So at the general election Corbyn was lying about leaving the EU and wiping out student debt while Theresa May was lying about leaving the EU as well?
Given this spectacle can anybody come up with a reason I should ever bother voting again?
Corbyn I can understand but why May - the mood music with our politicians is to try and stop Brexit but I do not see that in May who is steering a very difficult course to exit
After hearing what she said in her speech (did you hear the way she was singing the praise's of Junker and the EU elites?) I don't believe for one second she has any intention of "transition" ever ending.
We'll get to 2021 and it'll be extended for a further two years. Then Labour comes in, reverse's Brexit entirely and we never leave.
That's how I think it'll play out.
My vote in the referendum was for nothing. And to add insult to injury I was lied to by both parties in the 2017 general election as well.
Terrible!
A bit pessimistic, perhaps. Not least because I don't see what is in it for the EU to keep us in now - were not likely to stop being disruptive if they were to permit that, especially given their tendency toward punishment not appeasement.
Money? We'll pay unlimited amounts of money to stay in EU purgatory for years and years...
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
You may well be correct BigG. However, the Conservatives have long held the advantage of having most of the Press to communicate their message. They are going to have to find new ways to get the message across. There is no sign so far that they have done so. Eventually it will be adapt, adopt or die. The age profile of those relying on traditional media is only going to skew older and older.
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Anyway, does the leadership ratings not just give a clue as to who is going to win? Corbyn may crap but he is still doing better than Theresa. We don't like politicians much. To escape the mob you just need to be a bit faster than your opponent.
On the basis of leader ratings, the election result in June should have been a clear Conservative majority.
Plainly, other things are at work.
May was just ahead of Corbyn in popularity by the election and she just won. Indeed the collapse in her ratings was more pronounced than the fall in the Tory support which was fairly static and ultimately misleading. I think Mike is right to pay attention to the leader ratings but I am not sure he is right to say Labour have nothing to be pleased about.
Those falls in leader ratings are simply staggering though.
There's part of me that still can't believe that actually happened.
Same here. I never understood why she was rated so highly, and Corbyn had some appeal, but my gods what a change up.
So at the general election Corbyn was lying about leaving the EU and wiping out student debt while Theresa May was lying about leaving the EU as well?
Given this spectacle can anybody come up with a reason I should ever bother voting again?
Corbyn I can understand but why May - the mood music with our politicians is to try and stop Brexit but I do not see that in May who is steering a very difficult course to exit
After hearing what she said in her speech (did you hear the way she was singing the praise's of Junker and the EU elites?) I don't believe for one second she has any intention of "transition" ever ending.
We'll get to 2021 and it'll be extended for a further two years. Then Labour comes in, reverse's Brexit entirely and we never leave.
That's how I think it'll play out.
My vote in the referendum was for nothing. And to add insult to injury I was lied to by both parties in the 2017 general election as well.
Terrible!
A bit pessimistic, perhaps. Not least because I don't see what is in it for the EU to keep us in now - were not likely to stop being disruptive if they were to permit that, especially given their tendency toward punishment not appeasement.
Money? We'll pay unlimited amounts of money to stay in EU purgatory for years and years...
You are down tonight but rest assured there will be mayhem if we agree to pay more than a two year transition and I will be at the front of the queue
So at the general election Corbyn was lying about leaving the EU and wiping out student debt while Theresa May was lying about leaving the EU as well?
Given this spectacle can anybody come up with a reason I should ever bother voting again?
Corbyn I can understand but why May - the mood music with our politicians is to try and stop Brexit but I do not see that in May who is steering a very difficult course to exit
After hearing what she said in her speech (did you hear the way she was singing the praise's of Junker and the EU elites?) I don't believe for one second she has any intention of "transition" ever ending.
We'll get to 2021 and it'll be extended for a further two years. Then Labour comes in, reverse's Brexit entirely and we never leave.
That's how I think it'll play out.
My vote in the referendum was for nothing. And to add insult to injury I was lied to by both parties in the 2017 general election as well.
Terrible!
To get to a transition something major will have to happen on Northern Ireland, and a government reliant on the DUP probably doesn't have the strength to do it.
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
Things will change in the future, but right now, 18-24 year olds think that a combination of far left economics, the suppression of opinions they don't like, and European integration will create utopia.
So at the general election Corbyn was lying about leaving the EU and wiping out student debt while Theresa May was lying about leaving the EU as well?
Given this spectacle can anybody come up with a reason I should ever bother voting again?
Corbyn I can understand but why May - the mood music with our politicians is to try and stop Brexit but I do not see that in May who is steering a very difficult course to exit
After hearing what she said in her speech (did you hear the way she was singing the praise's of Junker and the EU elites?) I don't believe for one second she has any intention of "transition" ever ending.
We'll get to 2021 and it'll be extended for a further two years. Then Labour comes in, reverse's Brexit entirely and we never leave.
That's how I think it'll play out.
My vote in the referendum was for nothing. And to add insult to injury I was lied to by both parties in the 2017 general election as well.
Terrible!
A bit pessimistic, perhaps. Not least because I don't see what is in it for the EU to keep us in now - were not likely to stop being disruptive if they were to permit that, especially given their tendency toward punishment not appeasement.
Money? We'll pay unlimited amounts of money to stay in EU purgatory for years and years...
