Living near Epping Forest ( mugh of it greenbelt) it makes a huge difference and provides a breathing space rather than endless sprawl
When you say a breathing space, what are you actually talking about? You breathe all day, you don't do it by going into a particular space.
Are you saying it's somewhere to go for a walk? In Tokyo there are loads of parks, and if you want proper nature nature you jump on a train, it doesn't take long.
He means a physical environment that destresses the mind when you leave your front door. There is clear evidence that high rise living is bad for depression, anxiety and suicide rates. Not surprisingly, Japan has some of the worst rates of mental health in the world.
Less depressing than not being able to afford any housing at all, surely? The Wikipedia article says Japan has the lowest incidence of depression amongst 200 countries in the list 3% versus 12% (where FWIW most people live in nice houses)
I'd take that score in Japan with a pinch of salt. Japan's low rate of *reporting* depression and the high rates of mental ill-health there may not be unrelated.
If Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 (which wasn't possible given political constraints anyway), then the UK would have had deeper cuts and higher tax rises, lower growth and higher unemployment. You seriously think that would have stopped the Labour left from voting for Corbyn? (Actually, it probably would have done as Miliband would be PM but I doubt that was your line of reasoning).
Corbyn won because (1) Labour changed the rules to allow and even encourage entryism, and (2) he was up against two wooden opponents still in shock from the 2015 defeat, who had neither the vision for where Labour should go nor the charisma to be able to sidestep that.
Hard to argue with that, David. As to whether Burnham, Cooper or anyone else would have done better against May, the whole point is moot.
May was persuaded by the people around her that the opportunity to electorally crush the Labour Party existed (and many on here seemed to believe that too). Such a crushing was actively supported, I suspect, by some in the Labour Party who saw electoral humiliation as the way to be rid of Corbyn.
Yet the "snap" election turned out to be a double edge sword - it seemed to catch many Conservatives unaware and lacking a message beyond voting for the upstart Theresa May Party with whom the Conservatives seem to form an electoral pact.
Labour responded with a message of optimism - unrealistic, perhaps, grounded in fantasy, maybe but it was a message of contrast which resonated. OTOH, I never heard a single positive reason FOR voting Conservative.
Living near Epping Forest ( mugh of it greenbelt) it makes a huge difference and provides a breathing space rather than endless sprawl
When you say a breathing space, what are you actually talking about? You breathe all day, you don't do it by going into a particular space.
Are you saying it's somewhere to go for a walk? In Tokyo there are loads of parks, and if you want proper nature nature you jump on a train, it doesn't take long.
He means a physical environment that destresses the mind when you leave your front door. There is clear evidence that high rise living is bad for depression, anxiety and suicide rates. Not surprisingly, Japan has some of the worst rates of mental health in the world.
Less depressing than not being able to afford any housing at all, surely? The Wikipedia article says Japan has the lowest incidence of depression amongst 200 countries in the list 3% versus 12% b the USA (where FWIW most people live in nice houses)
The suicide rate in Japan is 15.4 per 100,000 compared to 12.6 per 100,000 in the USA. That is 22% higher.
Living near Epping Forest ( mugh of it greenbelt) it makes a huge difference and provides a breathing space rather than endless sprawl
When you say a breathing space, what are you actually talking about? You breathe all day, you don't do it by going into a particular space.
Are you saying it's somewhere to go for a walk? In Tokyo there are loads of parks, and if you want proper nature nature you jump on a train, it doesn't take long.
He means a physical environment that destresses the mind when you leave your front door. There is clear evidence that high rise living is bad for depression, anxiety and suicide rates. Not surprisingly, Japan has some of the worst rates of mental health in the world.
Less depressing than not being able to afford any housing at all, surely? The Wikipedia article says Japan has the lowest incidence of depression amongst 200 countries in the list 3% versus 12% (where FWIW most people live in nice houses)
From my experience, the German model seems to work pretty well. Young people typically live in large apartments in low-rise blocks in town, rented cheaply from commercial landlords, while they save for a large deposit. After perhaps 10 years or so, they either buy a house, or buy a plot of land and build a house in the suburbs or country. Their houses are typically a lot larger and more individual than ours.
"Corbyn’s Labour now have a 12% lead with the upper and middle classes, let that sink in"
Surely that just reflects the overwhelming majority of ABC's who support Remain?
They're not going to be happy when they actually work out labour's policy then.
They've worked it out. Of course he's popular in that category, ABC1s are about the only people who can and will be able to afford his policies, should they ever be enacted.
"The literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helping behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account for some suicides."
No-one is suggesting that the solution is high-rise flats. I don't know why you keep going on about them.
I think several people actually were making exactly that suggestion. Perhaps there is a role for low-rise flats under five stories. But these should only be a small share of the housing stock, aimed at first time buyers. We must make sure they have easy street access, usable garden space and genuine communal spaces that encourage neighbours to know each other.
Why do "we" need to make sure of these things? "We" don't make sure pasta sauce served in restaurants has an appropriate amount of onions for that authentic Italian taste. Why can't you let people live in whatever arrangements they want to live in?
And time and time again, people in the UK generally don't want to live in flats. The dream is a large house with garage and a sizeable garden, preferably front and back. An acquaintance said he tried to build houses that, from the outside, someone would have recognised as 'new' in the 1930s. Because a quality house of that style sells well. It is desired despite the fact it is obviously faux.
More importantly is the UK mindset that house ownership is vital, and that renting is not an option.
Neither of these has to be the case, but it's the mindset of many people in the UK. Sadly, the Grenfell Tower disaster will only reinforce these mindsets.
"The literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helping behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account for some suicides."
No-one is suggesting that the solution is high-rise flats. I don't know why you keep going on about them.
I think several people actually were making exactly that suggestion. Perhaps there is a role for low-rise flats under five stories. But these should only be a small share of the housing stock, aimed at first time buyers. We must make sure they have easy street access, usable garden space and genuine communal spaces that encourage neighbours to know each other.
Why do "we" need to make sure of these things? "We" don't make sure pasta sauce served in restaurants has an appropriate amount of onions for that authentic Italian taste. Why can't you let people live in whatever arrangements they want to live in?
As I've posted, the vast majority of people want to live in homes with gardens on streets. What I'm proposing is to make sure, in the limited amount of building land available in a densely populated island, that we build housing close to that. But if you only build high rise buildings surrounded by unusable land with "no ball games" signs then people are forced to live in them because what they want is not available. Or it is available in such limited amounts the price has been forced up beyond their reach.
Surely an outlier, or are the middle class turkeys really saying they'd vote for Corbyn's Christmas?
Labour actually won C1s at the last election as well as DEs. The Tories won ABs and C2s. The division is now AB C2 v C1 DE not ABC1 v C2DE
The class basis of UK politics has changed so much over recent decades. Back in the 1970s the middle classes were far more solid in their support for the Tories than the working classes were for Labour. That is no longer true.
Yes, it is now the LDs who are the real party of the posh, the upper middle class and snobs, no longer the Tories (perhaps why OGH supports them?)
I think he supported them before he was an upper class snob
If we built more houses around London, then housing would be all round cheaper and those conversions could be converted back, for more houses in total. As I mentioned, 89% of people want to live in houses. Building more tower blocks that can not be converted into houses ever is a mistake. You end up with individuals suffering from worse mental health and physical safety, fewer people having families, and less integrated communities. The growing social alienation of our society would just get worse.
Whether they want to live in houses depends on their circumstances. A very large number of young people in the London area want to live as close to the centre and/or their work as possible, and near their friends. Flats are ideal for that. When they settle down and want to start a family, they'll want a house, and more green space around, and they'll move further out. It's horses for courses.
If Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 (which wasn't possible given political constraints anyway), then the UK would have had deeper cuts and higher tax rises, lower growth and higher unemployment. You seriously think that would have stopped the Labour left from voting for Corbyn? (Actually, it probably would have done as Miliband would be PM but I doubt that was your line of reasoning).
Corbyn won because (1) Labour changed the rules to allow and even encourage entryism, and (2) he was up against two wooden opponents still in shock from the 2015 defeat, who had neither the vision for where Labour should go nor the charisma to be able to sidestep that.
Hard to argue with that, David. As to whether Burnham, Cooper or anyone else would have done better against May, the whole point is moot.
May was persuaded by the people around her that the opportunity to electorally crush the Labour Party existed (and many on here seemed to believe that too). Such a crushing was actively supported, I suspect, by some in the Labour Party who saw electoral humiliation as the way to be rid of Corbyn.
Yet the "snap" election turned out to be a double edge sword - it seemed to catch many Conservatives unaware and lacking a message beyond voting for the upstart Theresa May Party with whom the Conservatives seem to form an electoral pact.
