I am really struggling to see the principled idealism in Labour's position on Brexit, which is after all the biggest issue facing this country by far.
As an EU enthusiast I'm not the best person to answer, but I think Labour's response would be that they're putting substance (exactly what our future relations are, whether it affects workers' rights, whether it obstructs trade, whether it reduces standards, what the rules are for migration, whether it gives us freedom to subsidise industries in transition) over form (whether we are formally full members). Corbyn believes - rightly IMO - that the idea of cancelling the whole withdrawal or having a fresh referendum is a distraction that just won't happen, but that there will be a deal in the end, and that our entire attention should be on the nature of that deal.
I'd agree that that's pragmatic rather than idealistic in this case, but it needs to be in this critical situation.
Labour has red lines, it doesn't have a Brexit policy. The government doesn't either, of course, but that doesn't excuse Labour's lack of vision. The party's leadership actively opposed the creation of the single market and clearly sees an opportunity to get out of it now - but doesn't have the principles to say that clearly.
We expect the young to be socially left-wing, and often economically left-wing (especially when so many go to university now). They will change.
In the late 1960s, I went to a demo in Grosvenor Square with many thousands of young committed left-wing activists. How many of those are now Jezzarites? Far fewer than you'd think. Probably more accountants than anarchists now.
I think that cliche is less true than ever. Youngsters are not moving into the homes and jobs for life that were part of that party shift with age, and social liberalism makes them far more open to other cultures than older folk. There is also the refusal to age phenomenon, where 30 and 40 something's hold onto the enthusiasms of their youth, including the politics.
There are other strands too that go in the opposite direction. In particular youngsters are much more materialistic in ambitions, though one should bear in mind that materialism does not mean Toryism. Socialism is a very materialistic philosophy that believes that the problem is the way materialist goods are distributed is the issue, rather than whether they matter.
Ms Apocalypse does have many Tory sympathetic ideas, I suspect she will soon be welcome at the PB Tory baby roast.
I think that is the difference now. There aren't the same opportunities to get decent well paid jobs any more, jobs are insecure and short term, zero hours contracts are widespread, there is a large excess supply of graduates competing for jobs.
And then there is housing. You need to be earning £80k these days to think about buying a house in Dagenham - twenty years ago someone on the equivalent of minimum wage could have bought there. Average house prices are eight times average wages - and the average age of an FTB is late 30s.
The sort of aspirational issues that made people move from young socialism to voting Tory - getting a well paid job and getting a mortgage on a nice house just isn't available to many if not most young people.
Home owners vote Tory - private renters won't. Unless they solve the housing mess (which means letting prices fall through ending the Osborne props) it will finish the Tories in the medium term.
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
I agree, even in a place like Leicester with a growing population, affordability is reasonable and prices unchanged in a decade.
So an increase in mortgage rates, which could well be crippling to young people in London & the SE wouldn’t perhaps have quite the same effect elsewhere?
Interesting that Michael Gove effectively just ruled out a free trade agreement with the US on Marr by saying there would be absolutely no compromises on the UK's current food safety and animal welfare regime.
It shouldn't be too hard, after all I left New Labour to the left, not the right!
I have a deeply ingrained dislike of debt, which is the biggest obstacle. Our children have enough burdens already with unaffordable housing, no pensions, student debt and an increasing dependency ratio. We should not add public debt to that.
That's a strong argument, and I think one can add the ticking bomb of the gigantic trade deficit which appears to worry nobody but which is quietly transferring our asset base overseas. Are the LibDems very keen on deficit reduction? The Tories seem to have joined the "we'll get round to it sometime, or grow our way out of it" camp. It's not obvious to me that any of the parties are particularly concerned about either these days, so I'd argue that that alone shouldn't stop you rejoining the throng - you only get a real surge towards principled idealism once in a generation, and it seems a pity to sit it out.
I am really struggling to see the principled idealism in Labour's position on Brexit, which is after all the biggest issue facing this country by far.
If only they had the far sightedness to see that the demographics for Leavers is shocking. Every year half a million Leavers die and the same number of Remainers reach voting age.
It shouldn't be too hard, after all I left New Labour to the left, not the right!
I have a deeply ingrained dislike of debt, which is the biggest obstacle. Our children have enough burdens already with unaffordable housing, no pensions, student debt and an increasing dependency ratio. We should not add public debt to that.
That's a strong argument, and I think one can add the ticking bomb of the gigantic trade deficit which appears to worry nobody but which is quietly transferring our asset base overseas. Are the LibDems very keen on deficit reduction? The Tories seem to have joined the "we'll get round to it sometime, or grow our way out of it" camp. It's not obvious to me that any of the parties are particularly concerned about either these days, so I'd argue that that alone shouldn't stop you rejoining the throng - you only get a real surge towards principled idealism once in a generation, and it seems a pity to sit it out.
I am really struggling to see the principled idealism in Labour's position on Brexit, which is after all the biggest issue facing this country by far.
If only they had the far sightedness to see that the demographics for Leavers is shocking. Every year half a million Leavers die and the same number of Remainers reach voting age.
And half a million Remainers turn into Leavers.
What do you think the over 60s of 2016 voted for in the 1975 referendum ?
Vince Cable himself won back a Tory seat at the last general election so I think the idea he does not appeal to Labour tactical voters clearly does not wash. Of course the main focus now is Brexit not the next general election and Cable is by far the best choice to set out the LD case on that and the hung parliament means he also has a chance to influence the direction Brexit takes. Once the general election comes the LDs will have to defend seats like Eastbourne they gained from the Tories too
Miss Acopolypse is a bit of an outlier, morphing from Corbynite to baby eater in the space of a year. I find it a bit strange to be honest.
BS.
I've NEVER been a Corbynite.
I've also never voted Conservative (in reference to your baby eater comment).
I've opposed Corbyn since his when he was nominated for the leadership in 2015. I've been consistiently anti-Corbyn even before he became leader. In 2016 (since you're calling it from a year ago) I was so anti-Corbyn I wanted Owen Smith to win the Labour leadership. I didn't even want Corbynon the ballot, and was hoping that it would be ruled that he'd need to gain the support of MPs again to stand.
Try again, because you clearly don't read my posts.
It shouldn't be too hard, after all I left New Labour to the left, not the right!
I have a deeply ingrained dislike of debt, which is the biggest obstacle. Our children have enough burdens already with unaffordable housing, no pensions, student debt and an increasing dependency ratio. We should not add public debt to that.
That's a strong argument, and I think one can add the ticking bomb of the gigantic trade deficit which appears to worry nobody but which is quietly transferring our asset base overseas. Are the LibDems very keen on deficit reduction? The Tories seem to have joined the "we'll get round to it sometime, or grow our way out of it" camp. It's not obvious to me that any of the parties are particularly concerned about either these days, so I'd argue that that alone shouldn't stop you rejoining the throng - you only get a real surge towards principled idealism once in a generation, and it seems a pity to sit it out.
I am really struggling to see the principled idealism in Labour's position on Brexit, which is after all the biggest issue facing this country by far.
If only they had the far sightedness to see that the demographics for Leavers is shocking. Every year half a million Leavers die and the same number of Remainers reach voting age.
The Labour leadership team has a long, unbroken record of being anti-EU. It's that rather than a failure to understand demographics that is driving the current, very New Labour, triangulation we are seeing. The challenge for Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne etc is that they are anti-EU inside an overwhelmingly pro-EU party. Their hope is that Brexit has happened before the next election. If it hasn't Labour will be in serious trouble.
8th, like the Lie Dems, who aside from being an irrelevance, are neither liberal nor democratic, as illustrated by their desire to overturn the people's verdict on EU membership on 23/6/2016.
We, the people, made a decision, back in 1975, confirmed by the re-elections of Governments who actively co-operated in the development of the Community. Why is it wrong to overturn the ‘decision’, by a tiny majority, of last year when it was right to overturn the decision of 1975, which was by a much, much larger majority.
There is no appetite for another referendum, despite the wailing from a few on here. Perhaps in 40 odd years time it might be justified.
Agreed; ’the people’simply want the politicians to do what they were elected to do, and ‘run the country’. That’s not the Government; it’s the House of Commons. I suspectb that, apart from, ,to quote 'the wailing of a few’ there wouldn’t be too much fuss if said politicians came back in a couple of years time and said; ‘Sorry, Brexit is far too complicated and indeed dangerous. We’re not doing it.'
"Wouldn't be too much fuss"
You seriously believe that if politicians say they can't be bothered to follow the will of the majority there "Wouldn't be too much fuss"?
I find myself shaking my head at this site most days. That said election predictions/outcomes show just how out of touch most on here are.
These two posts are of course squared if there were to be a second vote. Which is why, I suspect, there will be one, whatever people might choose to argue right now.
Democracy EU-style. Keep voting until the right answer is given.
If you support or acquiesce with this you are not a democrat.
Not always, Denmark and Sweden voted against the Euro in referendum there and are still outside
Tusk: "There is only hard Brexit or no Brexit". The adjective is redundant .
If we could stay in the single market with some version of the transition controls Blair failed to impose in 2004 on migration from the new accession countries but most EU nations did I think most would accept that
8th, like the Lie Dems, who aside from being an irrelevance, are neither liberal nor democratic, as illustrated by their desire to overturn the people's verdict on EU membership on 23/6/2016.
We, the people, made a decision, back in 1975, confirmed by the re-elections of Governments who actively co-operated in the development of the Community. Why is it wrong to overturn the ‘decision’, by a tiny majority, of last year when it was right to overturn the decision of 1975, which was by a much, much larger majority.
There is no appetite for another referendum, despite the wailing from a few on here. Perhaps in 40 odd years time it might be justified.
Absolutely right. The majority of Remainers - even the ones who remain hostile to the decision - believe it must be carried through.
But don't underestimate events.
Imagine if the UK were to fall into a serious recession. (My uber-bearishness on the UK economy is well known.) This can happen incredibly quickly. In 2008, the sun was shining in early September, the world was in crisis in October, and we were looking at disaster in early 2009. In the early 1990s recession, we went from growth of 0.7% in 2Q89 to -1% in 3Q90.
Were the UK to fall into recession this year, and unemployment to start spiking next year, do you think the popularity of Brexit would remain unscathed? Of course, many politicians would continue to say "respect the vote", but they'd caution against "hard Brexit" (with some good sense given Dr Fox's failures to even begin to replicate the EU's existing arrangements).
Under these circumstances, I think you'd end up in early 2019 with a Brexit deal that could not pass the House of Commons. Now this might result in us just crashing out. But more likely it would we end up with a snap general election. (And the EU would agree to extend Article 50 until the other side of the election, as it effectively did with the extension of the Greek bailout discussions until the far side of their referendum.)
Fantastic article by Felix Martin in Newstateman this week on the young, economics and voting Labour. He is struck by the paradox that the disastrous Dementia Tax was actually an attempt to transfer the burden of social care costs from younger income tax payers to older, wealth holding generation.
That young people didn't see this and actively resisted it, leaves him wondering how you can design policies that deal with the intergenerational balance and can actually be sold to the electorate.
Vince Cable himself won back a Tory seat at the last general election so I think the idea he does not appeal to Labour tactical voters clearly does not wash. Of course the main focus now is Brexit not the next general election and Cable is by far the best choice to set out the LD case on that and the hung parliament means he also has a chance to influence the direction Brexit takes. Once the general election comes the LDs will have to defend seats like Eastbourne they gained from the Tories too
Agreed. Priority is simply to stay relevant, get seen in the media, pick up labour tactical votes, and also the soft tory remainers (although labour tactical votes are more important). Therefore you need some identifiably of the centre left, but also serious and sensible to ideally attract soft tories. I don't think the coalition years are toxic anymore, it was an eon ago, and barely came up in the last campaign. By 2019 or 2022 it will truly be ancient history.