Appealing, no doubt , buT they'd have been more flexible in the first place to keep our money if that was the only concern. We're too disruptive to the project, even with our money.
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
You may well be correct BigG. However, the Conservatives have long held the advantage of having most of the Press to communicate their message. They are going to have to find new ways to get the message across. There is no sign so far that they have done so. Eventually it will be adapt, adopt or die. The age profile of those relying on traditional media is only going to skew older and older.
I am also interested in your reasoning behind
"McDonnell has just lost loads of them today."
How so? For young voters specifically?
No not young voters - but many who have pension funds and others who remember the rubbish in the streets and the dead unburied. Also people will recall Kinnock's fight against the hard left which he vanquished only to see them rise all these years later through momentum, Corbyn and McDonnell
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
Frauke Petry. For the uninitiated. formerly a very high profile figure, she had been sidelined by the current leadership duo. Sidelined enough for her to refuse to take the AfD whip less than 24 hours after she got elected.
Her defection to be an independent was possibly expected, but there are suggestions in the German media that she may take others with her.
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
I am tempted to say 'what pensions'? A pittance you will have to wait until 80 to get?
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
You may well be correct BigG. However, the Conservatives have long held the advantage of having most of the Press to communicate their message. They are going to have to find new ways to get the message across. There is no sign so far that they have done so. Eventually it will be adapt, adopt or die. The age profile of those relying on traditional media is only going to skew older and older.
I am also interested in your reasoning behind
"McDonnell has just lost loads of them today."
How so? For young voters specifically?
No not young voters - but many who have pension funds and others who remember the rubbish in the streets and the dead unburied. Also people will recall Kinnock's fight against the hard left which he vanquished only to see them rise all these years later through momentum, Corbyn and McDonnell
We remember that. We are an ever-declining percentage of the voting population, my friend. My point is that the Conservative Party needs to be able to fashion a narrative without reference to the 70's or 80's, and be able to put it across by other means than the pages of Mail, Sun, Express, etc.
Whilst dealing with Brexit. It is a challenge, sure. But it is not insurmountable. I fear, however, that there will be a retreat to familiar tactics and themes at the Conference, next week.
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
I am tempted to say 'what pensions'? A pittance you will have to wait until 80 to get?
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
Crashing the housing market so they may be able to buy a near worthless house (though of course maybe not even that as banks will restrict lending) and their parents houses become near worthless so they inherit next to nothing and get no assistance with a deposit will hardly benefit them either
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
The new divide in politics - those who buy their bread at a supermarket and those who go to an artisan bakery.
It's one of the oddities of modern life that supermarket bread is so vile. They've cracked cheese - you can even get quite good Camembert which is more or less ripe, now - and they've cracked potatoes, and strawberries, and tomatoes, but bread, apples and peaches from supermarkets remain abysmal. It's very odd.
Here in the U, S and A even artisanal bread is pretty pisspoor. I'd pay good money for a semi-regular supply of even something like Warburtons.
Frauke Petry. For the uninitiated. formerly a very high profile figure, she had been sidelined by the current leadership duo. Sidelined enough for her to refuse to take the AfD whip less than 24 hours after she got elected.
Her defection to be an independent was possibly expected, but there are suggestions in the German media that she may take others with her.
Four members of the AfD group in the state parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern have also formed a local independent breakaway group today. The party is anything but united.
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
I am tempted to say 'what pensions'? A pittance you will have to wait until 80 to get?
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
Put out the bunting! Strike up the band! I agree with you. Well halfway anyway. It was Kinnock who won it for the Tories. However. in 1997, I reckon Kinnock, John Smith, Krusty the Clown or even Jeremy Corbyn could have won. Conservative Party dysfunction (and the general idea it was time for a change). Blair just meant it was a huge defeat rather than a big one.
So at the general election Corbyn was lying about leaving the EU and wiping out student debt while Theresa May was lying about leaving the EU as well?
Given this spectacle can anybody come up with a reason I should ever bother voting again?
Corbyn I can understand but why May - the mood music with our politicians is to try and stop Brexit but I do not see that in May who is steering a very difficult course to exit
After hearing what she said in her speech (did you hear the way she was singing the praise's of Junker and the EU elites?) I don't believe for one second she has any intention of "transition" ever ending.
We'll get to 2021 and it'll be extended for a further two years. Then Labour comes in, reverse's Brexit entirely and we never leave.
That's how I think it'll play out.
My vote in the referendum was for nothing. And to add insult to injury I was lied to by both parties in the 2017 general election as well.
Terrible!
To get to a transition something major will have to happen on Northern Ireland, and a government reliant on the DUP probably doesn't have the strength to do it.
Crunch time is coming very soon.
Both sentiment and self-interest mean that the government won't be expelling Northern Ireand from the UK.
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
I am tempted to say 'what pensions'? A pittance you will have to wait until 80 to get?
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
Collapse the system would hurt them the most - name any successful country under a hard left government
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
I am tempted to say 'what pensions'? A pittance you will have to wait until 80 to get?
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
Collapse the system would hurt them the most - name any successful country under a hard left government. Also higher interest rates will affect housing and rental costs and credit card lending
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
I am tempted to say 'what pensions'? A pittance you will have to wait until 80 to get?
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
Or they could leave the 'world city' and move to England.
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
I am tempted to say 'what pensions'? A pittance you will have to wait until 80 to get?
