mean Con can't win again under the current situation.
Conclusion: Anything can happen - next GE isn't far off a 50:50 bet, though Lab must be slight favourites.
I still believe that the best bet for Con is to run this Parliament as long as possible and try to time Corbyn out - either on age grounds or if not that then at least make him look much less new and fresh. He also won't have the advantage of surprise next time - Con should, in theory, be better prepared to take him on next time and they will hope to be aided by a far better leader.
In the tory economic bubble, that kind of policy can be made to work.
Suck the energy out of the corbyn surge by peeling off potential, aspiring tories - and whatever you do, keep the ponzi scheme going. The longterm benefits to the tory client vote outweighs the upfront costs to the state - and can be loaded onto the not-property owners anyhow.
5m houses, each with a bit of garden and a garage . Compulsory land purchase, cheap land, massively subsidised government guaranteed mortgages. Lots of new connecting motorways, shops, schools, hospitals. Corbo Labour will oppose everything except the borrowing.. and be annihilated at the next elex. Its economics, init.
Are they able to force people in private homes to evacuate?
I don't the council or anybody has the legal authority to make anyone evacuate until they produce the proper letter and which says the tenants are being asked to do sounder whatever legal powers. Word of mouth or the police will come round in not lawful.
It actually makes sense.
Borrowing today to pay for day to day expenditure is just stealing from your grandchildren - even if they haven't been born yet.
It's a wholly unsuitable ownership structure.
CPO them and have a housing association manage the whole block.
Can private owners refuse to pay for external repairs or painting of the common parts ? This rule exists even if the block was 100% privately owned.
Between 2015 and 2017, a whole one percentage point [ in national terms ] Tory vote just died ! RIP !
Who else could have neutalised Labour Remain during the ref and is now going to guarantee A50 and actual brexit?
However perhaps one can be forgiven for hoping that is the end of his superpowers.
Mansfield (Con gain too), Ashfield, Chesterfield, Bolsover, Bassetlaw, Amber Valley, Rotherham, Rother Valley, Don Valley, Sheffield SE, Penistone & Stocksbridge, Barnsley E, Hemsworth... All with Labour to Conservative swings between 3% and 9%.
Nothing special about NE Derbyshire within the context of the region. It's more that that whole area went against the national trend.
Thanks to the Liberal Democrats.
I know why you thought it was 55 - because lots of stats have been published showing the 35 to 54 group as a whole voted Lab and 55+ voted Con.
But there is a lot of difference within the 35 to 54 group - and YouGov has found that the crossover point was actually 47.
See link - graph halfway down page shows crossover at 47:
http://pages.shortlist.com/news/election-vote-yougov-breakdown-analysis/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-security-messaging-idUSKBN19G044
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/chanos-is-a-big-change-in-global-capitalism-underway
"in the 1930s, we rejected the individuality of the ’20s and before. After the crash and the Depression, we finally put the corporate class and bankers to the sidelines. Whether it was Keynesianism or the New Deal in the West, or state fascism or the advent of Stalinism, you saw more government control over the economy. This was good for workers and large governments. It was more nationalistic and led, obviously, to the next conflict. But the rise of government planning and government involvement was good for nominal GDPs. It was not good for the asset-holding classes — stocks and bonds did terribly over that period, right? You wanted to be a worker, you wanted to be labor, not capital.
The period from the late 1970s to 1980 changed all that. You had Thatcher and the U.K. and Reagan in the U.S. Mao died in 1976, the Solidarity movement in Poland began in 1978, and the Soviet Union peaked in power in 1979. You saw that the pendulum had gone too far and now we’re going to cut taxes on capital, we’re going to be more globalistic, and trade was going to improve. Since then, capital has risen and assets have done better than labor. Taxes have been light on financial assets and heavy on labor. Everything was reversed on its head.
If we look at the events of 2016 — Brexit, the Italian referendum, Trump, and the rise of nationalist China — are these the harbingers of something bigger? Or are they just a coincidence? The ground seems to be fertile for things to change globally. If so, does this give rise to a more nationalistic, protectionist, statist scenario? Are labor prices going to go up again? Are we going to tax capital and emphasize wages?"
I think the answer to these qu's ^ is "more likely than not." If there's an investment/betting angle, it's to lay the status quo.
Sell the consensus.
Be young and flexible.
There is usually a gap between how politicians are perceived by the public and the way they are in private. In the case of Theresa May there is no gap. There is a chasm. She has a reputation for being cold, remote and robotic but also as a politician who got things done.
The more voters got to know her, the less they liked her. Her reputation as a wise and effective politician who knows how to judge the mood of the people now lies in tatters. All that is left is the cold, hard, unfriendly, indeed downright odd individual to whom no one warms.
How accurate is that portrait? My own experience of May in private revealed a totally different person from the image. I was employed to write her speeches for a year when she was home secretary. I found her to be the opposite of the brittle, calculating politician of endless newspaper articles: she was a polite, thoughtful and thoroughly decent woman. She was always kind and helpful to me. She was never aggressive or difficult.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-prime-minister-ruined-by-her-grusome-twosome-v9gvg68bc
Are Tory senior politicians this useless and impotent? Why did Mrs M appoint, trust, and allow these two immature individuals such power and influence, and what does this say about her personality and judgement?
The coming months will illustrate the advantages of having a minority government. Obsessions that excite only Tories are not going to waste the time of parliament. So there won’t be a vote to overturn the law on fox hunting. Free lunches for primary school children won’t be scrapped. There won’t be a dash to create more grammar schools. Restrained by their lack of mandate and majority, ministers will be obliged to concentrate on doing some sensible things that won’t provoke much controversy, such as curbing insurance frauds and tackling domestic abuse. There is a gathering consensus that the election result signalled a national impatience with austerity.
I’m not going to tell you how this will end because I don’t know. I think we can be fairly confident that we have not heard the last of being laughed at.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/24/brexit-europe-laughing-britain-unstable-government
Or perhaps no-one, however good, could have produced a good campaign under May's direction. If the boss is giving you a poor direction it's hard to produce a success.
It shows that May's sharp departure from the teams that 'won' the 2010 and 2015 general elections has been a disastrous mistake.
The chance of councils recovering money from contractors who have not gone bust might be somewhat better.