Edit: I also think the unseating of Clegg, while a shame, will help the LDs really put the coalition behind them - it was a sort of revenge closure against him and should take the sting out of the coalition issue now
It shouldn't be too hard, after all I left New Labour to the left, not the right!
I have a deeply ingrained dislike of debt, which is the biggest obstacle. Our children have enough burdens already with unaffordable housing, no pensions, student debt and an increasing dependency ratio. We should not add public debt to that.
That's a strong argument, and I think one can add the ticking bomb of the gigantic trade deficit which appears to worry nobody but which is quietly transferring our asset base overseas. Are the LibDems very keen on deficit reduction? The Tories seem to have joined the "we'll get round to it sometime, or grow our way out of it" camp. It's not obvious to me that any of the parties are particularly concerned about either these days, so I'd argue that that alone shouldn't stop you rejoining the throng - you only get a real surge towards principled idealism once in a generation, and it seems a pity to sit it out.
I am really struggling to see the principled idealism in Labour's position on Brexit, which is after all the biggest issue facing this country by far.
If only they had the far sightedness to see that the demographics for Leavers is shocking. Every year half a million Leavers die and the same number of Remainers reach voting age.
The Labour leadership team has a long, unbroken record of being anti-EU. It's that rather than a failure to understand demographics that is driving the current, very New Labour, triangulation we are seeing. The challenge for Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne etc is that they are anti-EU inside an overwhelmingly pro-EU party. Their hope is that Brexit has happened before the next election. If it hasn't Labour will be in serious trouble.
This is what I've been saying. Labour is a party where a vast majority of its supporters are Remainers. Corbyn is going against his own voters big time with his Brexit stance and its essentially taking them for granted. It is Corbyn who is identical to the 'baby eaters' on this one.
Vince Cable himself won back a Tory seat at the last general election so I think the idea he does not appeal to Labour tactical voters clearly does not wash. Of course the main focus now is Brexit not the next general election and Cable is by far the best choice to set out the LD case on that and the hung parliament means he also has a chance to influence the direction Brexit takes. Once the general election comes the LDs will have to defend seats like Eastbourne they gained from the Tories too
LibDems need a leader who knows how Parliament works and can 'play the game' as there is a wafer-thin, DUP-enhanced majority. Lots of deals on votes to be done and gamemanship.
I thought Swinson would be good and she has been an MP so would be ok on this front. The other names being floated are all newbies iirc.
Mr. Observer, talk of a free trade agreement with the US is a bit overdone. We already trade a lot with them. Tariffs are minimal. A deal with the US, frankly, doesn't seem to be needed.
Interesting that Michael Gove effectively just ruled out a free trade agreement with the US on Marr by saying there would be absolutely no compromises on the UK's current food safety and animal welfare regime.
Hmm. Has anyone told Dr Fox?
Probably another example of one part of May's Cabinet having no idea what the other parts are doing or saying.
We expect the young to be socially left-wing, and often economically left-wing (especially when so many go to university now). They will change.
In the late 1960s, I went to a demo in Grosvenor Square with many thousands of young committed left-wing activists. How many of those are now Jezzarites? Far fewer than you'd think. Probably more accountants than anarchists now.
I think that cliche is less true than ever. Youngsters are not moving into the homes and jobs for life that were part of that party shift with age, and social liberalism makes them far more open to other cultures than older folk. There is also the refusal to age phenomenon, where 30 and 40 something's hold onto the enthusiasms of their youth, including the politics.
There are other strands too that go in the opposite direction. In particular youngsters are much more materialistic in ambitions, though one should bear in mind that materialism does not mean Toryism. Socialism is a very materialistic philosophy that believes that the problem is the way materialist goods are distributed is the issue, rather than whether they matter.
Ms Apocalypse does have many Tory sympathetic ideas, I suspect she will soon be welcome at the PB Tory baby roast.
I think that is the difference now. There aren't the same opportunities to get decent well paid jobs any more, jobs are insecure and short term, zero hours contracts are widespread, there is a large excess supply of graduates competing for jobs.
And then there is housing. You need to be earning £80k these days to think about buying a house in Dagenham - twenty years ago someone on the equivalent of minimum wage could have bought there. Average house prices are eight times average wages - and the average age of an FTB is late 30s.
The sort of aspirational issues that made people move from young socialism to voting Tory - getting a well paid job and getting a mortgage on a nice house just isn't available to many if not most young people.
Home owners vote Tory - private renters won't. Unless they solve the housing mess (which means letting prices fall through ending the Osborne props) it will finish the Tories in the medium term.
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
I agree, even in a place like Leicester with a growing population, affordability is reasonable and prices unchanged in a decade.
A comparison of the change in Conservative vote and change in home ownership levels per constituency would be interesting though.
8th, like the Lie Dems, who aside from being an irrelevance, are neither liberal nor democratic, as illustrated by their desire to overturn the people's verdict on EU membership on 23/6/2016.
We, the people, made a decision, back in 1975, confirmed by the re-elections of Governments who actively co-operated in the development of the Community. Why is it wrong to overturn the ‘decision’, by a tiny majority, of last year when it was right to overturn the decision of 1975, which was by a much, much larger majority.
There is no appetite for another referendum, despite the wailing from a few on here. Perhaps in 40 odd years time it might be justified.
Agreed; ’the people’simply want the politicians to do what they were elected to do, and ‘run the country’. That’s not the Government; it’s the House of Commons. I suspectb that, apart from, ,to quote 'the wailing of a few’ there wouldn’t be too much fuss if said politicians came back in a couple of years time and said; ‘Sorry, Brexit is far too complicated and indeed dangerous. We’re not doing it.'
Hahaha.
Good luck with that suspicion.
The Duke of Monmouth led a rebellion to bring back the true religion, after politics had moved on, and look where that got him.
Although the idea of Boris being dragged through Traitors Gate had a certain appeal.
Erm - think you'd better go and check your history here. Monmouth was power hungry, and Protestant.
Edit to add: And whilst he didn't win, his anti-Catholic English establishment cause did a couple of years later.
8th, like the Lie Dems, who aside from being an irrelevance, are neither liberal nor democratic, as illustrated by their desire to overturn the people's verdict on EU membership on 23/6/2016.
We, the people, made a decision, back in 1975, confirmed by the re-elections of Governments who actively co-operated in the development of the Community. Why is it wrong to overturn the ‘decision’, by a tiny majority, of last year when it was right to overturn the decision of 1975, which was by a much, much larger majority.
There is no appetite for another referendum, despite the wailing from a few on here. Perhaps in 40 odd years time it might be justified.
Agreed; ’the people’simply want the politicians to do what they were elected to do, and ‘run the country’. That’s not the Government; it’s the House of Commons. I suspectb that, apart from, ,to quote 'the wailing of a few’ there wouldn’t be too much fuss if said politicians came back in a couple of years time and said; ‘Sorry, Brexit is far too complicated and indeed dangerous. We’re not doing it.'
"Wouldn't be too much fuss"
You seriously believe that if politicians say they can't be bothered to follow the will of the majority there "Wouldn't be too much fuss"?
I find myself shaking my head at this site most days. That said election predictions/outcomes show just how out of touch most on here are.
These two posts are of course squared if there were to be a second vote. Which is why, I suspect, there will be one, whatever people might choose to argue right now.
Although I suspect opinion is gradually turning against Brexit that won't be what triggers a second referendum. If we get one (and I put the odds at evens) it will be because the government needs to get itself off the hook and passes the buck back to the electorate. I think we are headed towards "No Deal" and I can't see that passing the commons so another referendum will be the only way out.
Corbyn will be a goner once Labour are destroyed in the May elections next year.
The loss of the mayoral election, or alternatively the loss of the Tooting by-election will also be big pressure points. But as has been observed with this kind of mandate from the party, he's going to be difficult to shift.
By the time of May I suspect those who voted for him will have come to their senses - meaning that there is less goodwill towards him, so he'll be easier to shift. They also need to find a candidate to rally around.
I actually made a very wrong prediction there, but the point is is that I was never a Corbyn fan as you can see here.
Fantastic article by Felix Martin in Newstateman this week on the young, economics and voting Labour. He is struck by the paradox that the disastrous Dementia Tax was actually an attempt to transfer the burden of social care costs from younger income tax payers to older, wealth holding generation.
That young people didn't see this and actively resisted it, leaves him wondering how you can design policies that deal with the intergenerational balance and can actually be sold to the electorate.
Online in a day or two.
I think that is only half-right because a transfer to to the older, wealth holding generation is an assault on that generation and also on the young who hope to inherit from that generation. So the effect of the Dementia Tax was (paradoxically as it was a tory policy) to make things more fair for those who are young and from a poor background.
But, Christ on a unicycle, Theresa May. It's not like she didn't have a very obvious example to look to, from 2007, to show that messing about with inheritances can put a spoke in the wheel of an opportunistic snap election. We used to say "as much use as a chocolate teapot", but now we say "as much use as Nick Timothy".
Interesting that Michael Gove effectively just ruled out a free trade agreement with the US on Marr by saying there would be absolutely no compromises on the UK's current food safety and animal welfare regime.
Professionally very interested in that, need to catch up with it.
The Conservatives shouldn't have called Labour's proposals a 'death tax' when Cameron was leading the party. With them doing that, it was no surprise that their own proposals would eventually get attacked as such.
8th, like the Lie Dems, who aside from being an irrelevance, are neither liberal nor democratic, as illustrated by their desire to overturn the people's verdict on EU membership on 23/6/2016.
We, the people, made a decision, back in 1975, confirmed by the re-elections of Governments who actively co-operated in the development of the Community. Why is it wrong to overturn the ‘decision’, by a tiny majority, of last year when it was right to overturn the decision of 1975, which was by a much, much larger majority.
There is no appetite for another referendum, despite the wailing from a few on here. Perhaps in 40 odd years time it might be justified.
Absolutely right. The majority of Remainers - even the ones who remain hostile to the decision - believe it must be carried through.
But don't underestimate events.
Imagine if the UK were to fall into a serious recession. (My uber-bearishness on the UK economy is well known.) This can happen incredibly quickly. In 2008, the sun was shining in early September, the world was in crisis in October, and we were looking at disaster in early 2009. In the early 1990s recession, we went from growth of 0.7% in 2Q89 to -1% in 3Q90.
Were the UK to fall into recession this year, and unemployment to start spiking next year, do you think the popularity of Brexit would remain unscathed? Of course, many politicians would continue to say "respect the vote", but they'd caution against "hard Brexit" (with some good sense given Dr Fox's failures to even begin to replicate the EU's existing arrangements).
Under these circumstances, I think you'd end up in early 2019 with a Brexit deal that could not pass the House of Commons. Now this might result in us just crashing out. But more likely it would we end up with a snap general election. (And the EU would agree to extend Article 50 until the other side of the election, as it effectively did with the extension of the Greek bailout discussions until the far side of their referendum.)
What then?
The sun might have been shining on Smithson Towers in September 2008 but the economy was already six months into a recession by then while UK house prices had been falling for a year. Northern Rock had run out of money a year before and Bear Stearns had crashed in March.
In 1990 we had the exhausted aftereffects of a genuine economic boom plus high interest rates and a Middle Eastern War causing energy prices to soar. Events can change things.
I do agree though that a recession is coming, my hope though is that this time it will be based on the wealth consuming parts of the economy rather than the wealth creating. Although that, of course, would not be good for government popularity.
