Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whilst Mrs May is performing very badly, we should also rememb

124»

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,532

    Osborne is in full campaign mode, using the cloak of Evening Standard editor to do it. What else do you expect who devotes himself to "plotting the downfall of my enemies".

    It's what he does.
    Given it was Osborne's failure to sort the deficit by 2015 as he promised which partly explains the rise of Corbyn he should drop the vendetta and get on with the day job
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,532
    edited July 2017
    kyf_100 said:

    The rich vs poor divide is no longer salary or even class, it's whether or not you own (or will ever own) property, particularly if you're in your 20s or 30s.

    I think it's why the young came out for Corbyn and I think it's why the more middle aged did too (fear of losing inheritance to dementia tax).

    There is also a great element of people seeing the emerging rentier class as unfair - it breeds anger and envy.

    Like it or not most of our wealth is tied up in the property market now, they're the rich who are going to get soaked.

    A rentier owning half a dozen properties gets the same number of votes as a 27 year old grad living in a crappy 6 person houseshare, the same number of votes as a 35 year old teacher who wants to start a family but can't afford more than a single bedroom.

    People weren't voting to 'warn' the Tories because they were home and dry and therefore voting Labour was safe. They were voting to bring the whole edifice down.

    I've mentioned it before, but this ad got nearly as many views as the Tory attack ad and I think it was far more effective:

    https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesMomentum/videos/457075104637882/

    House prices are already starting to fall according to the latest Halifax figures and the Corbyn tax hikes (including the reversal of the Tory inheritance tax cut) would soon start to hit home
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40529560
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    The orthodox received and clever wisdom for the last two years has been that Corbyn is an electoral liability. Suddenly the orthodox received and clever wisdom is that Corbyn is an electoral superstar. I wonder whether in a few years this received wisdom will be proved to be built on sand.
    The result on June 9 was the product of many circumstances. Many voted Labour despite Corbyn, not because of him. Young people have voted in large numbers before and Labour has lost. Labour got 40% and yet ended up with about the same number of seats as in 2010 when it got 29% with many votes piling up uselessly in seats Labour already holds.

    My approach remains that I look at the three Labour leaders who have overthrown a Tory government since 1945: Attlee, Wilson and Blair, and I continue to conclude that Corbyn is well out of their league.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    HYUFD said:

    Given it was Osborne's failure to sort the deficit by 2015 as he promised which partly explains the rise of Corbyn he should drop the vendetta and get on with the day job
    Yeah.

    He won't.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    kyf_100 said:

    The rich vs poor divide is no longer salary or even class, it's whether or not you own (or will ever own) property, particularly if you're in your 20s or 30s.

    I think it's why the young came out for Corbyn and I think it's why the more middle aged did too (fear of losing inheritance to dementia tax).

    There is also a great element of people seeing the emerging rentier class as unfair - it breeds anger and envy.

    Like it or not most of our wealth is tied up in the property market now, they're the rich who are going to get soaked.

    A rentier owning half a dozen properties gets the same number of votes as a 27 year old grad living in a crappy 6 person houseshare, the same number of votes as a 35 year old teacher who wants to start a family but can't afford more than a single bedroom.

    People weren't voting to 'warn' the Tories because they were home and dry and therefore voting Labour was safe. They were voting to bring the whole edifice down.

    I've mentioned it before, but this ad got nearly as many views as the Tory attack ad and I think it was far more effective:

    https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesMomentum/videos/457075104637882/

    Thanks for posting. I'd not seen that (not on Facebook). It's a brilliant piece of work.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171

    Yeah, JRM for PM.
    It'll be even more fun than Boris.

    The best things about JRM is that he is proud to be a conservative and believes 100% in what he says. He is also very clever.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Blimey, for someone's who's off for a fortnight Ruth Davidson has just spent a lot of time tweeting.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,526
    HYUFD said:

    House prices are already starting to fall according to the latest Halifax figures and the Corbyn tax hikes (including the reversal of the Tory inheritance tax cut) would soon start to hit home
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40529560
    If the countries wealth is in house prices that that wealth is entirely imaginary and largely based on how liberal banks lending policies are. And they have been unbelievably liberal for the past 10 years helped by very low interest rates.