Labour responded with a message of optimism - unrealistic, perhaps, grounded in fantasy, maybe but it was a message of contrast which resonated. OTOH, I never heard a single positive reason FOR voting Conservative.
Yes, there is always the need for some of the "vision thing". In the GE campaign I think we were supposed to deduce that the reason to vote Tory was the nature of reality made the opposition fantasy self-evidently dangerous.
The 42% this 'lame duck' got is rather better than some of her fellow leaders got
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
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
If Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 (which wasn't possible given political constraints anyway), then the UK would have had deeper cuts and higher tax rises, lower growth and higher unemployment. You seriously think that would have stopped the Labour left from voting for Corbyn? (Actually, it probably would have done as Miliband would be PM but I doubt that was your line of reasoning).
Corbyn won because (1) Labour changed the rules to allow and even encourage entryism, and (2) he was up against two wooden opponents still in shock from the 2015 defeat, who had neither the vision for where Labour should go nor the charisma to be able to sidestep that.
No. Corbyn won because of his message against continued austerity, continued public sector pay caps end. Yes the pain may have been deeper to 2015 but Osborne could have kept the 50% top tax rate and promised to cut it if re elected along with inheritance tax and gone into the general election having sorted the deficit.
Corbyn is a product of the same populist left forces driving Tsipras, Melenchon, Sanders etc ie anti austerity and anti financial sector propelled by the 2008 Crash and it's consequences. The longer austerity and cuts continue the more they will rise
A Labour party member I know told me about her early election day experience. Before the polls had opened she was out delivering 'Vote Labour Today' leaflets to identified supporters in her area. She was very taken aback to come across many properties to which she was not expected to deliver the said leaflet which nevertheless had Labour posters in their windows! This made her think that something was happening , and that Labour was picking up a fair bit of support of which it was itself unaware.
Where were they getting the posters from I wonder? Back when I did electioneering, people who wanted posters were specially recorded for targeting for GOTV and future canvassing.
If Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 (which wasn't possible given political constraints anyway), then the UK would have had deeper cuts and higher tax rises, lower growth and higher unemployment. You seriously think that would have stopped the Labour left from voting for Corbyn? (Actually, it probably would have done as Miliband would be PM but I doubt that was your line of reasoning).
Corbyn won because (1) Labour changed the rules to allow and even encourage entryism, and (2) he was up against two wooden opponents still in shock from the 2015 defeat, who had neither the vision for where Labour should go nor the charisma to be able to sidestep that.
Hard to argue with that, David. As to whether Burnham, Cooper or anyone else would have done better against May, the whole point is moot.
May was persuaded by the people around her that the opportunity to electorally crush the Labour Party existed (and many on here seemed to believe that too). Such a crushing was actively supported, I suspect, by some in the Labour Party who saw electoral humiliation as the way to be rid of Corbyn.
Yet the "snap" election turned out to be a double edge sword - it seemed to catch many Conservatives unaware and lacking a message beyond voting for the upstart Theresa May Party with whom the Conservatives seem to form an electoral pact.
Labour responded with a message of optimism - unrealistic, perhaps, grounded in fantasy, maybe but it was a message of contrast which resonated. OTOH, I never heard a single positive reason FOR voting Conservative.
May wanted a majority for hard Brexit, if you were voting Tory that was what you were getting, plus a mandate for tough decisions on social care, the triple lock, means testing winter fuel allowance etc. The fact she did not get it makes fudged Brexit more likely and also means the Tories have had to dump most of the unpopular policies in their manifesto
Yes, there is always the need for some of the "vision thing". In the GE campaign I think we were supposed to deduce that the reason to vote Tory was the nature of reality made the opposition fantasy self-evidently dangerous.
Whilst that's largely true, it was mostly a failure of execution. I'm sure the intention was to offer a positive vision (helping the JAMs and all that stuff), and indeed at the start of the campaign that seemed to be going down well. There were lots of vox-pops amongst voters who were not traditional Tory voters saying that they liked Theresa May's approach, and the opinion polls supported that. But it was all thrown away through mismanagement.
In other words, I think there were two big failures: failure to challenge the Labour fantasy, especially amongst younger voters, and failure to articulate Theresa May's own vision, which was a perfectly attractive programme if it had been presented properly.
If we built more houses around London, then housing would be all round cheaper and those conversions could be converted back, for more houses in total. As I mentioned, 89% of people want to live in houses. Building more tower blocks that can not be converted into houses ever is a mistake. You end up with individuals suffering from worse mental health and physical safety, fewer people having families, and less integrated communities. The growing social alienation of our society would just get worse.
Whether they want to live in houses depends on their circumstances. A very large number of young people in the London area want to live as close to the centre and/or their work as possible, and near their friends. Flats are ideal for that. When they settle down and want to start a family, they'll want a house, and more green space around, and they'll move further out. It's horses for courses.
Right now many look at house prices further out and realise that after their student loan is knocked off their salary, they won't be able to afford one until they are into their 40s. As a result, they continuously push back when they choose to have a family until it doesn't happen. Or they have their first child in their cramped apartment, and at that point they will never qualify for that larger house mortgage due to the increase in spending for the child.
89% of British people want to live in a house with a garden. 2% want to live in an apartment. In this case most horses want the exact same course. But there aren't enough of them for demand, pushing the price out of reach, and they make do. And, frustrated, they look at their better offs living in nice houses and vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
Yes, there is always the need for some of the "vision thing". In the GE campaign I think we were supposed to deduce that the reason to vote Tory was the nature of reality made the opposition fantasy self-evidently dangerous.
The problem is people are always willing and able to reject "reality" (or your version of it) if it doesn't work for them.
Whether the Conservatives really understand and appreciate how hard it has been for many people since 2008 (let alone 2010) I don't know. Whether we've lost or simply mislaid a decade I don't know but there's this "foolish" notion out there that people want a better life for themselves and their families.
If we built more houses around London, then housing would be all round cheaper and those conversions could be converted back, for more houses in total. As I mentioned, 89% of people want to live in houses. Building more tower blocks that can not be converted into houses ever is a mistake. You end up with individuals suffering from worse mental health and physical safety, fewer people having families, and less integrated communities. The growing social alienation of our society would just get worse.
Whether they want to live in houses depends on their circumstances. A very large number of young people in the London area want to live as close to the centre and/or their work as possible, and near their friends. Flats are ideal for that. When they settle down and want to start a family, they'll want a house, and more green space around, and they'll move further out. It's horses for courses.
The very large number is a minority, and flats would be chosen as a) they are relatively cheap, and b) they are a step on the housing ladder, not because someone 'loves' living in a flat. As you say, it's not their ideal and therefore they'll be eventually looking to move upwards.
If flats were really popular there would be none of the 'When they settle down' part.
Living near Epping Forest ( mugh of it greenbelt) it makes a huge difference and provides a breathing space rather than endless sprawl
When you say a breathing space, what are you actually talking about? You breathe all day, you don't do it by going into a particular space.
Are you saying it's somewhere to go for a walk? In Tokyo there are loads of parks, and if you want proper nature nature you jump on a train, it doesn't take long.
He means a physical environment that destresses the mind when you leave your front door. There is clear evidence that high rise living is bad for depression, anxiety and suicide rates. Not surprisingly, Japan has some of the worst rates of mental health in the world.
Less depressing than not being able to afford any housing at all, surely? The Wikipedia article says Japan has the lowest incidence of depression amongst 200 countries in the list 3% versus 12% b the USA (where FWIW most people live in nice houses)
The suicide rate in Japan is 15.4 per 100,000 compared to 12.6 per 100,000 in the USA. That is 22% higher.
With respect, the stats on depression & mental health (and even deaths recorded as "suicide") are deeply problematic.
Comparing one countries useless stats against another doesn't really prove anything.
If we built more houses around London, then housing would be all round cheaper and those conversions could be converted back, for more houses in total. As I mentioned, 89% of people want to live in houses. Building more tower blocks that can not be converted into houses ever is a mistake. You end up with individuals suffering from worse mental health and physical safety, fewer people having families, and less integrated communities. The growing social alienation of our society would just get worse.
Whether they want to live in houses depends on their circumstances. A very large number of young people in the London area want to live as close to the centre and/or their work as possible, and near their friends. Flats are ideal for that. When they settle down and want to start a family, they'll want a house, and more green space around, and they'll move further out. It's horses for courses.
So we shouldn't be building any flats with more than 2 bedrooms then.