Interesting that Michael Gove effectively just ruled out a free trade agreement with the US on Marr by saying there would be absolutely no compromises on the UK's current food safety and animal welfare regime.
Professionally very interested in that, need to catch up with it.
It's worth remembering that Mr Gove told us Brexit would be hassle free and involve no downsides for the UK while protecting us from the imminent arrival of millions of Turks. In other words, he may not have been telling the truth!
Regardless of Brexit I do believe we're heading for a property crash, as history proves its inevitable
There's specialist nutter sites on the internet for talking about that. Not necessarily true. I mean, yes, things are cyclical, but scarcity and desirability could easily dictate that from now property, like gold, will cycle between being very very expensive and very very very expensive.
We, the people, made a decision, back in 1975, confirmed by the re-elections of Governments who actively co-operated in the development of the Community. Why is it wrong to overturn the ‘decision’, by a tiny majority, of last year when it was right to overturn the decision of 1975, which was by a much, much larger majority.
There is no appetite for another referendum, despite the wailing from a few on here. Perhaps in 40 odd years time it might be justified.
Absolutely right. The majority of Remainers - even the ones who remain hostile to the decision - believe it must be carried through.
But don't underestimate events.
Imagine if the UK were to fall into a serious recession. (My uber-bearishness on the UK economy is well known.) This can happen incredibly quickly. In 2008, the sun was shining in early September, the world was in crisis in October, and we were looking at disaster in early 2009. In the early 1990s recession, we went from growth of 0.7% in 2Q89 to -1% in 3Q90.
Were the UK to fall into recession this year, and unemployment to start spiking next year, do you think the popularity of Brexit would remain unscathed? Of course, many politicians would continue to say "respect the vote", but they'd caution against "hard Brexit" (with some good sense given Dr Fox's failures to even begin to replicate the EU's existing arrangements).
Under these circumstances, I think you'd end up in early 2019 with a Brexit deal that could not pass the House of Commons. Now this might result in us just crashing out. But more likely it would we end up with a snap general election. (And the EU would agree to extend Article 50 until the other side of the election, as it effectively did with the extension of the Greek bailout discussions until the far side of their referendum.)
What then?
The sun might have been shining on Smithson Towers in September 2008 but the economy was already six months into a recession by then while UK house prices had been falling for a year. Northern Rock had run out of money a year before and Bear Stearns had crashed in March.
In 1990 we had the exhausted aftereffects of a genuine economic boom plus high interest rates and a Middle Eastern War causing energy prices to soar. Events can change things.
I do agree though that a recession is coming, my hope though is that this time it will be based on the wealth consuming parts of the economy rather than the wealth creating. Although that, of course, would not be good for government popularity.
Fantastic article by Felix Martin in Newstateman this week on the young, economics and voting Labour. He is struck by the paradox that the disastrous Dementia Tax was actually an attempt to transfer the burden of social care costs from younger income tax payers to older, wealth holding generation.
That young people didn't see this and actively resisted it, leaves him wondering how you can design policies that deal with the intergenerational balance and can actually be sold to the electorate.
Online in a day or two.
I think that is only half-right because a transfer to to the older, wealth holding generation is an assault on that generation and also on the young who hope to inherit from that generation. So the effect of the Dementia Tax was (paradoxically as it was a tory policy) to make things more fair for those who are young and from a poor background.
But, Christ on a unicycle, Theresa May. It's not like she didn't have a very obvious example to look to, from 2007, to show that messing about with inheritances can put a spoke in the wheel of an opportunistic snap election. We used to say "as much use as a chocolate teapot", but now we say "as much use as Nick Timothy".
As council tax now includes a 'Adult Social Care Precept' line it might have been better for that to be steadily increased rather than the dementia tax idea.
Being related to house values it would have been progressive taxation and local councils rather than the government would have received the blame.
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
Simply not true. Go on the Land Registry and use their excellent historic price data to see the reality. The only regions where house prices have dropped are the North East and North West. In all other regions they have gone up - in some cases substantially. In the East of England by 40%, In the East Midlands by 18%, in the South West by 21%.
Even if they haven't gone up in other regions, they are still excessive. The average national earnings is £27,600. Average house prices in the North East are £124,000. Using the calculation that a bank will lend you 3.5x your earnings that still leaves a shortfall of around £27,000 to make up in a deposit. Something that is simply not possible for most people.
It shouldn't be too hard, after all I left New Labour to the left, not the right!
I have a deeply ingrained dislike of debt, which is the biggest obstacle. Our children have enough burdens already with unaffordable housing, no pensions, student debt and an increasing dependency ratio. We should not add public debt to that.
That's a strong argument, and I think one can add the ticking bomb of the gigantic trade deficit which appears to worry nobody but which is quietly transferring our asset base overseas. Are the LibDems very keen on deficit reduction? The Tories seem to have joined the "we'll get round to it sometime, or grow our way out of it" camp. It's not obvious to me that any of the parties are particularly concerned about either these days, so I'd argue that that alone shouldn't stop you rejoining the throng - you only get a real surge towards principled idealism once in a generation, and it seems a pity to sit it out.
I am really struggling to see the principled idealism in Labour's position on Brexit, which is after all the biggest issue facing this country by far.
The Corbyn / McDonnell post referendum stance on Brexit will probably be the thing that prevents Labour winning an overall majority.
Their position has the support of only 20% of Labour voters according to a poll a couple of days back are correct. They will not be able to square that circle indefinitely and I can see a lot of people that voted Labour in 2017 eventually pealing away eventually. I have gone from member to non-voter in the space of a few years
There is no appetite for another referendum, despite the wailing from a few on here. Perhaps in 40 odd years time it might be justified.
Absolutely right. The majority of Remainers - even the ones who remain hostile to the decision - believe it must be carried through.
But don't underestimate events.
Imagine if the UK were to fall into a serious recession. (My uber-bearishness on the UK economy is well known.) This can happen incredibly quickly. In 2008, the sun was shining in early September, the world was in crisis in October, and we were looking at disaster in early 2009. In the early 1990s recession, we went from growth of 0.7% in 2Q89 to -1% in 3Q90.
Were the UK to fall into recession this year, and unemployment to start spiking next year, do you think the popularity of Brexit would remain unscathed? Of course, many politicians would continue to say "respect the vote", but they'd caution against "hard Brexit" (with some good sense given Dr Fox's failures to even begin to replicate the EU's existing arrangements).
Under these circumstances, I think you'd end up in early 2019 with a Brexit deal that could not pass the House of Commons. Now this might result in us just crashing out. But more likely it would we end up with a snap general election. (And the EU would agree to extend Article 50 until the other side of the election, as it effectively did with the extension of the Greek bailout discussions until the far side of their referendum.)
What then?
The sun might have been shining on Smithson Towers in September 2008 but the economy was already six months into a recession by then while UK house prices had been falling for a year. Northern Rock had run out of money a year before and Bear Stearns had crashed in March.
In 1990 we had the exhausted aftereffects of a genuine economic boom plus high interest rates and a Middle Eastern War causing energy prices to soar. Events can change things.
I do agree though that a recession is coming, my hope though is that this time it will be based on the wealth consuming parts of the economy rather than the wealth creating. Although that, of course, would not be good for government popularity.
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
Simply not true. Go on the Land Registry and use their excellent historic price data to see the reality. The only regions where house prices have dropped are the North East and North West. In all other regions they have gone up - in some cases substantially. In the East of England by 40%, In the East Midlands by 18%, in the South West by 21%.
Even if they haven't gone up in other regions, they are still excessive. The average national earnings is £27,600. Average house prices in the North East are £124,000. Using the calculation that a bank will lend you 3.5x your earnings that still leaves a shortfall of around £27,000 to make up in a deposit. Something that is simply not possible for most people.
Hence most people can only buy now with their partner, unless they have help from their parents or earn a well above average salary
Interesting that Michael Gove effectively just ruled out a free trade agreement with the US on Marr by saying there would be absolutely no compromises on the UK's current food safety and animal welfare regime.
Professionally very interested in that, need to catch up with it.
Did you know Mark Oaten is CEO of the IFF? My cousin is writing a book which includes a large section on the fur trade. It's making something of a comeback.
Vince Cable himself won back a Tory seat at the last general election so I think the idea he does not appeal to Labour tactical voters clearly does not wash. Of course the main focus now is Brexit not the next general election and Cable is by far the best choice to set out the LD case on that and the hung parliament means he also has a chance to influence the direction Brexit takes. Once the general election comes the LDs will have to defend seats like Eastbourne they gained from the Tories too
Agreed. Priority is simply to stay relevant, get seen in the media, pick up labour tactical votes, and also the soft tory remainers (although labour tactical votes are more important). Therefore you need some identifiably of the centre left, but also serious and sensible to ideally attract soft tories. I don't think the coalition years are toxic anymore, it was an eon ago, and barely came up in the last campaign. By 2019 or 2022 it will truly be ancient history.
Edit: I also think the unseating of Clegg, while a shame, will help the LDs really put the coalition behind them - it was a sort of revenge closure against him and should take the sting out of the coalition issue now
Mr. Observer, talk of a free trade agreement with the US is a bit overdone. We already trade a lot with them. Tariffs are minimal. A deal with the US, frankly, doesn't seem to be needed.
Won't we need to negotiate new arrangements for tariff-rate quotas etc as the current EU-US bilateral agreements will lapse when we leave customs union? In normal, rational times you'd just expect everything to be grandfathered in - after all, it's not really in anyone's interest to ramp up tariffs needlessly. However given Trump's character, the fact he doesn't seem to understand how trade works, seeing it as a zero-sum game where a 'win' for your opponent is a 'loss' for you, the protectionist policies he pitched to his supporters and will have to deliver something on and the US system's susceptibility to lobbyists' demands, it can't be thought of as a given.
Vince Cable himself won back a Tory seat at the last general election so I think the idea he does not appeal to Labour tactical voters clearly does not wash. Of course the main focus now is Brexit not the next general election and Cable is by far the best choice to set out the LD case on that and the hung parliament means he also has a chance to influence the direction Brexit takes. Once the general election comes the LDs will have to defend seats like Eastbourne they gained from the Tories too
LibDems need a leader who knows how Parliament works and can 'play the game' as there is a wafer-thin, DUP-enhanced majority. Lots of deals on votes to be done and gamemanship.
I thought Swinson would be good and she has been an MP so would be ok on this front. The other names being floated are all newbies iirc.
I see no realistic scenario where the UK electorate would support "remaining" in the EU on the terms that would be available. Euro, no rebate, full FoM (schengen?). Also plenty of scope for EU to blow up in further Greek related crises over the next couple of years.
Interesting that Michael Gove effectively just ruled out a free trade agreement with the US on Marr by saying there would be absolutely no compromises on the UK's current food safety and animal welfare regime.
Professionally very interested in that, need to catch up with it.
Did you know Mark Oaten is CEO of the IFF? My cousin is writing a book which includes a large section on the fur trade. It's making something of a comeback.
That's good news. I hope your cousin is in favour?
One advantage with real fur as opposed to the imitation stuff, as Mark Oaten will appreciate, is that nature has designed it in such a way that shit rubs off it easily.
Vince Cable himself won back a Tory seat at the last general election so I think the idea he does not appeal to Labour tactical voters clearly does not wash. Of course the main focus now is Brexit not the next general election and Cable is by far the best choice to set out the LD case on that and the hung parliament means he also has a chance to influence the direction Brexit takes. Once the general election comes the LDs will have to defend seats like Eastbourne they gained from the Tories too
Agreed. Priority is simply to stay relevant, get seen in the media, pick up labour tactical votes, and also the soft tory remainers (although labour tactical votes are more important). Therefore you need some identifiably of the centre left, but also serious and sensible to ideally attract soft tories. I don't think the coalition years are toxic anymore, it was an eon ago, and barely came up in the last campaign. By 2019 or 2022 it will truly be ancient history.