    Once banks stop being so generous with their lending policies (and given Basel 3 and other regulations thats already starting to take place) or interest rates rise the perceived wealth hidden in those house prices will disappear...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,532

    Yeah.

    He won't.
    Sadly true
  • CornishJohnCornishJohn Posts: 304

    Thanks for posting. I'd not seen that (not on Facebook). It's a brilliant piece of work.
    It is also very dishonest. They blame lack of supply for the social housing issue. As we have seen from all the towers being evacuated in the last week, there is plenty of social housing still out there. The issue is that much of it is being occupied by people here illegally, or people with low skills we have chosen to let in. As for the banks, financial services employment fell over the financial crisis, and has remained stagnant ever since.

    I agree with your overall point that it is housing that is the great issue of our time. It is not enough to slow the rate of growth in house prices. We need to actually reduce the cost of housing. That means building more houses than the increase in demand. Otherwise, the future will be a left-wing radical one and we will all be worse off for it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,532
    eek said:

    If the countries wealth is in house prices that that wealth is entirely imaginary and largely based on how liberal banks lending policies are. And they have been unbelievably liberal for the past 10 years helped by very low interest rates.

    Once banks stop being so generous with their lending policies (and given Basel 3 and other regulations thats already starting to take place) or interest rates rise the perceived wealth hidden in those house prices will disappear...
    Yes and the Bank of England has already issued a statement to banks that no borrower should be lent more than 4.5 times salary by way of mortgage and with interest rates likely to rise again soon house prices are likely to fall further
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,145
    HYUFD said:

    Given it was Osborne's failure to sort the deficit by 2015 as he promised which partly explains the rise of Corbyn he should drop the vendetta and get on with the day job
    That's a remarkable first 21 words there. Care to talk us through your thinking?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,795

    It is also very dishonest. They blame lack of supply for the social housing issue. As we have seen from all the towers being evacuated in the last week, there is plenty of social housing still out there. The issue is that much of it is being occupied by people here illegally, or people with low skills we have chosen to let in. As for the banks, financial services employment fell over the financial crisis, and has remained stagnant ever since.

    I agree with your overall point that it is housing that is the great issue of our time. It is not enough to slow the rate of growth in house prices. We need to actually reduce the cost of housing. That means building more houses than the increase in demand. Otherwise, the future will be a left-wing radical one and we will all be worse off for it.
    Given the population rose by 500k last year, that means we have to build 200k houses a year just to keep still. Add the houses, schools, hospitals roads, other infrastructure together.

    Thats going to be nigh on impossible by itself.

    Especially when it seems the vast majority of new arrivals seem for some reason to want to live in the most crowded, expensive part of the country.
  • CornishJohnCornishJohn Posts: 304
    HYUFD said:

    Yes and the Bank of England has already issued a statement to banks that no borrower should be lent more than 4.5 times salary by way of mortgage and with interest rates likely to rise again soon house prices are likely to fall further
    Even if house prices fall, if it is due to lending restrictions, it doesn't improve the outlook for young people to own their own homes. It does the reverse as they will need a much bigger deposit.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,083
    HYUFD said:

    Yes and the Bank of England has already issued a statement to banks that no borrower should be lent more than 4.5 times salary by way of mortgage and with interest rates likely to rise again soon house prices are likely to fall further
    Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    SA lost first wicket 10/1
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    100% agree with both those posts. I certainly picked up the hostility pre-8th June and posted about it on here.