Letting loose the lunatics - wasn't the greatest of ideas Giving them plans and money to squander - Should have been the worst of our fears The dream life luxury living was a pleasant No. 10 whim, But somewhere down the line of production They left out human beings
They were gonna build communities It was going to be pie in the sky - But the piss stench hallways and broken down lifts Say the planners dream went wrong
If people were made to live in boxes God would have given them string To tie around their selves at bed time And stop their dreams falling through the ceiling
And the public school boy computers - Keep spewing out our future - The house in the country designs the 14th floor Old Mrs. Smith don't get out much more - Coitus interruptus 'cause of next doors rows Your washing gets nicked when the lights go out - Baby's scream in the nightmare throng But planners just get embarrassed when their plans GO WRONG!
"Corbyn’s Labour now have a 12% lead with the upper and middle classes, let that sink in"
Surely that just reflects the overwhelming majority of ABC's who support Remain?
Actually no, ABs voted Remain in 2016 and Tory in 2017 (albeit the pro Remain LDs did best with ABs as a proportion of their vote). C1s and DEs voted Leave in 2016 and Labour in 2017, C2s voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2017.
If Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 (which wasn't possible given political constraints anyway), then the UK would have had deeper cuts and higher tax rises, lower growth and higher unemployment. You seriously think that would have stopped the Labour left from voting for Corbyn? (Actually, it probably would have done as Miliband would be PM but I doubt that was your line of reasoning).
Corbyn won because (1) Labour changed the rules to allow and even encourage entryism, and (2) he was up against two wooden opponents still in shock from the 2015 defeat, who had neither the vision for where Labour should go nor the charisma to be able to sidestep that.
Hard to argue with that, David. As to whether Burnham, Cooper or anyone else would have done better against May, the whole point is moot.
May was persuaded by the people around her that the opportunity to electorally crush the Labour Party existed (and many on here seemed to believe that too). Such a crushing was actively supported, I suspect, by some in the Labour Party who saw electoral humiliation as the way to be rid of Corbyn.
Yet the "snap" election turned out to be a double edge sword - it seemed to catch many Conservatives unaware and lacking a message beyond voting for the upstart Theresa May Party with whom the Conservatives seem to form an electoral pact.
Labour responded with a message of optimism - unrealistic, perhaps, grounded in fantasy, maybe but it was a message of contrast which resonated. OTOH, I never heard a single positive reason FOR voting Conservative.
Strong and stable. That's two positive reasons ;-)
But you are of course right on the detail. Labour provided an attractive policy set; the Tories didn't, to such an extent that it not only went down like a lead balloon in its own right, it also undermined every other aspect of the campaign strategy along with it. "Strong and stable" was not a bad theme (though robotically overdone), but it had to be backed up in deed. It wasn't, to put it mildly.
City apartment - short commute, bars and restaurants, noise and pollution Suburban house - middling commute, zzzzz Rural house - long commute, fresh air and open spaces, bored kids
The clear answer is to buy one of each.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
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
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
If Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 (which wasn't possible given political constraints anyway), then the UK would have had deeper cuts and higher tax rises, lower growth and higher unemployment. You seriously think that would have stopped the Labour left from voting for Corbyn? (Actually, it probably would have done as Miliband would be PM but I doubt that was your line of reasoning).
Corbyn won because (1) Labour changed the rules to allow and even encourage entryism, and (2) he was up against two wooden opponents still in shock from the 2015 defeat, who had neither the vision for where Labour should go nor the charisma to be able to sidestep that.
No. Corbyn won because of his message against continued austerity, continued public sector pay caps end. Yes the pain may have been deeper to 2015 but Osborne could have kept the 50% top tax rate and promised to cut it if re elected along with inheritance tax and gone into the general election having sorted the deficit.
Corbyn is a product of the same populist left forces driving Tsipras, Melenchon, Sanders etc ie anti austerity and anti financial sector propelled by the 2008 Crash and it's consequences. The longer austerity and cuts continue the more they will rise
That would have been Corbyn's message anyway, except that instead of 'stop the cuts' it would have been 'reverse the cuts' (which would of course have been much deeper: cuts in cash terms rather than just real-terms ones). There'd have been huge anger over that and the left, who'd still have been blaming bankers, would still have been arguing that people 'deserved' much higher pay and that the cuts had 'stolen' what they were due.
Yes, Corbyn is indeed "a product of the same populist left forces driving Tsipras, Melenchon, Sanders [and Trump]" but those forces wouldn't just dissipate into nothing if the squeeze had been harder but shorter.
If Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 (which wasn't possible given political constraints anyway), then the UK would have had deeper cuts and higher tax rises, lower growth and higher unemployment. You seriously think that would have stopped the Labour left from voting for Corbyn? (Actually, it probably would have done as Miliband would be PM but I doubt that was your line of reasoning).
Corbyn won because (1) Labour changed the rules to allow and even encourage entryism, and (2) he was up against two wooden opponents still in shock from the 2015 defeat, who had neither the vision for where Labour should go nor the charisma to be able to sidestep that.
Hard to argue with that, David. As to whether Burnham, Cooper or anyone else would have done better against May, the whole point is moot.
May was persuaded by the people around her that the opportunity to electorally crush the Labour Party existed (and many on here seemed to believe that too). Such a crushing was actively supported, I suspect, by some in the Labour Party who saw electoral humiliation as the way to be rid of Corbyn.
Yet the "snap" election turned out to be a double edge sword - it seemed to catch many Conservatives unaware and lacking a message beyond voting for the upstart Theresa May Party with whom the Conservatives seem to form an electoral pact.
Labour responded with a message of optimism - unrealistic, perhaps, grounded in fantasy, maybe but it was a message of contrast which resonated. OTOH, I never heard a single positive reason FOR voting Conservative.
May wanted a majority for hard Brexit, if you were voting Tory that was what you were getting, plus a mandate for tough decisions on social care, the triple lock, means testing winter fuel allowance etc. The fact she did not get it makes fudged Brexit more likely and also means the Tories have had to dump most of the unpopular policies in their manifesto
I tend to agree with that. In reality it was not a Brexit election - had it been so May would have won a comfortable majority. I have long been persuaded that whilst Brexit is obviously 'important' as an issue it is far too technical for most people for it to be very 'salient'. Relatively few people will have switched their votes on the basis of it - ie the obsessives on both sides. Austerity in contrast had become very salient.
City apartment - short commute, bars and restaurants, noise and pollution Suburban house - middling commute, zzzzz Rural house - long commute, fresh air and open spaces, bored kids
The clear answer is to buy one of each.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
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
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
If Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 (which wasn't possible given political constraints anyway), then the UK would have had a to be able to sidestep that.
No. Corbyn won because of his message against continued austerity, continued public sector pay caps end. Yes the pain may have been deeper to 2015 but Osborne could have kept the 50% top tax rate and promised to cut it if re elected along with inheritance tax and gone into the general election having sorted the deficit.
Corbyn is a product of the same populist left forces driving Tsipras, Melenchon, Sanders etc ie anti austerity and anti financial sector propelled by the 2008 Crash and it's consequences. The longer austerity and cuts continue the more they will rise
That would have been Corbyn's message anyway, except that instead of 'stop the cuts' it would have been 'reverse the cuts' (which would of course have been much deeper: cuts in cash terms rather than just real-terms ones). There'd have been huge anger over that and the left, who'd still have been blaming bankers, would still have been arguing that people 'deserved' much higher pay and that the cuts had 'stolen' what they were due.
Yes, Corbyn is indeed "a product of the same populist left forces driving Tsipras, Melenchon, Sanders [and Trump]" but those forces wouldn't just dissipate into nothing if the squeeze had been harder but shorter.
If the squeeze had been done earlier the Tories could also by now be looking at pay rises for the public sector within reason, not further pay caps. (Trump was really a product of anti immigration forces, like Le Pen, Brexit and UKIP)
How embarrassing for the working class hero. It confirms that Labour's surge was caused largely by opposition to "Hard" Brexit, among educated middle class and Labour's promise to make supermarket shelf fillers pay the educational debts of future barristers and high flyers. Those who really want to see a long term future for the Labour Party should hope that the disastrous Mr Corbyn never gets his hands on power. He will toxify the Labour party for a generation.
You've been kept down You've been pushed 'round You've been lied to You've been fed truths Who's making your decisions? You or your religion Your government, your countries You patriotic junkies
Where's the revolution? Come on, people You're letting me down Where's the revolution? Come on, people You're letting me down
You've been pissed on For too long Your rights abused Your views refused They manipulate and threaten With terror as a weapon Scare you till you're stupefied Wear you down until you're on their side
Where's the revolution? Come on, people You're letting me down Where's the revolution? Come on, people You're letting me down
The train is coming The train is coming So get on board Get on board The engine's humming The engine's humming So get on board Get on board
Yes, there is always the need for some of the "vision thing". In the GE campaign I think we were supposed to deduce that the reason to vote Tory was the nature of reality made the opposition fantasy self-evidently dangerous.