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
Collapse the system would hurt them the most - name any successful country under a hard left government
It's what they think that matters - they haven't experienced a hard left government.
If you have no direct stake in a society - a secure job, a secure home you own and a chance to build a secure future for your future family - why would you vote Conservative for a promise of more of the same. The prospect you might inherit half a house from your parents when you reach your 60s seems a long way off when you are 25 or 30.
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
I am tempted to say 'what pensions'? A pittance you will have to wait until 80 to get?
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
Collapse the system would hurt them the most - name any successful country under a hard left government
It's what they think that matters - they haven't experienced a hard left government.
If you have no direct stake in a society - a secure job, a secure home you own and a chance to build a secure future for your future family - why would you vote Conservative for a promise of more of the same. The prospect you might inherit half a house from your parents when you reach your 60s seems a long way off when you are 25 or 30.
I am tempted to say 'what pensions'? A pittance you will have to wait until 80 to get?
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
I think there is a misconception that a collapse in the housing market would be in the interests of younger voters.
Firstly, a collapse would cut off the supply of new builds. In the long run, the price is a result of the supply of and the demand for housing. Cutting off long term supply will do nothing to make housing more affordable five years down the line.
Secondly, if houses prices came down sharply, it would result in many millions of people in negative equity. This reduces labour mobility (negatively impacting the economy as a whole), and means that those properties won't come on the market. People in negative equity - whether their house is too small or too large for them - will be unable to move.
Thirdly, if banks are suddenly under water on their property books, they'll tighten up lending standards. This means that credit to buy new homes is reduced. It's great that a flat is now available for £200,000 - but now the bank wants a 15% deposit, and a mortgage of no more than three times salary. (Sound ridiculous: in 1994, following the '89-'92 downturn had those kind of requirements.)
Tangentially, I'd also point out that falling house prices will inevitably mean a higher savings rate as people would no longer feel they could rely on the Bank of Bricks and Mortar. That would be incredibly painful for the economy.
So at the general election Corbyn was lying about leaving the EU and wiping out student debt while Theresa May was lying about leaving the EU as well?
Given this spectacle can anybody come up with a reason I should ever bother voting again?
Corbyn I can understand but why May - the mood music with our politicians is to try and stop Brexit but I do not see that in May who is steering a very difficult course to exit
After hearing what she said in her speech (did you hear the way she was singing the praise's of Junker and the EU elites?) I don't believe for one second she has any intention of "transition" ever ending.
We'll get to 2021 and it'll be extended for a further two years. Then Labour comes in, reverse's Brexit entirely and we never leave.
That's how I think it'll play out.
My vote in the referendum was for nothing. And to add insult to injury I was lied to by both parties in the 2017 general election as well.
Terrible!
To get to a transition something major will have to happen on Northern Ireland, and a government reliant on the DUP probably doesn't have the strength to do it.
Crunch time is coming very soon.
Both sentiment and self-interest mean that the government won't be expelling Northern Ireand from the UK.
Which means the government can only stall until it finds a way to make abandoning Brexit political feasible.
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
Put out the bunting! Strike up the band! I agree with you. Well halfway anyway. It was Kinnock who won it for the Tories. However. in 1997, I reckon Kinnock, John Smith, Krusty the Clown or even Jeremy Corbyn could have won. Conservative Party dysfunction (and the general idea it was time for a change). Blair just meant it was a huge defeat rather than a big one.
Careful, this could be getting contagious!
I agree Smith would have won in 1997, even Kinnock but not on the scale Blair did. Only Blair could have won seats like Shrewsbury and Braintree (though it seems we even agree on that too)
So at the general election Corbyn was lying about leaving the EU and wiping out student debt while Theresa May was lying about leaving the EU as well?
Given this spectacle can anybody come up with a reason I should ever bother voting again?
Corbyn I can understand but why May - the mood music with our politicians is to try and stop Brexit but I do not see that in May who is steering a very difficult course to exit
After hearing what she said in her speech (did you hear the way she was singing the praise's of Junker and the EU elites?) I don't believe for one second she has any intention of "transition" ever ending.
We'll get to 2021 and it'll be extended for a further two years. Then Labour comes in, reverse's Brexit entirely and we never leave.
That's how I think it'll play out.
My vote in the referendum was for nothing. And to add insult to injury I was lied to by both parties in the 2017 general election as well.
Terrible!
To get to a transition something major will have to happen on Northern Ireland, and a government reliant on the DUP probably doesn't have the strength to do it.
Crunch time is coming very soon.
Both sentiment and self-interest mean that the government won't be expelling Northern Ireand from the UK.
Which means the government can only stall until it finds a way to make abandoning Brexit political feasible.
Curious that the Guardian can't find room for Labour Conference on its front page.
They've just made my point on Sky Paper Review.
Not great for labour in the paper review, especially with the Guardian making no front page reference to McDonnell
The problem for the Conservatives is that few people under 45 read a newspaper. The numerous well-publicised scandals of recent years mean they are seen as "fake news". That the TV companies will publicise what the Express says, but not the HuffPost, Vice, Breitbart, etc say is a sign of how they are not relevant. Then again, few young people watch regular TV, and even fewer the News.
Young people will not out vote the older vote and McDonnell has just lost loads of them today. I would also say a lot of younger voters will face the realisation of the shocking damage he will do to their pensions, and the immediate big rises to interest rates and mortgage rates that would occur following his election as the pound tanks
I am tempted to say 'what pensions'? A pittance you will have to wait until 80 to get?