    Returning to work last week post my sabbatical, I was surprised at how many colleagues said openly they voted Labour and how much Corbyn love there was - this at a corporate law firm. There was genuine surprise though at how well Labour did - a died in the wool Tory mate of mine voted Labour purely for local issues reasons and because he didn't much like his local sitting Tory; it was a safe option because TM was going to win a landslide. He helped Labour snatch that seat, and thereby helped TM lose her majority, and I think he is still in shock. I suspect the view that the Tories were home and hosed may have caused loads of voters to "kick" TM/the Tories by safely voting Labour as a protest, only to see after what they had done. That said, Labour do still lead in the polls, so perhaps not...
    But by the last week of the campaign quite a few polls were showing narrow Tory leads of under 5% which implied the serious possibility of a Hung Parliament. True - other pollsters such as ICM and Comres still had the Tories 10% - 12% ahead, but an informed voter could surely see that this was no longer the central forecast. Quite a few people were suggesting by that stage that May would end up little better then where she started from and the actual outcome was not so very far off that really. The only counter argument ,I think , is that everybody believed the Tories were ahead and,therefore, likely to win the election. Few voters are anoraks like ourselves and would not have appreciated the psephological implications of some of the poll findings.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    That's a remarkable first 21 words there. Care to talk us through your thinking?
    The last six words of @HYUFD's post are equally remarkable.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,795
    Just to add to that imbalance we have large parts of the country where the population is actually declining

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/29/uk-10-of-12-most-declining-cities-are-in-north-england-rochdale-burnley-bolton

    So what we're seeing is not just really non enough houses, but not enough houses where people want to live, IE an urbanisation focused primarly on London.

  • CornishJohnCornishJohn Posts: 304

    Given the population rose by 500k last year, that means we have to build 200k houses a year just to keep still. Add the houses, schools, hospitals roads, other infrastructure together.

    Thats going to be nigh on impossible by itself.

    Especially when it seems the vast majority of new arrivals seem for some reason to want to live in the most crowded, expensive part of the country.
    That is why it is very important to cut immigration down to below 100k. That would bring the number down to about 250k, requiring about 120k new homes to keep up with demand. Increasing housebuilding from about 170k a year to 200k a year would then start to move things in the right direction.

    Thankfully, we have a Prime Minister who understands the importance of immigration to this equation. Unfortunately, some of the self-described "pro-business" conservatives think we should maintain current levels. That will ultimately result in a generation losing faith in the system and a left-wing government that returns us to 1970s economic policy. How will private business fare then?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,409

    NEW THREAD

  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506

    I'd always understood that Brittany was little Britain (from the many exiles from Britain in the post-Roman era).

    I presume the post Roman era means now?
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Given the population rose by 500k last year, that means we have to build 200k houses a year just to keep still. Add the houses, schools, hospitals roads, other infrastructure together.

    Thats going to be nigh on impossible by itself.

    Especially when it seems the vast majority of new arrivals seem for some reason to want to live in the most crowded, expensive part of the country.
    Come to the area I live and see all the new arrivals,mostly all young families.

    The place now is overcrowded and poorer.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    And she lost them all in 7 weeks.

    Un-fucking-believable.
    Copeland was actually three and a half months earlier - ie late February.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,716


    Given the population rose by 500k last year, that means we have to build 200k houses a year just to keep still. Add the houses, schools, hospitals roads, other infrastructure together.

    Thats going to be nigh on impossible by itself.

    Especially when it seems the vast majority of new arrivals seem for some reason to want to live in the most crowded, expensive part of the country.

    This is happening all over the world. People prefer to live where other people live. It's not at all nigh on impossible. Infrastructure scales well with more people, and existing British cities aren't very dense. Stop banning people from building things and the free market will take care of the houses, and the extra taxes from the people living in them will pay for the infrastructure.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,532

    That's a remarkable first 21 words there. Care to talk us through your thinking?
    Corbyn ran against continued austerity, if Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 that would not have been an issue
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Pulpstar said:

    Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.
    In the 1970s it was 3 times one partner's salary or 2.5 times both salaries.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,532

    Even if house prices fall, if it is due to lending restrictions, it doesn't improve the outlook for young people to own their own homes. It does the reverse as they will need a much bigger deposit.
    Not necessarily as if house prices fall the deposit required will be a smaller percentage and many get their deposits in part through parental assistance anyway
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,532
    Pulpstar said:

    Lets be honest here. Isn't 4.5 times salary *quite enough*.
    That should be the upper limit yes
This discussion has been closed.