The problem is people are always willing and able to reject "reality" (or your version of it) if it doesn't work for them.
Whether the Conservatives really understand and appreciate how hard it has been for many people since 2008 (let alone 2010) I don't know. Whether we've lost or simply mislaid a decade I don't know but there's this "foolish" notion out there that people want a better life for themselves and their families.
I agree. For the avoidance of doubt I don't endorse the government/Tory approach in many areas. There is a big mismatch between my views and all major parties. I want sound money and public finances, more redistribution of income (no tax beyond the Lafer curve) but done with a smaller state in some areas (Basic Income), upholding democratic values with less ludicrous identity politics. Not much to ask! There are minority elements in Labour, Tories and LDs that match to a degree.
On thread, I don't think the ABC1 C2DE classification is very helpful. I think it should be as follows:
AB - Managers and senior professionals C1 - Young professionals C2D - Working class E (pensioners) E (in work benefits)
I suspect Lab are doing better with the C1s than the ABs
What a confusing post. If you want to change the classifications (and it's not a bad idea; age and educational achievements should probably be in there) it would help if you also changed the signifiers, even if only by writing them in lower case. Is the final sentence about the trad classifications or your new ones?
If Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 (which wasn't possible given political constraints anyway), then the UK would have had deeper cuts and higher tax rises, lower growth and higher unemployment. You seriously think that would have stopped the Labour left from voting for Corbyn? (Actually, it probably would have done as Miliband would be PM but I doubt that was your line of reasoning).
Corbyn won because (1) Labour changed the rules to allow and even encourage entryism, and (2) he was up against two wooden opponents still in shock from the 2015 defeat, who had neither the vision for where Labour should go nor the charisma to be able to sidestep that.
Hard to argue with that, David. As to whether Burnham, Cooper or anyone else would have done better against May, the whole point is moot.
May was persuaded by the people around her that the opportunity to electorally crush the Labour Party existed (and many on here seemed to believe that too). Such a crushing was actively supported, I suspect, by some in the Labour Party who saw electoral humiliation as the way to be rid of Corbyn.
Yet the "snap" election turned out to be a double edge sword - it seemed to catch many Conservatives unaware and lacking a message beyond voting for the upstart Theresa May Party with whom the Conservatives seem to form an electoral pact.
Labour responded with a message of optimism - unrealistic, perhaps, grounded in fantasy, maybe but it was a message of contrast which resonated. OTOH, I never heard a single positive reason FOR voting Conservative.
May wanted a majority for hard Brexit, if you were voting Tory that was what you were getting, plus a mandate for tough decisions on social care, the triple lock, means testing winter fuel allowance etc. The fact she did not get it makes fudged Brexit more likely and also means the Tories have had to dump most of the unpopular policies in their manifesto
I tend to agree with that. In reality it was not a Brexit election - had it been so May would have won a comfortable majority. I have long been persuaded that whilst Brexit is obviously 'important' as an issue it is far too technical for most people for it to be very 'salient'. Relatively few people will have switched their votes on the basis of it - ie the obsessives on both sides. Austerity in contrast had become very salient.
Certainly if austerity was your main issue you voted Labour, if you wanted soft Brexit you voted Labour or LD, if you wanted hard Brexit Tory, as well as if you wanted to stop Corbyn
City apartment - short commute, bars and restaurants, noise and pollution Suburban house - middling commute, zzzzz Rural house - long commute, fresh air and open spaces, bored kids
The clear answer is to buy one of each.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Most people who buy in their 30s do so with parental help (their parents passing down some if the housing boom they have benefited from). As discussed earlier latest figures from the Halifax today also show house prices have fallen (perhaps sure to the Bank's 4.5 times salary limit on mortgages and the threat of higher interest rates)
Yes, there is always the need for some of the "vision thing". In the GE campaign I think we were supposed to deduce that the reason to vote Tory was the nature of reality made the opposition fantasy self-evidently dangerous.
Whilst that's largely true, it was mostly a failure of execution. I'm sure the intention was to offer a positive vision (helping the JAMs and all that stuff), and indeed at the start of the campaign that seemed to be going down well. There were lots of vox-pops amongst voters who were not traditional Tory voters saying that they liked Theresa May's approach, and the opinion polls supported that. But it was all thrown away through mismanagement.
In other words, I think there were two big failures: failure to challenge the Labour fantasy, especially amongst younger voters, and failure to articulate Theresa May's own vision, which was a perfectly attractive programme if it had been presented properly.
Surely the bottom line is that May was worse than anyone could possibly have imagined - even those of us who always thought she was no better than mediocre; while Corbyn's actual persona did not match the lurid headlines, even though most of these were pretty accurate. Add them together, throw in stagnating living standards and a general sense of Brexit-induced malaise, and what happened begins to make sense. May's awfulness led a lot of voters to think better of Jeremy Corbyn than they might have done previously.
1. "even in 1997 (and on June 8th this year) the Tories won the ABC1s quite comfortably." But significantly this was not the case on June 8th among non-retired ABC1s.
2. I wonder if the damage has been done. The working ABC1s seem to have shifted quite markedly into the tax-me-please camp. And they're willing to do so even when Corbyn is the Labour leader!
If Osborne had sorted the deficit by 2015 (which wasn't possible given political constraints anyway), then the UK would have had deeper cuts and higher tax rises, lower growth and higher unemployment. You seriously think that would have stopped the Labour left from voting for Corbyn? (Actually, it probably would have done as Miliband would be PM but I doubt that was your line of reasoning).
Corbyn won because (1) Labour changed the rules to allow and even encourage entryism, and (2) he was up against two wooden opponents still in shock from the 2015 defeat, who had neither the vision for where Labour should go nor the charisma to be able to sidestep that.
Hard to argue with that, David. As to whether Burnham, Cooper or anyone else would have done better against May, the whole point is moot.
May was persuaded by the people around her that the opportunity to electorally crush the Labour Party existed (and many on here seemed to believe that too). Such a crushing was actively supported, I suspect, by some in the Labour Party who saw electoral humiliation as the way to be rid of Corbyn.
Yet the "snap" election turned out to be a double edge sword - it seemed to catch many Conservatives unaware and lacking a message beyond voting for the upstart Theresa May Party with whom the Conservatives seem to form an electoral pact.
Labour responded with a message of optimism - unrealistic, perhaps, grounded in fantasy, maybe but it was a message of contrast which resonated. OTOH, I never heard a single positive reason FOR voting Conservative.
May wanted a majority for hard Brexit, if you were voting Tory that was what you were getting, plus a mandate for tough decisions on social care, the triple lock, means testing winter fuel allowance etc. The fact she did not get it makes fudged Brexit more likely and also means the Tories have had to dump most of the unpopular policies in their manifesto
I tend to agree with that. In reality it was not a Brexit election - had it been so May would have won a comfortable majority. I have long been persuaded that whilst Brexit is obviously 'important' as an issue it is far too technical for most people for it to be very 'salient'. Relatively few people will have switched their votes on the basis of it - ie the obsessives on both sides. Austerity in contrast had become very salient.
Certainly if austerity was your main issue you voted Labour, if you wanted soft Brexit you voted Labour or LD, if you wanted hard Brexit Tory, as well as if you wanted to stop Corbyn
And if you think the world ends just south of Sheffield you voted Yorkshire Party.
On thread, I don't think the ABC1 C2DE classification is very helpful. I think it should be as follows:
AB - Managers and senior professionals C1 - Young professionals C2D - Working class E (pensioners) E (in work benefits)
I suspect Lab are doing better with the C1s than the ABs
What a confusing post. If you want to change the classifications (and it's not a bad idea; age and educational achievements should probably be in there) it would help if you also changed the signifiers, even if only by writing them in lower case. Is the final sentence about the trad classifications or your new ones?
What I mean is the socio-economic groups are as follows:
A- Higher managerial, administrative, professional e.g. Chief executive, senior civil servant, surgeon
B - Intermediate managerial, administrative, professional e.g. bank manager, teacher
C1- Supervisory, clerical, junior managerial e.g. shop floor supervisor, bank clerk, sales person
C2 - Skilled manual workers e.g. electrician, carpenter
D- Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers e.g. assembly line worker, refuse collector, messenger
E - Casual labourers, pensioners, unemployed e.g. pensioners without private pensions and anyone living on basic benefits
What I mean is that I think rolling these groups in to just 2 - ABC1 and C2DE is unhelpful. There ought to be enough sample size to show AB separately for C1. I suspect Labour is doing better with C1 than AB as C1s tend to be younger.