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
Collapse the system would hurt them the most - name any successful country under a hard left government
It's what they think that matters - they haven't experienced a hard left government.
If you have no direct stake in a society - a secure job, a secure home you own and a chance to build a secure future for your future family - why would you vote Conservative for a promise of more of the same. The prospect you might inherit half a house from your parents when you reach your 60s seems a long way off when you are 25 or 30.
Unemployment is only at 4% and through equity release etc plenty of people get help from their parents to get on the property ladder and with a deposit well before their 60s
So at the general election Corbyn was lying about leaving the EU and wiping out student debt while Theresa May was lying about leaving the EU as well?
Given this spectacle can anybody come up with a reason I should ever bother voting again?
Corbyn I can understand but why May - the mood music with our politicians is to try and stop Brexit but I do not see that in May who is steering a very difficult course to exit
After hearing what she said in her speech (did you hear the way she was singing the praise's of Junker and the EU elites?) I don't believe for one second she has any intention of "transition" ever ending.
We'll get to 2021 and it'll be extended for a further two years. Then Labour comes in, reverse's Brexit entirely and we never leave.
That's how I think it'll play out.
My vote in the referendum was for nothing. And to add insult to injury I was lied to by both parties in the 2017 general election as well.
Terrible!
To get to a transition something major will have to happen on Northern Ireland, and a government reliant on the DUP probably doesn't have the strength to do it.
Crunch time is coming very soon.
Both sentiment and self-interest mean that the government won't be expelling Northern Ireand from the UK.
Which means the government can only stall until it finds a way to make abandoning Brexit political feasible.
So at the general election Corbyn was lying about leaving the EU and wiping out student debt while Theresa May was lying about leaving the EU as well?
Given this spectacle can anybody come up with a reason I should ever bother voting again?
Corbyn I can understand but why May - the mood music with our politicians is to try and stop Brexit but I do not see that in May who is steering a very difficult course to exit
After hearing what she said in her speech (did you hear the way she was singing the praise's of Junker and the EU elites?) I don't believe for one second she has any intention of "transition" ever ending.
We'll get to 2021 and it'll be extended for a further two years. Then Labour comes in, reverse's Brexit entirely and we never leave.
That's how I think it'll play out.
My vote in the referendum was for nothing. And to add insult to injury I was lied to by both parties in the 2017 general election as well.
Terrible!
To get to a transition something major will have to happen on Northern Ireland, and a government reliant on the DUP probably doesn't have the strength to do it.
Crunch time is coming very soon.
Both sentiment and self-interest mean that the government won't be expelling Northern Ireand from the UK.
Which means the government can only stall until it finds a way to make abandoning Brexit political feasible.
Tangentially, I'd also point out that falling house prices will inevitably mean a higher savings rate as people would no longer feel they could rely on the Bank of Bricks and Mortar. That would be incredibly painful for the economy.
If it's not hurting, it's not working, as someone once said.
I am tempted to say 'what pensions'? A pittance you will have to wait until 80 to get?
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
I think there is a misconception that a collapse in the housing market would be in the interests of younger voters.
Firstly, a collapse would cut off the supply of new builds. In the long run, the price is a result of the supply of and the demand for housing. Cutting off long term supply will do nothing to make housing more affordable five years down the line.
Secondly, if houses prices came down sharply, it would result in many millions of people in negative equity. This reduces labour mobility (negatively impacting the economy as a whole), and means that those properties won't come on the market. People in negative equity - whether their house is too small or too large for them - will be unable to move.
Thirdly, if banks are suddenly under water on their property books, they'll tighten up lending standards. This means that credit to buy new homes is reduced. It's great that a flat is now available for £200,000 - but now the bank wants a 15% deposit, and a mortgage of no more than three times salary. (Sound ridiculous: in 1994, following the '89-'92 downturn had those kind of requirements.)
Tangentially, I'd also point out that falling house prices will inevitably mean a higher savings rate as people would no longer feel they could rely on the Bank of Bricks and Mortar. That would be incredibly painful for the economy.
A collapsing economy will also affect the availability of jobs, for the young above all.
Corbyn's policies will harm the young above all. A nationalised water company is of no comfort if you cannot find a job and have to pay more income tax even if you do. The biggest lie told by Labour at the last election was the claim that they could fund everything they wanted to do without raising taxes for anyone less than £85,000.
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
Put out the bunting! Strike up the band! I agree with you. Well halfway anyway. It was Kinnock who won it for the Tories. However. in 1997, I reckon Kinnock, John Smith, Krusty the Clown or even Jeremy Corbyn could have won. Conservative Party dysfunction (and the general idea it was time for a change). Blair just meant it was a huge defeat rather than a big one.
Careful, this could be getting contagious!
I agree Smith would have won in 1997, even Kinnock but not on the scale Blair did. Only Blair could have won seats like Shrewsbury and Braintree (though it seems we even agree on that too)
Reckon Krusty the Klown would have won Bootle!
It is good, however,(given some of the stories downthread) that we can disagree so vehemently, without ever descending into personal animus.