Edit: I also think the unseating of Clegg, while a shame, will help the LDs really put the coalition behind them - it was a sort of revenge closure against him and should take the sting out of the coalition issue now
Agreed. Cable has also cone out for staying in the single market this morning on Sky with 'managed' free movement so is clearly targeting Remainers disillusioned with Corbyn and May
Broadly speaking, house prices trebled between 1995 and 2007, then crashed by 20% in one year in 2008, then came back up in 2009, were flat between 2010 and 2012ish, then started rising again.
Unaffordability is a major problem in London, South East England, East England and the eastern third of the South West. Draw a line between the Wash to the Severn, then drop it between Bristol and Weymouth. That box encompasses about 30-40% of the UK population and it is here that the problem is manifest.
In other parts of the country unaffordability isn't an issue outside the city centres.
Vince Cable himself won back a Tory seat at the last general election so I think the idea he does not appeal to Labour tactical voters clearly does not wash. Of course the main focus now is Brexit not the next general election and Cable is by far the best choice to set out the LD case on that and the hung parliament means he also has a chance to influence the direction Brexit takes. Once the general election comes the LDs will have to defend seats like Eastbourne they gained from the Tories too
Agreed. Priority is simply to stay relevant, get seen in the media, pick up labour tactical votes, and also the soft tory remainers (although labour tactical votes are more important). Therefore you need some identifiably of the centre left, but also serious and sensible to ideally attract soft tories. I don't think the coalition years are toxic anymore, it was an eon ago, and barely came up in the last campaign. By 2019 or 2022 it will truly be ancient history.
Edit: I also think the unseating of Clegg, while a shame, will help the LDs really put the coalition behind them - it was a sort of revenge closure against him and should take the sting out of the coalition issue now
Vince Cable himself won back a Tory seat at the last general election so I think the idea he does not appeal to Labour tactical voters clearly does not wash. Of course the main focus now is Brexit not the next general election and Cable is by far the best choice to set out the LD case on that and the hung parliament means he also has a chance to influence the direction Brexit takes. Once the general election comes the LDs will have to defend seats like Eastbourne they gained from the Tories too
Agreed. Priority is simply to stay relevant, get seen in the media, pick up labour tactical votes, and also the soft tory remainers (although labour tactical votes are more important). Therefore you need some identifiably of the centre left, but also serious and sensible to ideally attract soft tories. I don't think the coalition years are toxic anymore, it was an eon ago, and barely came up in the last campaign. By 2019 or 2022 it will truly be ancient history.
Edit: I also think the unseating of Clegg, while a shame, will help the LDs really put the coalition behind them - it was a sort of revenge closure against him and should take the sting out of the coalition issue now
So he's "come out" for something that isn't available?
No he basically backed free movement but with 'managed migration' of course the transition controls most other EU nations took but we did not still gives us some leeway for a fudge on this
8th, like the Lie Dems, who aside from being an irrelevance, are neither liberal nor democratic, as illustrated by their desire to overturn the people's verdict on EU membership on 23/6/2016.
We, the people, made a decision, back in 1975, confirmed by the re-elections of Governments who actively co-operated in the development of the Community. Why is it wrong to overturn the ‘decision’, by a tiny majority, of last year when it was right to overturn the decision of 1975, which was by a much, much larger majority.
There is no appetite for another referendum, despite the wailing from a few on here. Perhaps in 40 odd years time it might be justified.
Agreed; ’the people’simply want the politicians to do what they were elected to do, and ‘run the country’. That’s not the Government; it’s the House of Commons. I suspectb that, apart from, ,to quote 'the wailing of a few’ there wouldn’t be too much fuss if said politicians came back in a couple of years time and said; ‘Sorry, Brexit is far too complicated and indeed dangerous. We’re not doing it.'
"Wouldn't be too much fuss"
You seriously believe that if politicians say they can't be bothered to follow the will of the majority there "Wouldn't be too much fuss"?
I find myself shaking my head at this site most days. That said election predictions/outcomes show just how out of touch most on here are.
These two posts are of course squared if there were to be a second vote. Which is why, I suspect, there will be one, whatever people might choose to argue right now.
Although I suspect opinion is gradually turning against Brexit that won't be what triggers a second referendum. If we get one (and I put the odds at evens) it will be because the government needs to get itself off the hook and passes the buck back to the electorate. I think we are headed towards "No Deal" and I can't see that passing the commons so another referendum will be the only way out.
Correct. Assuming the Conservatives are still in office at the point when denial is no longer possible, the calculation on whether to present staying in the EU as a solution to the public is a purely partisan one. Is it better for them to nail their colours to the Let's not bother mast or is it better to plough on regardless of reality and public opinion? I think the first will only happen if a clear majority of CONSERVATIVE supporters think staying in the EU is the better option. Possible, but unlikely at the moment.
The important objectives of the negotiations with the EU27 are to get a move on and settle the divorce terms, and then agree sensible future trading arrangements outwith the Single Market and Customs Union.
You realise there is a gap of at least ten years between the first and the second of those objectives? What fills it?
The only thing that matters for us in the Article 50 talks is maintaining continuity. AKA transition arrangements. We need a plausible final destination for those continuity arrangements. ie the closer the final destination is to what we have already the more continuity we get. Not Leaving at all gives the greatest continuity. Just saying. We also need to bite the bullet on citizen rights, payments and Ireland to get to square one on the continuity arrangements part of the talks.
Well your first sentence is just plain wrong. There is absolutely no reason it would take anywhere near that amount of time and you are just picking numbers out of the air at random to satisfy your own bias.
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
Simply not true. Go on the Land Registry and use their excellent historic price data to see the reality. The only regions where house prices have dropped are the North East and North West. In all other regions they have gone up - in some cases substantially. In the East of England by 40%, In the East Midlands by 18%, in the South West by 21%.
Even if they haven't gone up in other regions, they are still excessive. The average national earnings is £27,600. Average house prices in the North East are £124,000. Using the calculation that a bank will lend you 3.5x your earnings that still leaves a shortfall of around £27,000 to make up in a deposit. Something that is simply not possible for most people.
Hence most people can only buy now with their partner, unless they have help from their parents or earn a well above average salary
Even if you buy with your partner under the old lending rules (I don't know if they still apply) it was 3 times the higher earners salary plus 1times the lower earners. So still not anywhere near enough in most parts of the country.
Corbyn will be a goner once Labour are destroyed in the May elections next year.
The loss of the mayoral election, or alternatively the loss of the Tooting by-election will also be big pressure points. But as has been observed with this kind of mandate from the party, he's going to be difficult to shift.
By the time of May I suspect those who voted for him will have come to their senses - meaning that there is less goodwill towards him, so he'll be easier to shift. They also need to find a candidate to rally around.
I actually made a very wrong prediction there, but the point is is that I was never a Corbyn fan as you can see here.
Broadly speaking, house prices trebled between 1995 and 2007, then crashed by 20% in one year in 2008, then came back up in 2009, were flat between 2010 and 2012ish, then started rising again.
Unaffordability is a major problem in London, South East England, East England and the eastern third of the South West. Draw a line between the Wash to the Severn, then drop it between Bristol and Weymouth. That box encompasses about 30-40% of the UK population and it is here that the problem is manifest.
In other parts of the country unaffordability isn't an issue outside the city centres.
The important objectives of the negotiations with the EU27 are to get a move on and settle the divorce terms, and then agree sensible future trading arrangements outwith the Single Market and Customs Union.
You realise there is a gap of at least ten years between the first and the second of those objectives? What fills it?
The only thing that matters for us in the Article 50 talks is maintaining continuity. AKA transition arrangements. We need a plausible final destination for those continuity arrangements. ie the closer the final destination is to what we have already the more continuity we get. Not Leaving at all gives the greatest continuity. Just saying. We also need to bite the bullet on citizen rights, payments and Ireland to get to square one on the continuity arrangements part of the talks.
Well your first sentence is just plain wrong. There is absolutely no reason it would take anywhere near that amount of time and you are just picking numbers out of the air at random to satisfy your own bias.
I am picking figures to match the average time to create deep and comprehensive FTAs. It also accords with just about expert on the subject. The bias is entirely yours.
Vince Cable himself won back a Tory seat at the last general election so I think the idea he does not appeal to Labour tactical voters clearly does not wash. Of course the main focus now is Brexit not the next general election and Cable is by far the best choice to set out the LD case on that and the hung parliament means he also has a chance to influence the direction Brexit takes. Once the general election comes the LDs will have to defend seats like Eastbourne they gained from the Tories too
Agreed. Priority is simply to stay relevant, get seen in the media, pick up labour tactical votes, and also the soft tory remainers (although labour tactical votes are more important). Therefore you need some identifiably of the centre left, but also serious and sensible to ideally attract soft tories. I don't think the coalition years are toxic anymore, it was an eon ago, and barely came up in the last campaign. By 2019 or 2022 it will truly be ancient history.
Edit: I also think the unseating of Clegg, while a shame, will help the LDs really put the coalition behind them - it was a sort of revenge closure against him and should take the sting out of the coalition issue now
Interesting that Michael Gove effectively just ruled out a free trade agreement with the US on Marr by saying there would be absolutely no compromises on the UK's current food safety and animal welfare regime.
Professionally very interested in that, need to catch up with it.
Did you know Mark Oaten is CEO of the IFF? My cousin is writing a book which includes a large section on the fur trade. It's making something of a comeback.
That's good news. I hope your cousin is in favour?
One advantage with real fur as opposed to the imitation stuff, as Mark Oaten will appreciate, is that nature has designed it in such a way that shit rubs off it easily.
Useful if you fancy wearing fur-lined pants I guess
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
Simply not true. Go on the Land Registry and use their excellent historic price data to see the reality. The only regions where house prices have dropped are the North East and North West. In all other regions they have gone up - in some cases substantially. In the East of England by 40%, In the East Midlands by 18%, in the South West by 21%.
Even if they haven't gone up in other regions, they are still excessive. The average national earnings is £27,600. Average house prices in the North East are £124,000. Using the calculation that a bank will lend you 3.5x your earnings that still leaves a shortfall of around £27,000 to make up in a deposit. Something that is simply not possible for most people.
Hence most people can only buy now with their partner, unless they have help from their parents or earn a well above average salary
Even if you buy with your partner under the old lending rules (I don't know if they still apply) it was 3 times the higher earners salary plus 1times the lower earners. So still not anywhere near enough in most parts of the country.
Having just taken out a mortgage myself it is now 4-4.5 times salary most banks and building societies will lend not 3.5
Corbyn will be a goner once Labour are destroyed in the May elections next year.
The loss of the mayoral election, or alternatively the loss of the Tooting by-election will also be big pressure points. But as has been observed with this kind of mandate from the party, he's going to be difficult to shift.
By the time of May I suspect those who voted for him will have come to their senses - meaning that there is less goodwill towards him, so he'll be easier to shift. They also need to find a candidate to rally around.
I actually made a very wrong prediction there, but the point is is that I was never a Corbyn fan as you can see here.
Lighten up , why so touchy
I just wanted to provide proof in case he didn't believe me, that's all.
The important objectives of the negotiations with the EU27 are to get a move on and settle the divorce terms, and then agree sensible future trading arrangements outwith the Single Market and Customs Union.
You realise there is a gap of at least ten years between the first and the second of those objectives? What fills it?