If you were going to do a matrix with age as well you could divide into 5 groups:
Younger middle class Older middle class Younger working class Older working class Pensioners
Why should this be a surprise ? McDonnell guaranteed that there will be no tax rise for anyone earning less than £80k. Tories did not.
I am not sure a McDonnell promise is worth its weight in gold given his track record of telling lies about his own past and present. But that was a pretty smart move.
Yes, there is always the need for some of the "vision thing". In the GE campaign I think we were supposed to deduce that the reason to vote Tory was the nature of reality made the opposition fantasy self-evidently dangerous.
Whilst that's largely true, it was mostly a failure of execution. I'm sure the intention was to offer a positive vision (helping the JAMs and all that stuff), and indeed at the start of the campaign that seemed to be going down well. There were lots of vox-pops amongst voters who were not traditional Tory voters saying that they liked Theresa May's approach, and the opinion polls supported that. But it was all thrown away through mismanagement.
In other words, I think there were two big failures: failure to challenge the Labour fantasy, especially amongst younger voters, and failure to articulate Theresa May's own vision, which was a perfectly attractive programme if it had been presented properly.
Surely the bottom line is that May was worse than anyone could possibly have imagined - even those of us who always thought she was no better than mediocre; while Corbyn's actual persona did not match the lurid headlines, even though most of these were pretty accurate. Add them together, throw in stagnating living standards and a general sense of Brexit-induced malaise, and what happened begins to make sense. May's awfulness led a lot of voters to think better of Jeremy Corbyn than they might have done previously.
May's "reputation" was created by always keeping her head down. Others went through occasional storms. She just sailed through.
The irony of all is that she pitched her campaign on a hard Brexit; i.e on lowering immigration. Her one conspicuous failure. The UK had the highest increase in net migration under her watch as Home Secretary, particularly from non-EU countries.
I do not understand this desire to solve the housing crisis with more huge tower blocks. Polling showed that 89% of Britons want to live in a house on a street, with just 2% in apartments and 0% in tower blocks.
That's the wrong question. The right question is, how much extra do you want to pay to live in a house on a street, rather than an apartment.
A Labour party member I know told me about her early election day experience. Before the polls had opened she was out delivering 'Vote Labour Today' leaflets to identified supporters in her area. She was very taken aback to come across many properties to which she was not expected to deliver the said leaflet which nevertheless had Labour posters in their windows! This made her think that something was happening , and that Labour was picking up a fair bit of support of which it was itself unaware.
I have a theory about the failure of the Messina data effort. Anecdotally lots of Con campaigners have complained about being sent round to target addresses only to find the people there were solidly voting Conservative and they were wasting their time. The huge surge in both the Labour and Con vote 'confused the model' which was based around eeking out the most efficient vote possible when getting 37% rather than being around 43%. All the marginal voters identified by the model were not remotely marginal and and whole things should have been recaliberated.
This is interesting. Your theory is just anecdotal but at least plausible.
It suggests that the datamining was finding voters who were on the Tory/Other borderline and the Labour/Other borderline. As the Other vote dropped substantially between 2015 and 2017 these borderlines had shifted. What was really sought was the Tory/Lab borderline which I can believe is a hard borderline to identify, because its contains a relatively small group of people, and because in the 2015 results they were deeply entrenched in the various "voting Other" groups.
City apartment - short commute, bars and restaurants, noise and pollution Suburban house - middling commute, zzzzz Rural house - long commute, fresh air and open spaces, bored kids
The clear answer is to buy one of each.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Which is why the ABC / DE classification is meaningless now.
It's perfectly possible to be, say, a highly educated graduate working in an 'a' or 'b' job and still be unable to afford property in London and the South East. Which is where most of the jobs, certainly most of the high paying jobs are.
The class divide now is between those who are able to afford property, largely through inheritance, and those who are unable.
I suspect the large number of AB types voting Labour are the ones who are unable to - they see themselves as high earners and wonder why they don't have the same living standards as their parents.
2017 was about the children of the middle classes wondering where the middle class lifestyles they were promised have vanished to.
Surely the bottom line is that May was worse than anyone could possibly have imagined - even those of us who always thought she was no better than mediocre; while Corbyn's actual persona did not match the lurid headlines, even though most of these were pretty accurate. Add them together, throw in stagnating living standards and a general sense of Brexit-induced malaise, and what happened begins to make sense. May's awfulness led a lot of voters to think better of Jeremy Corbyn than they might have done previously.
Yes, although we need to be careful not to over-state things. The biggest reason why the Tories ended up with no majority wasn't that the Tory vote share was all that bad compared with early expections, but that Labour's vote share was hugely better than originally expected. That was partly getting very high support amongst new, young voters, partly some switching to Labour amongst working-age people especially women, and partly hoovering up crumbs from the LibDems and Greens. Maybe some of that was, as you imply, Theresa May driving voters into Corbyn's arms, but a lot of it was Corbyn going down well and his supporters getting enthusiasm up.
Nothing the British public love more than a bit of drawbridge pulling up.
We have had 3 different parties winning the Council in 3 elections. 2 years to draw up a housing strategy. Cue headlines about "concreting the countryside." Opposition campaign against it, and are elected. Plans torn up. Rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, headlines about boarded-up shops, and struggling local businesses. Young people leave for cities, 'cos they can't afford to rent, let alone buy.
Why should this be a surprise ? McDonnell guaranteed that there will be no tax rise for anyone earning less than £80k. Tories did not.
I am not sure a McDonnell promise is worth its weight in gold given his track record of telling lies about his own past and present. But that was a pretty smart move.
I am afraid, his line killed the argument. In addition , the 26% Corporation Tax helped them "cost" the programme. Right or wrong, it worked. The Tories' problem was that their programme was equally uncosted.
How embarrassing for the working class hero. It confirms that Labour's surge was caused largely by opposition to "Hard" Brexit, among educated middle class and Labour's promise to make supermarket shelf fillers pay the educational debts of future barristers and high flyers. Those who really want to see a long term future for the Labour Party should hope that the disastrous Mr Corbyn never gets his hands on power. He will toxify the Labour party for a generation.
It tells you that there is an electoral cost if you want to get the kipper WWC vote.
Not really. The kipper WWC vote was largely on-board before the campaign started (although I suspect some of that was illusory, and some of them were always going to find voting Tory a bit of a stretch).
How embarrassing for the working class hero. It confirms that Labour's surge was caused largely by opposition to "Hard" Brexit, among educated middle class and Labour's promise to make supermarket shelf fillers pay the educational debts of future barristers and high flyers. Those who really want to see a long term future for the Labour Party should hope that the disastrous Mr Corbyn never gets his hands on power. He will toxify the Labour party for a generation.
He is scaring the shit out of you.
He should scare the shit out of anyone with a good grasp of history who hasn't got their judgment clouded by ideology or a romantic re-living of their radical past.
City apartment - short commute, bars and restaurants, noise and pollution Suburban house - middling commute, zzzzz Rural house - long commute, fresh air and open spaces, bored kids
The clear answer is to buy one of each.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Which is why the ABC / DE classification is meaningless now.
It's perfectly possible to be, say, a highly educated graduate working in an 'a' or 'b' job and still be unable to afford property in London and the South East. Which is where most of the jobs, certainly most of the high paying jobs are.
The class divide now is between those who are able to afford property, largely through inheritance, and those who are unable.
I suspect the large number of AB types voting Labour are the ones who are unable to - they see themselves as high earners and wonder why they don't have the same living standards as their parents.
2017 was about the children of the middle classes wondering where the middle class lifestyles they were promised have vanished to.
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
1. "even in 1997 (and on June 8th this year) the Tories won the ABC1s quite comfortably." But significantly this was not the case on June 8th among non-retired ABC1s.
2. I wonder if the damage has been done. The working ABC1s seem to have shifted quite markedly into the tax-me-please camp. And they're willing to do so even when Corbyn is the Labour leader!
3. It's "whoever". Buy a grammar book.
1 Not true. Blair won C1s comfortably in 1997 and C2s, even if Major won ABs. May won C2s as well as ABs even if she lost C1s
Yes, there is always the need for some of the "vision thing". In the GE campaign I think we were supposed to deduce that the reason to vote Tory was the nature of reality made the opposition fantasy self-evidently dangerous.
Whilst that's largely true, it was mostly a failure of execution. I'm sure the intention was to offer a positive vision (helping the JAMs and all that stuff), and indeed at the start of the campaign that seemed to be going down well. There were lots of vox-pops amongst voters who were not traditional Tory voters saying that they liked Theresa May's approach, and the opinion polls supported that. But it was all thrown away through mismanagement.