Again I am sure it's great being told by people in their 40s and 50s - who were able to buy housing and lots of it every cheaply in the 1990s (thanks precisely to the crash in the late 80s) that a fall in house prices isn't in their Interests. They cannot afford to buy at current prices - no amount of building will lower prices while interest rates are so low and help to buy is in place to bump up new build prices by 20 or even 40 per cent in London.
Maybe that is the problem - the over 40s don't get it and don't get their anger with a system that has denied them the basics that their parents got. A secure job, an affordable home you could buy on an average wage, no student debt and decent parents.
No wonder they are buying into Corbyn - the Tories aren't offering them any hope at all.
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
Put out the bunting! Strike up the band! I agree with you. Well halfway anyway. It was Kinnock who won it for the Tories. However. in 1997, I reckon Kinnock, John Smith, Krusty the Clown or even Jeremy Corbyn could have won. Conservative Party dysfunction (and the general idea it was time for a change). Blair just meant it was a huge defeat rather than a big one.
Careful, this could be getting contagious!
I agree Smith would have won in 1997, even Kinnock but not on the scale Blair did. Only Blair could have won seats like Shrewsbury and Braintree (though it seems we even agree on that too)
John Smith would've won a handsome majority, almost certainly of 100+ seats. People too young to vote in 1997, which perhaps includes you, tend to miss the memory of how utterly detested the Tories had become. Literally any Labour leader would have won that election, even Michael Foot or Tony Benn.
Smith's seat tally would quite likely have included Shrewsbury, where the Tory vote in 92 was only 45% or so. And indeed it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that Corbyn might win it if he manages a majority when the Tories get kicked out in a year or two. Probably agree with you about Braintree, remarkable Labour ever won there.
Again I am sure it's great being told by people in their 40s and 50s - who were able to buy housing and lots of it every cheaply in the 1990s (thanks precisely to the crash in the late 80s) that a fall in house prices isn't in their Interests. They cannot afford to buy at current prices - no amount of building will lower prices while interest rates are so low and help to buy is in place to bump up new build prices by 20 or even 40 per cent in London.
Maybe that is the problem - the over 40s don't get it and don't get their anger with a system that has denied them the basics that their parents got. A secure job, an affordable home you could buy on an average wage, no student debt and decent parents.
No wonder they are buying into Corbyn - the Tories aren't offering them any hope at all.
The under 40s are more likely to have gone to university than their parents, very likely to be in a job, can travel more cheaply and widely and will inherit the large nest egg their parents have built up for them (as well as getting help with deposits to get on the property ladder).
However if they really want to complain a few years of a Corbyn government should see to that!
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
Put out the bunting! Strike up the band! I agree with you. Well halfway anyway. It was Kinnock who won it for the Tories. However. in 1997, I reckon Kinnock, John Smith, Krusty the Clown or even Jeremy Corbyn could have won. Conservative Party dysfunction (and the general idea it was time for a change). Blair just meant it was a huge defeat rather than a big one.
Careful, this could be getting contagious!
I agree Smith would have won in 1997, even Kinnock but not on the scale Blair did. Only Blair could have won seats like Shrewsbury and Braintree (though it seems we even agree on that too)
Reckon Krusty the Klown would have won Bootle!
It is good, however,(given some of the stories downthread) that we can disagree so vehemently, without ever descending into personal animus.
Again I am sure it's great being told by people in their 40s and 50s - who were able to buy housing and lots of it every cheaply in the 1990s (thanks precisely to the crash in the late 80s) that a fall in house prices isn't in their Interests. They cannot afford to buy at current prices - no amount of building will lower prices while interest rates are so low and help to buy is in place to bump up new build prices by 20 or even 40 per cent in London.
Maybe that is the problem - the over 40s don't get it and don't get their anger with a system that has denied them the basics that their parents got. A secure job, an affordable home you could buy on an average wage, no student debt and decent parents.
No wonder they are buying into Corbyn - the Tories aren't offering them any hope at all.
It is not true that 50 per cent of their parent's generation went to University. That is why they didn't have debt.
There were more secure jobs, but they weren't leader writer for the Guardian or top job at the Bank Of England.
They were rough, unpleasant jobs like coal mining or steelmaking. The people who did them have had hard lives.
There are still plenty of affordable homes, just not in the South East.
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
Put out the (and the general idea it was time for a change). Blair just meant it was a huge defeat rather than a big one.
Careful, this could be getting contagious!
I agree Smith would have won in 1997, even Kinnock but not on the scale Blair did. Only Blair could have won seats like Shrewsbury and Braintree (though it seems we even agree on that too)
John Smith would've won a handsome majority, almost certainly of 100+ seats. People too young to vote in 1997, which perhaps includes you, tend to miss the memory of how utterly detested the Tories had become. Literally any Labour leader would have won that election, even Michael Foot or Tony Benn.
Smith's seat tally would quite likely have included Shrewsbury, where the Tory vote in 92 was only 45% or so. And indeed it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that Corbyn might win it if he manages a majority when the Tories get kicked out in a year or two. Probably agree with you about Braintree, remarkable Labour ever won there.
Smith may have got a majority of around 100 after 18 years of Tory rule but it took Blair to get Labour a majority of over 150 and to win seats like Braintree.