The only thing that matters for us in the Article 50 talks is maintaining continuity. AKA transition arrangements. We need a plausible final destination for those continuity arrangements. ie the closer the final destination is to what we have already the more continuity we get. Not Leaving at all gives the greatest continuity. Just saying. We also need to bite the bullet on citizen rights, payments and Ireland to get to square one on the continuity arrangements part of the talks.
Well your first sentence is just plain wrong. There is absolutely no reason it would take anywhere near that amount of time and you are just picking numbers out of the air at random to satisfy your own bias.
I am picking figures to match the average time to create deep and comprehensive FTAs. It also accords with just about expert on the subject. The bias is entirely yours.
No because the numbers you are using assume no previous standardisation between the two parties. The delays are almost always primarily down to the agreement of mutual standards and non tariff barriers. You ignore the fact that all those factors have already been removed since we are using those very standards at the moment. Your calculation is negated by the basic principle of garbage in, garbage out.
Mr. MJW, grandfathering would be the sensible approach, as you say. Unfortunately, as you also said, Trump is not necessarily sensible.
On Cable: he hasn't 'come out' for anything. He just wants to be as close to the EU as possible, with his ultimate preference being to remain. You don't need to ask him his view, just consider what makes us closer to the EU and you'll know he'll approve.
The answer for true believers is always 'more Europe*'.
*The zealots confuse the EU for Europe. It'd be intriguing to know whether this is deliberate abuse of language, or an unwitting psychological tick.
Interesting that Michael Gove effectively just ruled out a free trade agreement with the US on Marr by saying there would be absolutely no compromises on the UK's current food safety and animal welfare regime.
Professionally very interested in that, need to catch up with it.
Did you know Mark Oaten is CEO of the IFF? My cousin is writing a book which includes a large section on the fur trade. It's making something of a comeback.
That's good news. I hope your cousin is in favour?
One advantage with real fur as opposed to the imitation stuff, as Mark Oaten will appreciate, is that nature has designed it in such a way that shit rubs off it easily.
No I don't think she's in favour. An extract .....
"........... It would take 30-70 mink, 10-20 foxes, 30-200 chinchilla, 60-70 sable, 30-40 karakul lambs, 8-12 lynx, 30 -40 raccoons, 200-300 squirrels, 30-40 rabbits, 6-10 seals, or for those so inclined, 20-30 cats or 15-20 dogs to make that coat....."
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
Simply not true. Go on the Land Registry and use their excellent historic price data to see the reality. The only regions where house prices have dropped are the North East and North West. In all other regions they have gone up - in some cases substantially. In the East of England by 40%, In the East Midlands by 18%, in the South West by 21%.
Even if they haven't gone up in other regions, they are still excessive. The average national earnings is £27,600. Average house prices in the North East are £124,000. Using the calculation that a bank will lend you 3.5x your earnings that still leaves a shortfall of around £27,000 to make up in a deposit. Something that is simply not possible for most people.
Hence most people can only buy now with their partner, unless they have help from their parents or earn a well above average salary
Even if you buy with your partner under the old lending rules (I don't know if they still apply) it was 3 times the higher earners salary plus 1times the lower earners. So still not anywhere near enough in most parts of the country.
Having just Taken out a mortgage myself it is now 4-4.5 times salary most banks and building societies will lend not 3.5
That is a big change in the last decade. When I bought in 2008 it was still 3.5x. Mind you that still means that in almost every part of the country it is unaffordable.
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
Simply not true. Go on the Land Registry and use their excellent historic price data to see the reality. The only regions where house prices have dropped are the North East and North West. In all other regions they have gone up - in some cases substantially. In the East of England by 40%, In the East Midlands by 18%, in the South West by 21%.
Even if they haven't gone up in other regions, they are still excessive. The average national earnings is £27,600. Average house prices in the North East are £124,000. Using the calculation that a bank will lend you 3.5x your earnings that still leaves a shortfall of around £27,000 to make up in a deposit. Something that is simply not possible for most people.
Well, I may have been talking about where I live, prices have certainly not went up much since the crash and are not back to anything like 2008 values.
We expect the young to be socially left-wing, and often economically left-wing (especially when so many go to university now). They will change.
In the late 1960s, I went to a demo in Grosvenor Square with many thousands of young committed left-wing activists. How many of those are now Jezzarites? Far fewer than you'd think. Probably more accountants than anarchists now.
I think that cliche is less true than ever. Youngsters are not moving into the homes and jobs for life that were part of that party shift with age, and social liberalism makes them far more open to other cultures than older folk. There is also the refusal to age phenomenon, where 30 and 40 something's hold onto the enthusiasms of their youth, including the politics.
There are other strands too that go in the opposite direction. In particular youngsters are much more materialistic in ambitions, though one should bear in mind that materialism does not mean Toryism. Socialism is a very materialistic philosophy that believes that the problem is the way materialist goods are distributed is the issue, rather than whether they matter.
Ms Apocalypse does have many Tory sympathetic ideas, I suspect she will soon be welcome at the PB Tory baby roast.
I think that is the difference now. There aren't the same opportunities to get decent well paid jobs any more, jobs are insecure and short term, zero hours contracts are widespread, there is a large excess supply of graduates competing for jobs.
And then there is housing. You need to be earning £80k these days to think about buying a house in Dagenham - twenty years ago someone on the equivalent of minimum wage could have bought there. Average house prices are eight times average wages - and the average age of an FTB is late 30s.
The sort of aspirational issues that made people move from young socialism to voting Tory - getting a well paid job and getting a mortgage on a nice house just isn't available to many if not most young people.
Home owners vote Tory - private renters won't. Unless they solve the housing mess (which means letting prices fall through ending the Osborne props) it will finish the Tories in the medium term.
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
I agree, even in a place like Leicester with a growing population, affordability is reasonable and prices unchanged in a decade.
Same in the NE - house prices not really back to 2008 levels.
Corbyn will be a goner once Labour are destroyed in the May elections next year.
The loss of the mayoral election, or alternatively the loss of the Tooting by-election will also be big pressure points. But as has been observed with this kind of mandate from the party, he's going to be difficult to shift.
By the time of May I suspect those who voted for him will have come to their senses - meaning that there is less goodwill towards him, so he'll be easier to shift. They also need to find a candidate to rally around.
I actually made a very wrong prediction there, but the point is is that I was never a Corbyn fan as you can see here.
Lighten up , why so touchy
I just wanted to provide proof in case he didn't believe me, that's all.
I would not worry about it , you get all sorts of intended and unintended abuse, labelling etc so better to just not worry about it.
The important objectives of the negotiations with the EU27 are to get a move on and settle the divorce terms, and then agree sensible future trading arrangements outwith the Single Market and Customs Union.
You realise there is a gap of at least ten years between the first and the second of those objectives? What fills it?
The only thing that matters for us in the Article 50 talks is maintaining continuity. AKA transition arrangements. We need a plausible final destination for those continuity arrangements. ie the closer the final destination is to what we have already the more continuity we get. Not Leaving at all gives the greatest continuity. Just saying. We also need to bite the bullet on citizen rights, payments and Ireland to get to square one on the continuity arrangements part of the talks.
Well your first sentence is just plain wrong. There is absolutely no reason it would take anywhere near that amount of time and you are just picking numbers out of the air at random to satisfy your own bias.
I am picking figures to match the average time to create deep and comprehensive FTAs. It also accords with just about expert on the subject. The bias is entirely yours.
For example it took ten years for the initial Swiss bilaterals to be agreed and implemented. If you include the extensions as part of the package, it took seventeen years. These are the closest parallel to what is proposed for the UK.
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
Simply not true. Go on the Land Registry and use their excellent historic price data to see the reality. The only regions where house prices have dropped are the North East and North West. In all other regions they have gone up - in some cases substantially. In the East of England by 40%, In the East Midlands by 18%, in the South West by 21%.
Even if they haven't gone up in other regions, they are still excessive. The average national earnings is £27,600. Average house prices in the North East are £124,000. Using the calculation that a bank will lend you 3.5x your earnings that still leaves a shortfall of around £27,000 to make up in a deposit. Something that is simply not possible for most people.
Well, I may have been talking about where I live, prices have certainly not went up much since the crash and are not back to anything like 2008 values.
Both Scotland and Wales are pretty much static (I have no idea why when other rural areas have seen large increases). But even there I would say that prices are on the very margin of affordability and could do with a readjustment down so that younger people can get on the ladder.
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
Simply not true. Go on the Land Registry and use their excellent historic price data to see the reality. The only regions where house prices have dropped are the North East and North West. In all other regions they have gone up - in some cases substantially. In the East of England by 40%, In the East Midlands by 18%, in the South West by 21%.
Even if they haven't gone up in other regions, they are still excessive. The average national earnings is £27,600. Average house prices in the North East are £124,000. Using the calculation that a bank will lend you 3.5x your earnings that still leaves a shortfall of around £27,000 to make up in a deposit. Something that is simply not possible for most people.
Hence most people can only buy now with their partner, unless they have help from their parents or earn a well above average salary
Even if you buy with your partner under the old lending rules (I don't know if they still apply) it was 3 times the higher earners salary plus 1times the lower earners. So still not anywhere near enough in most parts of the country.
Having just Taken out a mortgage myself it is now 4-4.5 times salary most banks and building societies will lend not 3.5
That is a big change in the last decade. When I bought in 2008 it was still 3.5x. Mind you that still means that in almost every part of the country it is unaffordable.
In 2008 while not the norm some banks like Northern Rock were lending up to 7 times salary, hence the crash. The Bank of England have now set 4.5 times salary as the recommended maximum
The important objectives of the negotiations with the EU27 are to get a move on and settle the divorce terms, and then agree sensible future trading arrangements outwith the Single Market and Customs Union.
You realise there is a gap of at least ten years between the first and the second of those objectives? What fills it?
The only thing that matters for us in the Article 50 talks is maintaining continuity. AKA transition arrangements. We need a plausible final destination for those continuity arrangements. ie the closer the final destination is to what we have already the more continuity we get. Not Leaving at all gives the greatest continuity. Just saying. We also need to bite the bullet on citizen rights, payments and Ireland to get to square one on the continuity arrangements part of the talks.
Well your first sentence is just plain wrong. There is absolutely no reason it would take anywhere near that amount of time and you are just picking numbers out of the air at random to satisfy your own bias.
I am picking figures to match the average time to create deep and comprehensive FTAs. It also accords with just about expert on the subject. The bias is entirely yours.
No because the numbers you are using assume no previous standardisation between the two parties. The delays are almost always primarily down to the agreement of mutual standards and non tariff barriers. You ignore the fact that all those factors have already been removed since we are using those very standards at the moment. Your calculation is negated by the basic principle of garbage in, garbage out.
If we are out of the EU with an expired transition arrangement we won't be standardised either. As I say, people knowledgeable on the subject don't agree with you. I don't include David Davies in the "knowledgeable"
The important objectives of the negotiations with the EU27 are to get a move on and settle the divorce terms, and then agree sensible future trading arrangements outwith the Single Market and Customs Union.
You realise there is a gap of at least ten years between the first and the second of those objectives? What fills it?
The only thing that matters for us in the Article 50 talks is maintaining continuity. AKA transition arrangements. We need a plausible final destination for those continuity arrangements. ie the closer the final destination is to what we have already the more continuity we get. Not Leaving at all gives the greatest continuity. Just saying. We also need to bite the bullet on citizen rights, payments and Ireland to get to square one on the continuity arrangements part of the talks.
Well your first sentence is just plain wrong. There is absolutely no reason it would take anywhere near that amount of time and you are just picking numbers out of the air at random to satisfy your own bias.