In other words, I think there were two big failures: failure to challenge the Labour fantasy, especially amongst younger voters, and failure to articulate Theresa May's own vision, which was a perfectly attractive programme if it had been presented properly.
Surely the bottom line is that May was worse than anyone could possibly have imagined - even those of us who always thought she was no better than mediocre; while Corbyn's actual persona did not match the lurid headlines, even though most of these were pretty accurate. Add them together, throw in stagnating living standards and a general sense of Brexit-induced malaise, and what happened begins to make sense. May's awfulness led a lot of voters to think better of Jeremy Corbyn than they might have done previously.
May still got 42%, the highest Tory voteshare since Thatcher
1. "even in 1997 (and on June 8th this year) the Tories won the ABC1s quite comfortably." But significantly this was not the case on June 8th among non-retired ABC1s.
2. I wonder if the damage has been done. The working ABC1s seem to have shifted quite markedly into the tax-me-please camp. And they're willing to do so even when Corbyn is the Labour leader!
A Labour party member I know told me about her early election day experience. Before the polls had opened she was out delivering 'Vote Labour Today' leaflets to identified supporters in her area. She was very taken aback to come across many properties to which she was not expected to deliver the said leaflet which nevertheless had Labour posters in their windows! This made her think that something was happening , and that Labour was picking up a fair bit of support of which it was itself unaware.
I have a theory about the failure of the Messina data effort. Anecdotally lots of Con campaigners have complained about being sent round to target addresses only to find the people there were solidly voting Conservative and they were wasting their time. The huge surge in both the Labour and Con vote 'confused the model' which was based around eeking out the most efficient vote possible when getting 37% rather than being around 43%. All the marginal voters identified by the model were not remotely marginal and and whole things should have been recaliberated.
This is interesting. Your theory is just anecdotal but at least plausible.
It suggests that the datamining was finding voters who were on the Tory/Other borderline and the Labour/Other borderline. As the Other vote dropped substantially between 2015 and 2017 these borderlines had shifted. What was really sought was the Tory/Lab borderline which I can believe is a hard borderline to identify, because its contains a relatively small group of people, and because in the 2015 results they were deeply entrenched in the various "voting Other" groups.
The Tory/Labour borderline being thin, and most other parties being driven down to core support already (although I guess UKIP might disappear completely), means that neither main party is likely to poll much higher than it did this year in any future GE. The election will be decided on which of them loses the most votes to somewhere else, being it a third party revival, or a drop in turnout.
City apartment - short commute, bars and restaurants, noise and pollution Suburban house - middling commute, zzzzz Rural house - long commute, fresh air and open spaces, bored kids
The clear answer is to buy one of each.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Which is why the ABC / DE classification is meaningless now.
It's perfectly possible to be, say, a highly educated graduate working in an 'a' or 'b' job and still be unable to afford property in London and the South East. Which is where most of the jobs, certainly most of the high paying jobs are.
The class divide now is between those who are able to afford property, largely through inheritance, and those who are unable.
I suspect the large number of AB types voting Labour are the ones who are unable to - they see themselves as high earners and wonder why they don't have the same living standards as their parents.
2017 was about the children of the middle classes wondering where the middle class lifestyles they were promised have vanished to.
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
A disappointingly glib and cynical view. Even in these times of more limited social mobility, people do make it into middle class jobs from disadvantaged backgrounds. They just don't have the chance to get the lifestyle that would have gone with it twenty years ago, thanks largely to Conservative blindness to the rising levels of captial inequality.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Which is why the ABC / DE classification is meaningless now.
It's perfectly possible to be, say, a highly educated graduate working in an 'a' or 'b' job and still be unable to afford property in London and the South East. Which is where most of the jobs, certainly most of the high paying jobs are.
The class divide now is between those who are able to afford property, largely through inheritance, and those who are unable.
I suspect the large number of AB types voting Labour are the ones who are unable to - they see themselves as high earners and wonder why they don't have the same living standards as their parents.
2017 was about the children of the middle classes wondering where the middle class lifestyles they were promised have vanished to.
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
Yes, there was definitely an element of this.
But the ABCDE system is about the job you do rather than what you expect to inherit. My point is it's perfectly possible to be an A or B earning 60k+ a year and if you don't have parents who are willing or able to help, you're stuffed. Hence why many AB types may have chosen to vote Labour.
Even if you have parents willing to stump up 30-50k as a deposit, you'd be lucky to get a one bedroom shoebox in London for 300k now and would still need an income of 60k a year.
I think one of the consequences of globalisation has been an increasing polarisation between rich and poor and the traditional British middle classes, who might have expected their university degree, grad job and 50k salary by the time they're 30 would have resulted in a comfortable lifestyle no longer doing so is a result.
The ABCDE classification stops working when your lot in life is determined by what you inherit, rather than what you earn.
Yes, there is always the need for some of the "vision thing". In the GE campaign I think we were supposed to deduce that the reason to vote Tory was the nature of reality made the opposition fantasy self-evidently dangerous.
Whilst that's largely true, it was mostly a failure of execution. I'm sure the intention was to offer a positive vision (helping the JAMs and all that stuff), and indeed at the start of the campaign that seemed to be going down well. There were lots of vox-pops amongst voters who were not traditional Tory voters saying that they liked Theresa May's approach, and the opinion polls supported that. But it was all thrown away through mismanagement.
In other words, I think there were two big failures: failure to challenge the Labour fantasy, especially amongst younger voters, and failure to articulate Theresa May's own vision, which was a perfectly attractive programme if it had been presented properly.
Surely the bottom line is that May was worse than anyone could possibly have imagined - even those of us who always thought she was no better than mediocre; while Corbyn's actual persona did not match the lurid headlines, even though most of these were pretty accurate. Add them together, throw in stagnating living standards and a general sense of Brexit-induced malaise, and what happened begins to make sense. May's awfulness led a lot of voters to think better of Jeremy Corbyn than they might have done previously.
May's "reputation" was created by always keeping her head down. Others went through occasional storms. She just sailed through.
The irony of all is that she pitched her campaign on a hard Brexit; i.e on lowering immigration. Her one conspicuous failure. The UK had the highest increase in net migration under her watch as Home Secretary, particularly from non-EU countries.
May would probably have been a quite decent PM at a time when things were going well, and all we needed was a responsible and dutiful person to stand at the tiller. Her background and political career have been based upon quiet competence untroubled by any ambition to change the world. Her problem is to have arrived in office at a time when many people's desire is very much to change things - which to her credit she recognised in her opening words outside number 10 - but unfortunately she has provided unable by instinct or experience to deliver any prospect of positive change, and she remains compromised and captured by Brexit, which she had the original good sense to have recognised was always going to be more trouble than it was worth.
How embarrassing for the working class hero. It confirms that Labour's surge was caused largely by opposition to "Hard" Brexit, among educated middle class and Labour's promise to make supermarket shelf fillers pay the educational debts of future barristers and high flyers. Those who really want to see a long term future for the Labour Party should hope that the disastrous Mr Corbyn never gets his hands on power. He will toxify the Labour party for a generation.
Labour has abandoned the patriotic working class at the same time as the Conservatives have abandoned the economically literate upper middle classes.
City apartment - short commute, bars and restaurants, noise and pollution Suburban house - middling commute, zzzzz Rural house - long commute, fresh air and open spaces, bored kids
The clear answer is to buy one of each.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Which is why the ABC / DE classification is meaningless now.
It's perfectly possible to be, say, a highly educated graduate working in an 'a' or 'b' job and still be unable to afford property in London and the South East. Which is where most of the jobs, certainly most of the high paying jobs are.
The class divide now is between those who are able to afford property, largely through inheritance, and those who are unable.
I suspect the large number of AB types voting Labour are the ones who are unable to - they see themselves as high earners and wonder why they don't have the same living standards as their parents.
2017 was about the children of the middle classes wondering where the middle class lifestyles they were promised have vanished to.
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
A disappointingly glib and cynical view. Even in these times of more limited social mobility, people do make it into middle class jobs from disadvantaged backgrounds. They just don't have the chance to get the lifestyle that would have gone with it twenty years ago, thanks largely to Conservative blindness to the rising levels of captial inequality.
The vast majority of AB young professionals come from AB middle class homes (with a few exceptions) and while they may find it harder to get on the housing ladder than their parents did, although house prices have started to fall, most will also get a far bigger inheritance than their parents did too (helped by Osborne's inheritance tax cut and the fact May has had to dump the dementia tax)
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Which is why the ABC / DE classification is meaningless now.
It's perfectly possible to be, say, a highly educated graduate working in an 'a' or 'b' job and still be unable to afford property in London and the South East. Which is where most of the jobs, certainly most of the high paying jobs are.