Shrewsbury and Atcham currently has a Tory majority of 6, 627, Blair won it in 1997 by 1,670. Braintree has a Tory majority of 18,422, Blair won it in 1997 by 1,451
Again I am sure it's great being told by people in their 40s and 50s - who were able to buy housing and lots of it every cheaply in the 1990s (thanks precisely to the crash in the late 80s) that a fall in house prices isn't in their Interests. They cannot afford to buy at current prices - no amount of building will lower prices while interest rates are so low and help to buy is in place to bump up new build prices by 20 or even 40 per cent in London.
Maybe that is the problem - the over 40s don't get it and don't get their anger with a system that has denied them the basics that their parents got. A secure job, an affordable home you could buy on an average wage, no student debt and decent parents.
No wonder they are buying into Corbyn - the Tories aren't offering them any hope at all.
Interest rates were 12 to 14% when houses were being bought " cheaply" and you could not borrow more than 2.75 times your income.
Nothing "cheap" about it. And there was much more unemployment.
I get why my children are concerned about their futures. I am too. But Corbyn's policies won't help them. Ruining an economy harms the young and their hopes.
Secondly, if houses prices came down sharply, it would result in many millions of people in negative equity. This reduces labour mobility (negatively impacting the economy as a whole), and means that those properties won't come on the market. People in negative equity - whether their house is too small or too large for them - will be unable to move.
Partially true, partially not. In 2008, after having risen by about 10%pa for over a decade, E&W house prices fell by 20% in one year. The big US auction houses were gearing up to hold US-style auctions in sports halls and stadia in the UK as hundreds of thousands of repossessions were predicted. Gordon Brown, horrified, ordered that This Shall Not Be and Jack Straw(?) did some rapid finessing with court guidance. Some court cases were literally stopped mid-session as it became very difficult to evict people. The US guys went home and in 2009 prices recovered by 5-10%.
It is very easy to engineer a house price crash: take all the props away, the special exclusions, the subsidised housing, the help-to-buy, put interest rates up a little bit, and wait. The fact that it continually doesn't happen is testament to British government refusal to carry things thru to its logical conclusion: "kicking-the-can" is an English expression. But technically it's quite easy to do.
Again I am sure it's great being told by people in their 40s and 50s - who were able to buy housing and lots of it every cheaply in the 1990s (thanks precisely to the crash in the late 80s) that a fall in house prices isn't in their Interests. They cannot afford to buy at current prices - no amount of building will lower prices while interest rates are so low and help to buy is in place to bump up new build prices by 20 or even 40 per cent in London.
Maybe that is the problem - the over 40s don't get it and don't get their anger with a system that has denied them the basics that their parents got. A secure job, an affordable home you could buy on an average wage, no student debt and decent parents.
No wonder they are buying into Corbyn - the Tories aren't offering them any hope at all.
The under 40s are more likely to have gone to university than their parents, very likely to be in a job, can travel more cheaply and widely and will inherit the large nest egg their parents have built up for them (as well as getting help with deposits to get on the property ladder).
However if they really want to complain a few years of a Corbyn government should see to that!
No offence but your posts on this come across as very smug and patronising, and you are far from alone as a Tory activist suffering from that condition at the moment. Especially, prattling on as if everyone is going to waltz into some kind of life changing inheritance hits a very wrong note.
Aged 41 I'm on the borderline of this under/over 40s phenomenon and Brendan has a good point. And if I, a lifelong Tory voter whom Corbyn would describe as rich, feel that way, it's a poor state of affairs indeed for the Tories. Sure the millennials may well regret electing Corbyn soon after they've done so but that doesn't mean they won't do so in the first place. And lecturing them on how great their lot in life life is and that they should jolly well put up with it won't work and never has done in comparable campaigns; there's no gratitude in politics and never has been.
Those expecting the Leave voting oldies to come flocking back to the Tories after a lacklustre turnout in 2017 are also forgetting the fact that there is going to be either a massive Brexit divorce bill of at least £20bn (probably considerably more) or a falling off a cliff edge Brexit which wrecks the economy and public services for years. Pretty much a 100% likelihood that one of those two happens. And we're due a recession before the end of this parliament.
...as well as getting help with deposits to get on the property ladder...
That "getting help with deposits" simple drives the prices up: if you subsidise demand of a good with inelastic supply the prices rise and the more you "help" the worse it gets. That single policy (help-to-buy) has been the single greatest driver of house price inflation since about 2013. From 2010 to 2013 E&W house prices were flat, near as dammit. Then Osborne pushed thru HTB and up they went again.
If you sincerely want to help people buy houses, stop with the help-to-buy demand-side gubbins and use supply-side measures like lowering tax on building firms. But if you want to look like a Big Man and keep spending other people's money, knock yourself out.
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
I agree with that.
Glad we agree on something tonight
Well I specifically agreed with your comments regarding the influence of the press. Labour was going to win anyway in 1997 and it was simply a question as to the size of the majority. John Smith would have won very comfortably and I suspect would have governed in a way that did not sow the seeds of Labour disillusionment reflected in the collapse in turnout at the 2001 election. As far as 1992 is concerned, I have no doubt that the polls were wrong all along and that the Tories were always well placed to win the popular vote quite comfortably. However, I do believe that Kinnock could have achieved a result similar to 2017 - denying Major a majority - had he not lost control of himself at Sheffield.
Again I am sure it's great being told by people in their 40s and 50s - who were able to buy housing and lots of it every cheaply in the 1990s (thanks precisely to the crash in the late 80s) that a fall in house prices isn't in their Interests. They cannot afford to buy at current prices - no amount of building will lower prices while interest rates are so low and help to buy is in place to bump up new build prices by 20 or even 40 per cent in London.