I am picking figures to match the average time to create deep and comprehensive FTAs. It also accords with just about expert on the subject. The bias is entirely yours.
For example it took ten years for the initial Swiss bilaterals to be agreed and implemented. If you include the extensions as part of the package, it took seventeen years. These are the closest parallel to what is proposed for the UK.
And again the point stands that we are not starting from a position outside the EU. Almost all of the non tariff barriers and standards are already dealt with. Those are the things that take up the time in these types of negotiations. Your examples are simply not realistic.
The important objectives of the negotiations with the EU27 are to get a move on and settle the divorce terms, and then agree sensible future trading arrangements outwith the Single Market and Customs Union.
You realise there is a gap of at least ten years between the first and the second of those objectives? What fills it?
The only thing that matters for us in the Article 50 talks is maintaining continuity. AKA transition arrangements. We need a plausible final destination for those continuity arrangements. ie the closer the final destination is to what we have already the more continuity we get. Not Leaving at all gives the greatest continuity. Just saying. We also need to bite the bullet on citizen rights, payments and Ireland to get to square one on the continuity arrangements part of the talks.
Well your first sentence is just plain wrong. There is absolutely no reason it would take anywhere near that amount of time and you are just picking numbers out of the air at random to satisfy your own bias.
I am picking figures to match the average time to create deep and comprehensive FTAs. It also accords with just about expert on the subject. The bias is entirely yours.
No because the numbers you are using assume no previous standardisation between the two parties. The delays are almost always primarily down to the agreement of mutual standards and non tariff barriers. You ignore the fact that all those factors have already been removed since we are using those very standards at the moment. Your calculation is negated by the basic principle of garbage in, garbage out.
If we are out of the EU with an expired transition arrangement we won't be standardised either. As I say, people knowledgeable on the subject don't agree with you. I don't include David Davies in the "knowledgeable"
Rubbish. Our standards won't suddenly change just because we left. You are so desperate for Brexit to fail that you are putting any kind of artificial barrier in the way to try and justify your own personal antipathy.
Interesting that Michael Gove effectively just ruled out a free trade agreement with the US on Marr by saying there would be absolutely no compromises on the UK's current food safety and animal welfare regime.
Professionally very interested in that, need to catch up with it.
Did you know Mark Oaten is CEO of the IFF? My cousin is writing a book which includes a large section on the fur trade. It's making something of a comeback.
That's good news. I hope your cousin is in favour?
One advantage with real fur as opposed to the imitation stuff, as Mark Oaten will appreciate, is that nature has designed it in such a way that shit rubs off it easily.
No I don't think she's in favour. An extract .....
"........... It would take 30-70 mink, 10-20 foxes, 30-200 chinchilla, 60-70 sable, 30-40 karakul lambs, 8-12 lynx, 30 -40 raccoons, 200-300 squirrels, 30-40 rabbits, 6-10 seals, or for those so inclined, 20-30 cats or 15-20 dogs to make that coat....."
That doesn't make her for or against - just very practical. Especially the use of cats.
In the event of a survival situation she'd be useful.
Rubbish. Our standards won't suddenly change just because we left. You are so desperate for Brexit to fail that you are putting any kind of artificial barrier in the way to try and justify your own personal antipathy.
You are so wrong on your last sentence.
IN ADDITION to the general length of time that comphrensive trade agreements always take, we will be spending the first few years firefighting - sorting out customs, keeping our aeroplanes flying, our nuclear plants operating, third country wobbles etc etc, we will have limited bandwith for the longer term negotiations.
Interesting that Michael Gove effectively just ruled out a free trade agreement with the US on Marr by saying there would be absolutely no compromises on the UK's current food safety and animal welfare regime.
Professionally very interested in that, need to catch up with it.
Did you know Mark Oaten is CEO of the IFF? My cousin is writing a book which includes a large section on the fur trade. It's making something of a comeback.
Yes, sadly - and it lowers my view of Mr Oaten even further.
Is your cousin in touch with Respect for Animals? They're the specialists in the area and would provide enthusiastic endorsement and promotion for the sort of book your cousin sounds to be writing. But she sounds already well informed so probably does know them anyway.
Interesting that Michael Gove effectively just ruled out a free trade agreement with the US on Marr by saying there would be absolutely no compromises on the UK's current food safety and animal welfare regime.
Professionally very interested in that, need to catch up with it.
Did you know Mark Oaten is CEO of the IFF? My cousin is writing a book which includes a large section on the fur trade. It's making something of a comeback.
That's good news. I hope your cousin is in favour?
One advantage with real fur as opposed to the imitation stuff, as Mark Oaten will appreciate, is that nature has designed it in such a way that shit rubs off it easily.
No I don't think she's in favour. An extract .....
"........... It would take 30-70 mink, 10-20 foxes, 30-200 chinchilla, 60-70 sable, 30-40 karakul lambs, 8-12 lynx, 30 -40 raccoons, 200-300 squirrels, 30-40 rabbits, 6-10 seals, or for those so inclined, 20-30 cats or 15-20 dogs to make that coat....."
That doesn't make her for or against - just very practical. Especially the use of cats.
In the event of a survival situation she'd be useful.
You're a psycho Geoff. But nothing wrong with that......
Corbyn will be a goner once Labour are destroyed in the May elections next year.
The loss of the mayoral election, or alternatively the loss of the Tooting by-election will also be big pressure points. But as has been observed with this kind of mandate from the party, he's going to be difficult to shift.
By the time of May I suspect those who voted for him will have come to their senses - meaning that there is less goodwill towards him, so he'll be easier to shift. They also need to find a candidate to rally around.
I actually made a very wrong prediction there, but the point is is that I was never a Corbyn fan as you can see here.
Just a bit of light hearted trolling, MissA. Although, you do seem to be moving in a direction of travel alien to myself.
Rubbish. Our standards won't suddenly change just because we left. You are so desperate for Brexit to fail that you are putting any kind of artificial barrier in the way to try and justify your own personal antipathy.
You are so wrong on your last sentence.
IN ADDITION to the general length of time that comphrensive trade agreements always take, we will be spending the first few years firefighting - sorting out customs, keeping our aeroplanes flying, our nuclear plants operating, third country wobbles etc etc, we will have limited bandwith for the longer term negotiations.
Hence the reason for the transition arrangements. You really are getting yourself in a serious muddle today.
Mr. MJW, grandfathering would be the sensible approach, as you say. Unfortunately, as you also said, Trump is not necessarily sensible.
On Cable: he hasn't 'come out' for anything. He just wants to be as close to the EU as possible, with his ultimate preference being to remain. You don't need to ask him his view, just consider what makes us closer to the EU and you'll know he'll approve.
The answer for true believers is always 'more Europe*'.
*The zealots confuse the EU for Europe. It'd be intriguing to know whether this is deliberate abuse of language, or an unwitting psychological tick.
To paraphrase Dan Hannan, it's possible to like Europe and hate the EU, in much the same way that it's possible to like football and hate FIFA.
Labour’s Richard Burgon was questioned on Guido’s story about the disturbing placards at yesterday’s Corbynista rally on the Sunday Politics. In response Burgon claimed there were 150,000 people at the demo. The Mirror says 10,000 attended, the Times says 10,000 attended, the BBC reports 15,000 attended. Definitely not 150,000. Straight out of the Trump playbook of making up crowd numbers. Or was Diane doing the counting?
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
Simply not true. Go on the Land Registry and use their excellent historic price data to see the reality. The only regions where house prices have dropped are the North East and North West. In all other regions they have gone up - in some cases substantially. In the East of England by 40%, In the East Midlands by 18%, in the South West by 21%.
Even if they haven't gone up in other regions, they are still excessive. The average national earnings is £27,600. Average house prices in the North East are £124,000. Using the calculation that a bank will lend you 3.5x your earnings that still leaves a shortfall of around £27,000 to make up in a deposit. Something that is simply not possible for most people.
Hence most people can only buy now with their partner, unless they have help from their parents or earn a well above average salary
Even if you buy with your partner under the old lending rules (I don't know if they still apply) it was 3 times the higher earners salary plus 1times the lower earners. So still not anywhere near enough in most parts of the country.
Having just Taken out a mortgage myself it is now 4-4.5 times salary most banks and building societies will lend not 3.5
That is a big change in the last decade. When I bought in 2008 it was still 3.5x. Mind you that still means that in almost every part of the country it is unaffordable.
In 2008 while not the norm some banks like Northern Rock were lending up to 7 times salary, hence the crash. The Bank of England have now set 4.5 times salary as the recommended maximum
I'm not sure about "hence the crash". NR's immediate problem was it was lending long term (25-year mortgages) but borrowing short term -- and suddenly the short term markets dried up because of what was happening in America.The run on the bank -- queues of savers withdrawing their cash -- was the immediate trigger as NR was in danger of being unable to cover the run if it continued. It was not that the 7x borrowers stopped repaying.
I left the Labour party in 2004 after a decade of membership, and active campaigning in the GE of 97 and 01, over two issues: Labour war mongering and its NHS policy, in fairly equal measure. Corbyn's was right on both of these. I am also a longstanding opponent of Trident.
Corbyn is a cross between Wolfie Smith and Tom Good, both characters that I like, and recognise in myself.
Can we not tempt you back? Clearly Labour still has weaknesses, but without wanting to offend anyone it's the only major non-Tory in town.
I agree that the "funded" economic platform has some heroic assumptions (I've rarely seen a platform that didn't, from any party). Controversially, perhaps, I think you should feel reassured by McDonnell on that. Jeremy is a pure idealist and will struggle to bring himself to push for the unpleasant decisions affecting ordinary people that every government has to take. McDonnell really is not - he is less nice but tough, intelligent and very keen to make a left-wing government work - he vetoed a number of generous ideas before the election and will no doubt do so again. The team is basically heart and head and the strongest since Blair-Brown, without the personal vendetta to undermine it.
Its obvious that for many people things aren't going too well, why is another discussion. In this scenario they'll vote for something appealing as opposed to more of the same. These people, mainly young, have yet to experience the failed economy that every Labour govt delivers and voted Corbyn.
The tory challenge is to explain this to the electorate, I'm not sure they can.
The Labour Governments of 1945 -51 -1964 -70 - and 1974 - 79 bequeathed healthier economies than those which they inherited from their predecessors!
It shouldn't be too hard, after all I left New Labour to the left, not the right!
I have a deeply ingrained dislike of debt, which is the biggest obstacle. Our children have enough burdens already with unaffordable housing, no pensions, student debt and an increasing dependency ratio. We should not add public debt to that.
That's a strong argument, and I think one can add the ticking bomb of the gigantic trade deficit which appears to worry nobody but which is quietly transferring our asset base overseas. Are the LibDems very keen on deficit reduction? The Tories seem to have joined the "we'll get round to it sometime, or grow our way out of it" camp. It's not obvious to me that any of the parties are particularly concerned about either these days, so I'd argue that that alone shouldn't stop you rejoining the throng - you only get a real surge towards principled idealism once in a generation, and it seems a pity to sit it out.
I have very old school Presbyterian aversions to debt. I don't like it personally, or nationally. It is the chains of debt that denies us the freedom to develop as individuals or society. It is debt that keeps the workers as serfs to the capitalists. There is no better freedom than being free of debt.
I think that the LD's had the soundest economic policy in the GE, though was impressed by John McDonnell, who I find rather witty and charming albeit in a different style to Corbyns.
Off out to church shortly.
That may make sense on an individual level as a kind of rule of thumb with exceptions for mortgages etc. But at the scale of an economy, debt has an important role to play.