The class divide now is between those who are able to afford property, largely through inheritance, and those who are unable.
I suspect the large number of AB types voting Labour are the ones who are unable to - they see themselves as high earners and wonder why they don't have the same living standards as their parents.
2017 was about the children of the middle classes wondering where the middle class lifestyles they were promised have vanished to.
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
A disappointingly glib and cynical view. Even in these times of more limited social mobility, people do make it into middle class jobs from disadvantaged backgrounds. They just don't have the chance to get the lifestyle that would have gone with it twenty years ago, thanks largely to Conservative blindness to the rising levels of captial inequality.
The vast majority of AB young professionals come from AB middle class homes (with a few exceptions) and while they may find it harder to get on the housing ladder than their parents did, although house prices have started to fall, most will also get a far bigger inheritance than their parents did too (helped by Osborne's inheritance tax cut and the fact May has had to dump the dementia tax)
You seem to forget that with current life expectancy, relying on inheritance to get onto the property ladder will take many people into their own retirement years. Cf. Prince Charles.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Which is why the ABC / DE classification is meaningless now.
It's perfectly shed to.
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get ody got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
Yes, there was definitely an element of this.
But the ABCDE system is about the job you do rather than what you expect to inherit. My point is it's perfectly possible to be an A or B earning 60k+ a year and if you don't have parents who are willing or able to help, you're stuffed. Hence why many AB types may have chosen to vote Labour.
Even if you have parents willing to stump up 30-50k as a deposit, you'd be lucky to get a one bedroom shoebox in London for 300k now and would still need an income of 60k a year.
I think one of the consequences of globalisation has been an increasing polarisation between rich and poor and the traditional British middle classes, who might have expected their university degree, grad job and 50k salary by the time they're 30 would have resulted in a comfortable lifestyle no longer doing so is a result.
The ABCDE classification stops working when your lot in life is determined by what you inherit, rather than what you earn.
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
Shipman posted an old pic of May & Trump - here's a current one:
May standing with the EU contingent in the family photo.
I'm sure they were thrilled, but its a coincidence. Its a protocol thing.
Heads of state at the front, in order of assuming office, outward from the host (who in this case is a head of government). Second row, heads of government, ditto, with assorted hangers on.....
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
A disappointingly glib and cynical view. Even in these times of more limited social mobility, people do make it into middle class jobs from disadvantaged backgrounds. They just don't have the chance to get the lifestyle that would have gone with it twenty years ago, thanks largely to Conservative blindness to the rising levels of captial inequality.
The vast majority of AB young professionals come from AB middle class homes (with a few exceptions) and while they may find it harder to get on the housing ladder than their parents did, although house prices have started to fall, most will also get a far bigger inheritance than their parents did too (helped by Osborne's inheritance tax cut and the fact May has had to dump the dementia tax)
You seem to forget that with current life expectancy, relying on inheritance to get onto the property ladder will take many people into their own retirement years. Cf. Prince Charles.
Not entirely, plenty of parents give assistance well before that with deposits to get on the housing ladder, funding for costs of living at university, weddings, school fees etc
May would probably have been a quite decent PM at a time when things were going well, and all we needed was a responsible and dutiful person to stand at the tiller. Her background and political career have been based upon quiet competence untroubled by any ambition to change the world. Her problem is to have arrived in office at a time when many people's desire is very much to change things - which to her credit she recognised in her opening words outside number 10 - but unfortunately she has provided unable by instinct or experience to deliver any prospect of positive change, and she remains compromised and captured by Brexit, which she had the original good sense to have recognised was always going to be more trouble than it was worth.
Let's not exempt others from their share of the blame, though, and let's ask wtf the cabinet were up to in letting her cook up a manifesto with Beardie n Fi, apparently seen by no one else prior to publication? Labour have a big ass clause V meeting to formally sign off the manifesto, and quite right too given the importance of the document. Why did useless Crosby not stipulate that he got to sign off on it, or he left the campaign? Why did no cabinet minister ask what was in it? Is this usual in the party, or were they cowed by her awesome opinion poll numbers, or denied access by B n Fi, or what? I am reminded of the Spitting Image gag - waiter to Thatcher - what about the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have steak too.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
A disappointingly glib and cynical view. Even in these times of more limited social mobility, people do make it into middle class jobs from disadvantaged backgrounds. They just don't have the chance to get the lifestyle that would have gone with it twenty years ago, thanks largely to Conservative blindness to the rising levels of captial inequality.
The vast majority of AB young professionals come from AB middle class homes (with a few exceptions) and while they may find it harder to get on the housing ladder than their parents did, although house prices have started to fall, most will also get a far bigger inheritance than their parents did too (helped by Osborne's inheritance tax cut and the fact May has had to dump the dementia tax)
You seem to forget that with current life expectancy, relying on inheritance to get onto the property ladder will take many people into their own retirement years. Cf. Prince Charles.
Not entirely, plenty of parents give assistance well before that with deposits to get on the housing ladder, funding for costs of living at university, weddings, school fees etc
If that's your vision of a fair or reasonable society, I will pass, thank you...
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Which is why the ABC / DE classification is meaningless now.
It's perfectly shed to.
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get ody got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
Yes, there was definitely an element of this.
But the ABCDE system is about the job you do rather than what you expect to inherit. My point is it's perfectly possible to be an A or B earning 60k+ a year and if you don't have parents who are willing or able to help, you're stuffed. Hence why many AB types may have chosen to vote Labour.
Even if you have parents willing to stump up 30-50k as a deposit, you'd be lucky to get a one bedroom shoebox in London for 300k now and would still need an income of 60k a year.
I think one of the consequences of globalisation has been an increasing polarisation between rich and poor and the traditional British middle classes, who might have expected their university degree, grad job and 50k salary by the time they're 30 would have resulted in a comfortable lifestyle no longer doing so is a result.
The ABCDE classification stops working when your lot in life is determined by what you inherit, rather than what you earn.
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
What I don't understand, HYUFD, is why you respond to reasonable posts, with straw men / hyperbole.
The post you responded to said;
"Even if you have parents willing to stump up 30-50k as a deposit, you'd be lucky to get a one bedroom shoebox in London for 300k now and would still need an income of 60k a year."
Perhaps that's specific to central london, but it's no exaggeration.
But you read that and replied with ^;
"The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid"
With respect, it's a bit silly and really not constructive.
Which is why the ABC / DE classification is meaningless now.
It's perfectly shed to.
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get ody got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
Yes, there was definitely an element of this.
But the ABCDE system is about the job you do rather than what you expect to inherit. My point is it's perfectly possible to be an A or B earning 60k+ a year and if you don't have parents who are willing or able to help, you're stuffed. Hence why many AB types may have chosen to vote Labour.
Even if you have parents willing to stump up 30-50k as a deposit, you'd be lucky to get a one bedroom shoebox in London for 300k now and would still need an income of 60k a year.
I think one of the consequences of globalisation has been an increasing polarisation between rich and poor and the traditional British middle classes, who might have expected their university degree, grad job and 50k salary by the time they're 30 would have resulted in a comfortable lifestyle no longer doing so is a result.
The ABCDE classification stops working when your lot in life is determined by what you inherit, rather than what you earn.
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
What I don't understand, HYUFD, is why you respond to reasonable posts, with straw men / hyperbole.
The post you responded to said;
"Even if you have parents willing to stump up 30-50k as a deposit, you'd be lucky to get a one bedroom shoebox in London for 300k now and would still need an income of 60k a year."
Perhaps that's specific to central london, but it's no exaggeration.
But you read that and post^;
"The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid"
It's all a little silly.
HYUFD simply exemplifies why the Tories have such a problem adjusting to the realities of modern society.
F1: there's a special on Ladbrokes. Alonso to reach Q3 at 1.8.
Hmm. I think that's just a little too tight. It's certainly credible, but there's reliability, and I do find it hard to believe Force India's that far off the pace. Probably going to be very close, so I won't be backing it myself, but given earlier discussion thought it worth flagging up.
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
+1
The Tories have been captured by an unholy coalition of corporatist big business and Brexit Little Englander nutjobs. Neither has anything to offer to the struggling employee or small businessperson upon whom our future prosperity depends.
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
Comments
May was persuaded by the people around her that the opportunity to electorally crush the Labour Party existed (and many on here seemed to believe that too). Such a crushing was actively supported, I suspect, by some in the Labour Party who saw electoral humiliation as the way to be rid of Corbyn.
Yet the "snap" election turned out to be a double edge sword - it seemed to catch many Conservatives unaware and lacking a message beyond voting for the upstart Theresa May Party with whom the Conservatives seem to form an electoral pact.