Maybe that is the problem - the over 40s don't get it and don't get their anger with a system that has denied them the basics that their parents got. A secure job, an affordable home you could buy on an average wage, no student debt and decent parents.
No wonder they are buying into Corbyn - the Tories aren't offering them any hope at all
By a implausible but entirely genuine coincidence, I just found this report:
...as well as getting help with deposits to get on the property ladder...
That "getting help with deposits" simple drives the prices up: if you subsidise demand of a good with inelastic supply the prices rise and the more you "help" the worse it gets. That single policy (help-to-buy) has been the single greatest driver of house price inflation since about 2013. From 2010 to 2013 E&W house prices were flat, near as dammit. Then Osborne pushed thru HTB and up they went again.
If you sincerely want to help people buy houses, stop with the help-to-buy demand-side gubbins and use supply-side measures like lowering tax on building firms. But if you want to look like a Big Man and keep spending other people's money, knock yourself out.
Secondly, if houses prices came down sharply, it would result in many millions of people in negative equity. This reduces labour mobility (negatively impacting the economy as a whole), and means that those properties won't come on the market. People in negative equity - whether their house is too small or too large for them - will be unable to move.
Partially true, partially not. In 2008, after having risen by about 10%pa for over a decade, E&W house prices fell by 20% in one year. The big US auction houses were gearing up to hold US-style auctions in sports halls and stadia in the UK as hundreds of thousands of repossessions were predicted. Gordon Brown, horrified, ordered that This Shall Not Be and Jack Straw(?) did some rapid finessing with court guidance. Some court cases were literally stopped mid-session as it became very difficult to evict people. The US guys went home and in 2009 prices recovered by 5-10%.
It is very easy to engineer a house price crash: take all the props away, the special exclusions, the subsidised housing, the help-to-buy, put interest rates up a little bit, and wait. The fact that it continually doesn't happen is testament to British government refusal to carry things thru to its logical conclusion: "kicking-the-can" is an English expression. But technically it's quite easy to do.
Woah.
Let's rewind there.
House repossessions and subsequent auctions are *not* a consequence of the difference between house prices past and present. They are a consequence of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford their mortgages. Now, in the event there is substantial equity, lenders are quite willing to show patience. But if there is not, they want the house sold.
In the event of a house price crash, but where unemployment remained low, (perhaps caused by a sharp decline in immigration) then the most visible consequence would be an extremely illiquid housing market.
There are still plenty of affordable homes, just not in the South East.
This is true. Draw an arc from Bournemouth, Newbury, Oxford, Peterborough. Everything south and east of that curve is where the problem lies. Outside prices remain affordable and in places like the Potteries, the Valleys and County Durham, even cheap.
Again I am sure it's great being told by people in their 40s and 50s - who were able to buy housing and lots of it every cheaply in the 1990s (thanks precisely to the crash in the late 80s) that a fall in house prices isn't in their Interests. They cannot afford to buy at current prices - no amount of building will lower prices while interest rates are so low and help to buy is in place to bump up new build prices by 20 or even 40 per cent in London.
Maybe that is the problem - the over 40s don't get it and don't get their anger with a system that has denied them the basics that their parents got. A secure job, an affordable home you could buy on an average wage, no student debt and decent parents.
No wonder they are buying into Corbyn - the Tories aren't offering them any hope at all.
Interest rates were 12 to 14% when houses were being bought " cheaply" and you could not borrow more than 2.75 times your income.
Nothing "cheap" about it. And there was much more unemployment.
I get why my children are concerned about their futures. I am too. But Corbyn's policies won't help them. Ruining an economy harms the young and their hopes.
It is worth remembering that a high inflation, high interest rate environment effectively mean that you are paying down your mortgage at an accelerated rate.
In real terms, 10% inflation, 12% mortgage rates means that the real value of your outstanding mortgage loan is declining by 10% a year.
As you say, houses were not cheap when you had to (effectively) pay off 10% of them in a year.
So what is the tories' "retail offer" (to use a Messina-ism) to young voters going to be at the next GE? As far as can be assayed from the contributions of tory partisans on here their campaign is going to consist of shouting the word "Venezuela!" repeatedly.
- The highest rate of tax on income is already 71%, which can cut in at £100K (40% + 20% withdrawal of allowance + 2% employee's NI + possible 9% student loan tax). Even for people not subject to student loan tax, that's the highest income tax band in Europe - and that's without adding in the 13.8% Employer's NI, which realistically should be included since it's income tax in all but name, and didn't exist in the 1970s above a fairly low threshold. So why would a 75% or 83% rate be so surprising, given everything McDonnell and Corbyn have stood for during their entire careers, and the fact that they need to raise countless billions, apparently (if you are naive enough to believe them) without anyone earning less than £85K paying any more tax?
- Reviving the spectacular failure of the National Enterprise Board is absolutely Corbyn's aim. He calls it the 'National Investment Bank'.
- On unions, Ed Miliband today was advocating compulsory union membership. And that's one of the relatively sane Labour figures
- As for your last sentence, it is so vile that it needs no further comment other than to draw attention to it.