Mr. MJW, grandfathering would be the sensible approach, as you say. Unfortunately, as you also said, Trump is not necessarily sensible.
On Cable: he hasn't 'come out' for anything. He just wants to be as close to the EU as possible, with his ultimate preference being to remain. You don't need to ask him his view, just consider what makes us closer to the EU and you'll know he'll approve.
The answer for true believers is always 'more Europe*'.
*The zealots confuse the EU for Europe. It'd be intriguing to know whether this is deliberate abuse of language, or an unwitting psychological tick.
To paraphrase Dan Hannan, it's possible to like Europe and hate the EU, in much the same way that it's possible to like football and hate FIFA.
It is possible to like Europe but not the EU, but it does require major contortions, rather like saying that you like Catholicism apart from the religious aspects.
The EU is the political and social expression of Europe, and all countries of Europe are either members, applying to be members or are heavily associated via EEA or similar. Brexit puts us into the same position as Belarus or Russia in relation. We have chosen to disassociate, and that is not the action of a country that likes Europe. Argue that is the right choice, or that we belong to the Atlantic rather than the Continent, but you shouldn't deny that is what we are doing.
The idea liking the Dutch, or the Netherlands, necessitates liking a political institution is as wrong as saying patriotic Britons have to like the British Government.
Mr. MJW, grandfathering would be the sensible approach, as you say. Unfortunately, as you also said, Trump is not necessarily sensible.
On Cable: he hasn't 'come out' for anything. He just wants to be as close to the EU as possible, with his ultimate preference being to remain. You don't need to ask him his view, just consider what makes us closer to the EU and you'll know he'll approve.
The answer for true believers is always 'more Europe*'.
*The zealots confuse the EU for Europe. It'd be intriguing to know whether this is deliberate abuse of language, or an unwitting psychological tick.
To paraphrase Dan Hannan, it's possible to like Europe and hate the EU, in much the same way that it's possible to like football and hate FIFA.
It is possible to like Europe but not the EU, but it does require major contortions, rather like saying that you like Catholicism apart from the religious aspects.
The EU is the political and social expression of Europe, and all countries of Europe are either members, applying to be members or are heavily associated via EEA or similar. Brexit puts us into the same position as Belarus or Russia in relation. We have chosen to disassociate, and that is not the action of a country that likes Europe. Argue that is the right choice, or that we belong to the Atlantic rather than the Continent, but you shouldn't deny that is what we are doing.
How
the EU is seeking to make a homogenous one size fits all Europe wiping out cebturies of national diversity and expression
I love the Europe were a Greek isnt forced to be a German
The idea liking the Dutch, or the Netherlands, necessitates liking a political institution is as wrong as saying patriotic Britons have to like the British Government.
The point is that the EU is much more than a political government, it is a set of institutions with political, social, economic and environmental functions.
The analogy is not "not liking a particular government" it is "not liking constitutional democracy". The latter may well be compatible with patriotism, but it does require major contortions.
Rubbish. Our standards won't suddenly change just because we left. You are so desperate for Brexit to fail that you are putting any kind of artificial barrier in the way to try and justify your own personal antipathy.
You are so wrong on your last sentence.
IN ADDITION to the general length of time that comphrensive trade agreements always take, we will be spending the first few years firefighting - sorting out customs, keeping our aeroplanes flying, our nuclear plants operating, third country wobbles etc etc, we will have limited bandwith for the longer term negotiations.
Hence the reason for the transition arrangements. You really are getting yourself in a serious muddle today.
We're agreed on the need for transition arrangements. In fact, I think they are so important they are the only thing that really matters for the UK for the Article 50 talks. It concerns me that people are blithely projecting all sorts of assumptions onto what these will be, when they are barely mentioned by the EU and it doesn't look they will be particularly lengthy or generous. The transition arrangements are the last thing to be agreed in the final gasps of the Article 50 talks. Michel Barnier has said the transition has already started and companies and individuals should be adjusting to Britain's exit now. He wouldn't aim to prolong the transition.
Anyway, this is the sum total of what the EU are planning in terms of transition arrangements:
6. To the extent necessary and legally possible, the negotiations may also seek to determine transitional arrangements which are in the interest of the Union and, as appropriate, to provide for bridges towards the foreseeable framework for the future relationship in the light of the progress made. Any such transitional arrangements must be clearly defined, limited in time, and subject to effective enforcement mechanisms. Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply.
It shouldn't be too hard, after all I left New Labour to the left, not the right!
I have a deeply ingrained dislike of debt, which is the biggest obstacle. Our children have enough burdens already with unaffordable housing, no pensions, student debt and an increasing dependency ratio. We should not add public debt to that.
That's a strong argument, and I think one can add the ticking bomb of the gigantic trade deficit which appears to worry nobody but which is quietly transferring our asset base overseas. Are the LibDems very keen on deficit reduction? The Tories seem to have joined the "we'll get round to it sometime, or grow our way out of it" camp. It's not obvious to me that any of the parties are particularly concerned about either these days, so I'd argue that that alone shouldn't stop you rejoining the throng - you only get a real surge towards principled idealism once in a generation, and it seems a pity to sit it out.
Nick, you know I respect your views without normally agreeing.
I think you'd need to explain how Corbyn's Labour would address the trade deficit.
Yes, that's a good question. The cheap answer is "Wouldn't be any more crap than successive governments have been up to now". A more constructive answer would be "We will attempt to rebalance the economy with a greater emphasis on domestic production", but I'm not especially prsuaded of that myself. As I said downthread, I don't actually think any party is paying proper attention to the trade deficit, and probably a continued downward drift in sterling is nature's answer to that whoever is in power.
Along with the debt its the elephant in the room that no party dare discuss, to the detriment of the nation. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Corbyn will never get a better chance than June 8th.
It was Brown who ended boom and bust, the other bloke who left a note saying all the money had gone. The next election will be all about the economy, the tories will guarantee that, as usual Labour will fall short.
Liam Byrne's note was a joke - albeit a very ill-advised one. David Laws acted very dishonourably by failing to accept it in the intended spirit - and it was very satisfying to see him get his own comeuppance barely two weeks later. Re-public debt - the Debt to GDP ratio at circa 85% in higher today than back in 1964 almost 20 years after World War 2. It is actually much lower than in 1959 when Macmillan was telling us 'we had never had it so good'. Despite this , at neither the 1959 nor the 1964 election was the burden of public debt a campaign issue.
Mr. MJW, grandfathering would be the sensible approach, as you say. Unfortunately, as you also said, Trump is not necessarily sensible.
On Cable: he hasn't 'come out' for anything. He just wants to be as close to the EU as possible, with his ultimate preference being to remain. You don't need to ask him his view, just consider what makes us closer to the EU and you'll know he'll approve.
The answer for true believers is always 'more Europe*'.
*The zealots confuse the EU for Europe. It'd be intriguing to know whether this is deliberate abuse of language, or an unwitting psychological tick.
To paraphrase Dan Hannan, it's possible to like Europe and hate the EU, in much the same way that it's possible to like football and hate FIFA.
It is possible to like Europe but not the EU, but it does require major contortions, rather like saying that you like Catholicism apart from the religious aspects.
The EU is the political and social expression of Europe, and all countries of Europe are either members, applying to be members or are heavily associated via EEA or similar. Brexit puts us into the same position as Belarus or Russia in relation. We have chosen to disassociate, and that is not the action of a country that likes Europe. Argue that is the right choice, or that we belong to the Atlantic rather than the Continent, but you shouldn't deny that is what we are doing.
How
the EU is seeking to make a homogenous one size fits all Europe wiping out cebturies of national diversity and expression
I love the Europe were a Greek isnt forced to be a German
Then you must love the EU!
The Greeks are not being forced to be German any more than the Northern Irish are forced to be English, or Texans to be New Yorkers. You do not seem to understand the nature of federalism.
Excess house prices is only a London , South East issue. The rest of the country prices are stagnant at best if not lower than 2008.
Simply not true. Go on the Land Registry and use their excellent historic price data to see the reality. The only regions where house prices have dropped are the North East and North West. In all other regions they have gone up - in some cases substantially. In the East of England by 40%, In the East Midlands by 18%, in the South West by 21%.
Even if they haven't gone up in other regions, they are still excessive. The average national earnings is £27,600. Average house prices in the North East are £124,000. Using the calculation that a bank will lend you 3.5x your earnings that still leaves a shortfall of around £27,000 to make up in a deposit. Something that is simply not possible for most people.
Hence most people can only buy now with their partner, unless they have help from their parents or earn a well above average salary
Even if you buy with your partner under the old lending rules (I don't know if they still apply) it was 3 times the higher earners salary plus 1times the lower earners. So still not anywhere near enough in most parts of the country.
Having just Taken out a mortgage myself it is now 4-4.5 times salary most banks and building societies will lend not 3.5
That is a big change in the last decade. When I bought in 2008 it was still 3.5x. Mind you that still means that in almost every part of the country it is unaffordable.
In 2008 while not the norm some banks like Northern Rock were lending up to 7 times salary, hence the crash. The Bank of England have now set 4.5 times salary as the recommended maximum
I'm not sure about "hence the crash". NR's immediate problem was it was lending long term (25-year mortgages) but borrowing short term -- and suddenly the short term markets dried up because of what was happening in America.The run on the bank -- queues of savers withdrawing their cash -- was the immediate trigger as NR was in danger of being unable to cover the run if it continued. It was not that the 7x borrowers stopped repaying.
Yes but if NR had not been lending so much it would not have faced so many problems when the short term markets dried up
Mr. MJW, grandfathering would be the sensible approach, as you say. Unfortunately, as you also said, Trump is not necessarily sensible.
On Cable: he hasn't 'come out' for anything. He just wants to be as close to the EU as possible, with his ultimate preference being to remain. You don't need to ask him his view, just consider what makes us closer to the EU and you'll know he'll approve.
The answer for true believers is always 'more Europe*'.
*The zealots confuse the EU for Europe. It'd be intriguing to know whether this is deliberate abuse of language, or an unwitting psychological tick.
To paraphrase Dan Hannan, it's possible to like Europe and hate the EU, in much the same way that it's possible to like football and hate FIFA.
It is possible to like Europe but not the EU, b but you shouldn't deny that is what we are doing.
How
the EU is seeking to make a homogenous one size fits all Europe wiping out cebturies of national diversity and expression
I love the Europe were a Greek isnt forced to be a German
Then you must love the EU!
The Greeks are not being forced to be German any more than the Northern Irish are forced to be English, or Texans to be New Yorkers. You do not seem to understand the nature of federalism.
I do understand the nature of federalism and what we have is heading to a monolithic union not a confederation
The EU is democratic in the sense that Hong Kong is
Mr. MJW, grandfathering would be the sensible approach, as you say. Unfortunately, as you also said, Trump is not necessarily sensible.
On Cable: he hasn't 'come out' for anything. He just wants to be as close to the EU as possible, with his ultimate preference being to remain. You don't need to ask him his view, just consider what makes us closer to the EU and you'll know he'll approve.
The answer for true believers is always 'more Europe*'.
*The zealots confuse the EU for Europe. It'd be intriguing to know whether this is deliberate abuse of language, or an unwitting psychological tick.
To paraphrase Dan Hannan, it's possible to like Europe and hate the EU, in much the same way that it's possible to like football and hate FIFA.
It is possible to like Europe but not the EU, b but you shouldn't deny that is what we are doing.
How
the EU is seeking to make a homogenous one size fits all Europe wiping out cebturies of national diversity and expression
I love the Europe were a Greek isnt forced to be a German
Then you must love the EU!
The Greeks are not being forced to be German any more than the Northern Irish are forced to be English, or Texans to be New Yorkers. You do not seem to understand the nature of federalism.