Labour responded with a message of optimism - unrealistic, perhaps, grounded in fantasy, maybe but it was a message of contrast which resonated. OTOH, I never heard a single positive reason FOR voting Conservative.
More importantly is the UK mindset that house ownership is vital, and that renting is not an option.
Neither of these has to be the case, but it's the mindset of many people in the UK. Sadly, the Grenfell Tower disaster will only reinforce these mindsets.
No more haggard then many of the men at the G20, I would suggest!.
The language on this site is deteriorating rapidly, so it's time I left.
Bye.
Corbyn is a product of the same populist left forces driving Tsipras, Melenchon, Sanders etc ie anti austerity and anti financial sector propelled by the 2008 Crash and it's consequences. The longer austerity and cuts continue the more they will rise
(Not that there is an 'overwhelming majority of ABC[1]'s who support Remain?'; a majority, yes, but not a particularly substantial one).
In other words, I think there were two big failures: failure to challenge the Labour fantasy, especially amongst younger voters, and failure to articulate Theresa May's own vision, which was a perfectly attractive programme if it had been presented properly.
89% of British people want to live in a house with a garden. 2% want to live in an apartment. In this case most horses want the exact same course. But there aren't enough of them for demand, pushing the price out of reach, and they make do. And, frustrated, they look at their better offs living in nice houses and vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
Whether the Conservatives really understand and appreciate how hard it has been for many people since 2008 (let alone 2010) I don't know. Whether we've lost or simply mislaid a decade I don't know but there's this "foolish" notion out there that people want a better life for themselves and their families.
If flats were really popular there would be none of the 'When they settle down' part.
Comparing one countries useless stats against another doesn't really prove anything.
"The Planner's Dream Goes Wrong"
Letting loose the lunatics - wasn't the greatest of ideas
Giving them plans and money to squander -
Should have been the worst of our fears
The dream life luxury living was a pleasant No. 10 whim,
But somewhere down the line of production
They left out human beings
They were gonna build communities
It was going to be pie in the sky -
But the piss stench hallways and broken down lifts
Say the planners dream went wrong
If people were made to live in boxes
God would have given them string
To tie around their selves at bed time
And stop their dreams falling through the ceiling
And the public school boy computers -
Keep spewing out our future -
The house in the country designs the 14th floor
Old Mrs. Smith don't get out much more -
Coitus interruptus 'cause of next doors rows
Your washing gets nicked when the lights go out -
Baby's scream in the nightmare throng
But planners just get embarrassed when their plans GO WRONG!
But you are of course right on the detail. Labour provided an attractive policy set; the Tories didn't, to such an extent that it not only went down like a lead balloon in its own right, it also undermined every other aspect of the campaign strategy along with it. "Strong and stable" was not a bad theme (though robotically overdone), but it had to be backed up in deed. It wasn't, to put it mildly.
http://www.hexham-courant.co.uk/news/Plan-for-thousands-of-new-homes-axed-85f61376-7cb2-456a-8aa0-07e892f262c9-ds
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/20/property-owners-inequality-home-ownership-resolution-foundation
AB - Managers and senior professionals
C1 - Young professionals
C2D - Working class
E (pensioners)
E (in work benefits)
I suspect Lab are doing better with the C1s than the ABs
"Where's The Revolution" - Depeche Mode, 2017
You've been kept down
You've been pushed 'round
You've been lied to
You've been fed truths
Who's making your decisions?
You or your religion
Your government, your countries
You patriotic junkies
Where's the revolution?
Come on, people
You're letting me down
Where's the revolution?
Come on, people
You're letting me down
You've been pissed on
For too long
Your rights abused
Your views refused
They manipulate and threaten
With terror as a weapon
Scare you till you're stupefied
Wear you down until you're on their side
Where's the revolution?
Come on, people
You're letting me down
Where's the revolution?
Come on, people
You're letting me down
The train is coming
The train is coming
So get on board
Get on board
The engine's humming
The engine's humming
So get on board
Get on board
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsCR05oKROA
C2DE:
Con: 42
Lab: 42
LibD: 3
UKIP: 7
2. I wonder if the damage has been done. The working ABC1s seem to have shifted quite markedly into the tax-me-please camp. And they're willing to do so even when Corbyn is the Labour leader!
3. It's "whoever". Buy a grammar book.
A- Higher managerial, administrative, professional e.g. Chief executive, senior civil servant, surgeon
B - Intermediate managerial, administrative, professional e.g. bank manager, teacher
C1- Supervisory, clerical, junior managerial e.g. shop floor supervisor, bank clerk, sales person
C2 - Skilled manual workers e.g. electrician, carpenter
D- Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers e.g. assembly line worker, refuse collector, messenger
E - Casual labourers, pensioners, unemployed e.g. pensioners without private pensions and anyone living on basic benefits
What I mean is that I think rolling these groups in to just 2 - ABC1 and C2DE is unhelpful. There ought to be enough sample size to show AB separately for C1. I suspect Labour is doing better with C1 than AB as C1s tend to be younger.
If you were going to do a matrix with age as well you could divide into 5 groups:
Younger middle class
Older middle class
Younger working class
Older working class
Pensioners
The irony of all is that she pitched her campaign on a hard Brexit; i.e on lowering immigration. Her one conspicuous failure. The UK had the highest increase in net migration under her watch as Home Secretary, particularly from non-EU countries.
It suggests that the datamining was finding voters who were on the Tory/Other borderline and the Labour/Other borderline. As the Other vote dropped substantially between 2015 and 2017 these borderlines had shifted. What was really sought was the Tory/Lab borderline which I can believe is a hard borderline to identify, because its contains a relatively small group of people, and because in the 2015 results they were deeply entrenched in the various "voting Other" groups.
It's perfectly possible to be, say, a highly educated graduate working in an 'a' or 'b' job and still be unable to afford property in London and the South East. Which is where most of the jobs, certainly most of the high paying jobs are.
The class divide now is between those who are able to afford property, largely through inheritance, and those who are unable.
I suspect the large number of AB types voting Labour are the ones who are unable to - they see themselves as high earners and wonder why they don't have the same living standards as their parents.
2017 was about the children of the middle classes wondering where the middle class lifestyles they were promised have vanished to.
2 years to draw up a housing strategy.
Cue headlines about "concreting the countryside." Opposition campaign against it, and are elected. Plans torn up. Rinse and repeat.
Meanwhile, headlines about boarded-up shops, and struggling local businesses. Young people leave for cities, 'cos they can't afford to rent, let alone buy.
https://twitter.com/StokeParkCllr/status/883029526862856192
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/07/probe-launched-french-president-emmanuel-macrons-lavish-las/
https://twitter.com/Number10gov/status/883353488838856704
Edit - someone was asking 'why doesn't Theresa May tweet any more?' - is it because 'Number10gov' is tweeting plenty?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/07/probe-launched-french-president-emmanuel-macrons-lavish-las/
But the ABCDE system is about the job you do rather than what you expect to inherit. My point is it's perfectly possible to be an A or B earning 60k+ a year and if you don't have parents who are willing or able to help, you're stuffed. Hence why many AB types may have chosen to vote Labour.
Even if you have parents willing to stump up 30-50k as a deposit, you'd be lucky to get a one bedroom shoebox in London for 300k now and would still need an income of 60k a year.
I think one of the consequences of globalisation has been an increasing polarisation between rich and poor and the traditional British middle classes, who might have expected their university degree, grad job and 50k salary by the time they're 30 would have resulted in a comfortable lifestyle no longer doing so is a result.
The ABCDE classification stops working when your lot in life is determined by what you inherit, rather than what you earn.
Heads of state at the front, in order of assuming office, outward from the host (who in this case is a head of government). Second row, heads of government, ditto, with assorted hangers on.....
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/theresa-may-tells-g20-world-leaders-ill-be-pm-for-at-least-a-year-or-two-a3582541.html
The post you responded to said;
"Even if you have parents willing to stump up 30-50k as a deposit, you'd be lucky to get a one bedroom shoebox in London for 300k now and would still need an income of 60k a year."
Perhaps that's specific to central london, but it's no exaggeration.
But you read that and replied with ^;
"The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid"
With respect, it's a bit silly and really not constructive.
Hmm. I think that's just a little too tight. It's certainly credible, but there's reliability, and I do find it hard to believe Force India's that far off the pace. Probably going to be very close, so I won't be backing it myself, but given earlier discussion thought it worth flagging up.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
The Tories have been captured by an unholy coalition of corporatist big business and Brexit Little Englander nutjobs. Neither has anything to offer to the struggling employee or small businessperson upon whom our future prosperity depends.