I do understand the nature of federalism and what we have is heading to a monolithic union not a confederation
The EU is democratic in the sense that Hong Kong is
So in what way are Greeks being forced to be German?
Are the EU replacing feta cheese with Ascherberg? Greek language with German? Greek Orthodoxy with Lutheranism? Ouzo with Schnapps? sailing with skiing?
Vince Cable himself won back a Tory seat at the last general election so I think the idea he does not appeal to Labour tactical voters clearly does not wash. Of course the main focus now is Brexit not the next general election and Cable is by far the best choice to set out the LD case on that and the hung parliament means he also has a chance to influence the direction Brexit takes. Once the general election comes the LDs will have to defend seats like Eastbourne they gained from the Tories too
Agreed. Priority is simply to stay relevant, get seen in the media, pick up labour tactical votes, and also the soft tory remainers (although labour tactical votes are more important). Therefore you need some identifiably of the centre left, but also serious and sensible to ideally attract soft tories. I don't think the coalition years are toxic anymore, it was an eon ago, and barely came up in the last campaign. By 2019 or 2022 it will truly be ancient history.
Edit: I also think the unseating of Clegg, while a shame, will help the LDs really put the coalition behind them - it was a sort of revenge closure against him and should take the sting out of the coalition issue now
I suspect that the Coalition remained toxic for the LibDems this year in Cambridge , Bermondsey, Cardiff Central and very unhelpful in Leeds North west.
The idea liking the Dutch, or the Netherlands, necessitates liking a political institution is as wrong as saying patriotic Britons have to like the British Government.
The point is that the EU is much more than a political government, it is a set of institutions with political, social, economic and environmental functions.
The analogy is not "not liking a particular government" it is "not liking constitutional democracy". The latter may well be compatible with patriotism, but it does require major contortions.
The only contortions are yours in pretending that the EU = Europe. Then again you are a fully paid up federalist and they believe the same bullshit. Europe existed before the EU and it will continue to exist well beyond the EU.
Vince Cable himself won back a Tory seat at the last general election so I think the idea he does not appeal to Labour tactical voters clearly does not wash. Of course the main focus now is Brexit not the next general election and Cable is by far the best choice to set out the LD case on that and the hung parliament means he also has a chance to influence the direction Brexit takes. Once the general election comes the LDs will have to defend seats like Eastbourne they gained from the Tories too
Agreed. Priority is simply to stay relevant, get seen in the media, pick up labour tactical votes, and also the soft tory remainers (although labour tactical votes are more important). Therefore you need some identifiably of the centre left, but also serious and sensible to ideally attract soft tories. I don't think the coalition years are toxic anymore, it was an eon ago, and barely came up in the last campaign. By 2019 or 2022 it will truly be ancient history.
Edit: I also think the unseating of Clegg, while a shame, will help the LDs really put the coalition behind them - it was a sort of revenge closure against him and should take the sting out of the coalition issue now
I suspect that the Coalition remained toxic for the LibDems this year in Cambridge , Bermondsey, Cardiff Central and very unhelpful in Leeds North west.
I think that the LDs were doing well with the 18-24's until Labour came out with abolishing tuition fees. They are a real albatross around the LDs, even though really a Tory policy.
The idea liking the Dutch, or the Netherlands, necessitates liking a political institution is as wrong as saying patriotic Britons have to like the British Government.
The point is that the EU is much more than a political government, it is a set of institutions with political, social, economic and environmental functions.
The analogy is not "not liking a particular government" it is "not liking constitutional democracy". The latter may well be compatible with patriotism, but it does require major contortions.
The only contortions are yours in pretending that the EU = Europe. Then again you are a fully paid up federalist and they believe the same bullshit. Europe existed before the EU and it will continue to exist well beyond the EU.
You need to re-read my posts. I did not say that the EU =Europe, just that the overlap is substantial and not just political.
I expect in geographic time the EU will cease to exist before Europe as a continent ceases to exist, but for at least the next century the EU will be the political, social and economic face of Europe.
Comments
What do you think the over 60s of 2016 voted for in the 1975 referendum ?
I've NEVER been a Corbynite.
I've also never voted Conservative (in reference to your baby eater comment).
I've opposed Corbyn since his when he was nominated for the leadership in 2015. I've been consistiently anti-Corbyn even before he became leader. In 2016 (since you're calling it from a year ago) I was so anti-Corbyn I wanted Owen Smith to win the Labour leadership. I didn't even want Corbynon the ballot, and was hoping that it would be ruled that he'd need to gain the support of MPs again to stand.
Try again, because you clearly don't read my posts.
https://twitter.com/labour4eu/status/881423331110604800
But don't underestimate events.
Imagine if the UK were to fall into a serious recession. (My uber-bearishness on the UK economy is well known.) This can happen incredibly quickly. In 2008, the sun was shining in early September, the world was in crisis in October, and we were looking at disaster in early 2009. In the early 1990s recession, we went from growth of 0.7% in 2Q89 to -1% in 3Q90.
Were the UK to fall into recession this year, and unemployment to start spiking next year, do you think the popularity of Brexit would remain unscathed? Of course, many politicians would continue to say "respect the vote", but they'd caution against "hard Brexit" (with some good sense given Dr Fox's failures to even begin to replicate the EU's existing arrangements).
Under these circumstances, I think you'd end up in early 2019 with a Brexit deal that could not pass the House of Commons. Now this might result in us just crashing out. But more likely it would we end up with a snap general election. (And the EU would agree to extend Article 50 until the other side of the election, as it effectively did with the extension of the Greek bailout discussions until the far side of their referendum.)
What then?
That young people didn't see this and actively resisted it, leaves him wondering how you can design policies that deal with the intergenerational balance and can actually be sold to the electorate.
Online in a day or two.
Edit: I also think the unseating of Clegg, while a shame, will help the LDs really put the coalition behind them - it was a sort of revenge closure against him and should take the sting out of the coalition issue now
I thought Swinson would be good and she has been an MP so would be ok on this front. The other names being floated are all newbies iirc.
No choice now but Vince I think.
Probably another example of one part of May's Cabinet having no idea what the other parts are doing or saying.
Great times for political anoraks!!
Edit to add: And whilst he didn't win, his anti-Catholic English establishment cause did a couple of years later.
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/2946/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-a-new-day-has-dawned-for-labour-as-corbyn-wins-on-the-first/p1
When Corbyn was elected I said this: I actually made a very wrong prediction there, but the point is is that I was never a Corbyn fan as you can see here.
Which will of course be absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, perish the thought.
But, Christ on a unicycle, Theresa May. It's not like she didn't have a very obvious example to look to, from 2007, to show that messing about with inheritances can put a spoke in the wheel of an opportunistic snap election. We used to say "as much use as a chocolate teapot", but now we say "as much use as Nick Timothy".
In 1990 we had the exhausted aftereffects of a genuine economic boom plus high interest rates and a Middle Eastern War causing energy prices to soar. Events can change things.
I do agree though that a recession is coming, my hope though is that this time it will be based on the wealth consuming parts of the economy rather than the wealth creating. Although that, of course, would not be good for government popularity.
Being related to house values it would have been progressive taxation and local councils rather than the government would have received the blame.
Even if they haven't gone up in other regions, they are still excessive. The average national earnings is £27,600. Average house prices in the North East are £124,000. Using the calculation that a bank will lend you 3.5x your earnings that still leaves a shortfall of around £27,000 to make up in a deposit. Something that is simply not possible for most people.
Their position has the support of only 20% of Labour voters according to a poll a couple of days back are correct. They will not be able to square that circle indefinitely and I can see a lot of people that voted Labour in 2017 eventually pealing away eventually. I have gone from member to non-voter in the space of a few years
Although as 2008q1 only had 0.1% growth the recession probably started in either February or March 2008.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/881444415729840133
One advantage with real fur as opposed to the imitation stuff, as Mark Oaten will appreciate, is that nature has designed it in such a way that shit rubs off it easily.
Glad to hear this.
Broadly speaking, house prices trebled between 1995 and 2007, then crashed by 20% in one year in 2008, then came back up in 2009, were flat between 2010 and 2012ish, then started rising again.
Unaffordability is a major problem in London, South East England, East England and the eastern third of the South West. Draw a line between the Wash to the Severn, then drop it between Bristol and Weymouth. That box encompasses about 30-40% of the UK population and it is here that the problem is manifest.
In other parts of the country unaffordability isn't an issue outside the city centres.
On Cable: he hasn't 'come out' for anything. He just wants to be as close to the EU as possible, with his ultimate preference being to remain. You don't need to ask him his view, just consider what makes us closer to the EU and you'll know he'll approve.
The answer for true believers is always 'more Europe*'.
*The zealots confuse the EU for Europe. It'd be intriguing to know whether this is deliberate abuse of language, or an unwitting psychological tick.
"........... It would take 30-70 mink, 10-20 foxes, 30-200 chinchilla, 60-70 sable, 30-40 karakul lambs, 8-12 lynx, 30 -40 raccoons, 200-300 squirrels, 30-40 rabbits, 6-10 seals, or for those so inclined, 20-30 cats or 15-20 dogs to make that coat....."
Have her scrubbed and brought to my tent.
https://twitter.com/remainiacscast/status/881430508768555008
In the event of a survival situation she'd be useful.
IN ADDITION to the general length of time that comphrensive trade agreements always take, we will be spending the first few years firefighting - sorting out customs, keeping our aeroplanes flying, our nuclear plants operating, third country wobbles etc etc, we will have limited bandwith for the longer term negotiations.
Is your cousin in touch with Respect for Animals? They're the specialists in the area and would provide enthusiastic endorsement and promotion for the sort of book your cousin sounds to be writing. But she sounds already well informed so probably does know them anyway.
Carry on.
http://brexitcentral.com/
https://order-order.com/2017/07/02/bungling-burgon-inflates-protest-numbers-tenfold/
However crap Team May is, god help us if Team Twat get in.
The EU is the political and social expression of Europe, and all countries of Europe are either members, applying to be members or are heavily associated via EEA or similar. Brexit puts us into the same position as Belarus or Russia in relation. We have chosen to disassociate, and that is not the action of a country that likes Europe. Argue that is the right choice, or that we belong to the Atlantic rather than the Continent, but you shouldn't deny that is what we are doing.
The idea liking the Dutch, or the Netherlands, necessitates liking a political institution is as wrong as saying patriotic Britons have to like the British Government.
the EU is seeking to make a homogenous one size fits all Europe wiping out cebturies of national diversity and expression
I love the Europe were a Greek isnt forced to be a German
The analogy is not "not liking a particular government" it is "not liking constitutional democracy". The latter may well be compatible with patriotism, but it does require major contortions.
Anyway, this is the sum total of what the EU are planning in terms of transition arrangements:
6. To the extent necessary and legally possible, the negotiations may also seek to determine transitional arrangements which are in the interest of the Union and, as appropriate, to provide for bridges towards the foreseeable framework for the future relationship in the light of the progress made. Any such transitional arrangements must be clearly defined, limited in time, and subject to effective enforcement mechanisms. Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply.
The Greeks are not being forced to be German any more than the Northern Irish are forced to be English, or Texans to be New Yorkers. You do not seem to understand the nature of federalism.
The EU is democratic in the sense that Hong Kong is
Are the EU replacing feta cheese with Ascherberg? Greek language with German? Greek Orthodoxy with Lutheranism? Ouzo with Schnapps? sailing with skiing?
I expect in geographic time the EU will cease to exist before Europe as a continent ceases to exist, but for at least the next century the EU will be the political, social and economic face of Europe.