To take your own points in turn - - the Employer's NI contribution is not payable by the Employee and ,therefore, will not arise as far as wage earners and salaried staff are concerned. It is a charge paid by the Company or other business form. - the National Enterprise Board was initially established with a view to extending public ownership in industry. Gradually its function did change and the focus increasingly directed to providing funds for investment.It was fairly similar in purpose to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation set up under the 1964 - 70 Government. - I do not read Ed Miliband's comment as you describe it at all.I believe he is suggesting that there be an automatic right to Trade Union membership - not that such membership should become compulsory. - as for my final comment , there is nothing vile at pointing out that there are individuals within Tory ranks who would happily take profits from slave labour regardless of the resultant human suffering - and who would not object to the return of near Dickensian Workhouse conditions. I have encountered such people on the BBC's website - if not on here! All parties have nasty characters lurking within their organisations . The Tories have form on this extending back to pro-Nazi sympathisers in the 1930s - highlighted by the Scottish Tory MP - Archibald Ramsay - being locked up in World War 2. Labour has had its own monsters - Robert Maxwell comes to mind - but to deny the existence of these people frankly does you no credit.
House repossessions and subsequent auctions are *not* a consequence of the difference between house prices past and present. They are a consequence of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford their mortgages. Now, in the event there is substantial equity, lenders are quite willing to show patience. But if there is not, they want the house sold.
True, but the point of the court guidance was to make it extremely difficult to repossess in E&W, *regardless* of the bank wants. Things did get weird in 2008/9 and the E&W experience is not the same as the US or Ireland.
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Which would be somewhat reassuring if YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit were not 2, 3, and 4. Those are some of the worst sites for spreading the very stuff that concerns me.
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
/blockquote>
Put out the bunting! Strike up the band! I agree with you. Well halfway anyway. It was Kinnock who won it for the Tories. However. in 1997, I reckon Kinnock, John Smith, Krusty the Clown or even Jeremy Corbyn could have won. Conservative Party dysfunction (and the general idea it was time for a change). Blair just meant it was a huge defeat rather than a big one.
Careful, this could be getting contagious!
I agree Smith would have won in 1997, even Kinnock but not on the scale Blair did. Only Blair could have won seats like Shrewsbury and Braintree (though it seems we even agree on that too)
John Smith would've won a handsome majority, almost certainly of 100+ seats. People too young to vote in 1997, which perhaps includes you, tend to miss the memory of how utterly detested the Tories had become. Literally any Labour leader would have won that election, even Michael Foot or Tony Benn.
Smith's seat tally would quite likely have included Shrewsbury, where the Tory vote in 92 was only 45% or so. And indeed it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that Corbyn might win it if he manages a majority when the Tories get kicked out in a year or two. Probably agree with you about Braintree, remarkable Labour ever won there.
Labour actually came close to winning Braintree at both 1974 elections. Its candidate was the BBC reporter Keith Kyle!
House repossessions and subsequent auctions are *not* a consequence of the difference between house prices past and present. They are a consequence of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford their mortgages. Now, in the event there is substantial equity, lenders are quite willing to show patience. But if there is not, they want the house sold.
True, but the point of the court guidance was to make it extremely difficult to repossess in E&W, *regardless* of the bank wants. Things did get weird in 2008/9 and the E&W experience is not the same as the US or Ireland.
Yes. Lots of other examples of the govenrment going all in to prevent repossessions - eg universal credit after a job loss;
Single Person A, homeowner, no savings, took out a mortgage and has £20k equity - gets universal credit and mortgage interest paid by government.
Single Person B, private renting, £20k savings in a lifetime isa - gets no universal credit, depletes savings and pays a 6.25% penalty.
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
Put out the (and the general idea it was time for a change). Blair just meant it was a huge defeat rather than a big one.
Careful, this could be getting contagious!
I agree Smith would have won in 1997, even Kinnock but not on the scale Blair did. Only Blair could have won seats like Shrewsbury and Braintree (though it seems we even agree on that too)
Smith may have got a majority of around 100 after 18 years of Tory rule but it took Blair to get Labour a majority of over 150 and to win seats like Braintree.
Shrewsbury and Atcham currently has a Tory majority of 6, 627, Blair won it in 1997 by 1,670. Braintree has a Tory majority of 18,422, Blair won it in 1997 by 1,451
But the Tory majority in Braintree in October 1974 was just over 1,000 - so it had been a marginal barely 20 years earlier.
- Reviving the spectacular failure of the National Enterprise Board is absolutely Corbyn's aim. He calls it the 'National Investment Bank'.
- On unions, Ed Miliband today was advocating compulsory union membership. And that's one of the relatively sane Labour figures
- As for your last sentence, it is so vile that it needs no further comment other than to draw attention to it.
To take your own points in turn - - the Employer's NI contribution is not payable by the Employee and ,therefore, will not arise as far as wage earners and salaried staff are concerned. It is a charge paid by the Company or other business form. - the National Enterprise Board was initially established with a view to extending public ownership in industry. Gradually its function did change and the focus increasingly directed to providing funds for investment.It was fairly similar in purpose to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation set up under the 1964 - 70 Government. - I do not read Ed Miliband's comment as you describe it at all.I believe he is suggesting that there be an automatic right to Trade Union membership - not that such membership should become compulsory. - as for my final comment , there is nothing vile at pointing out that there are individuals within Tory ranks who would happily take profits from slave labour regardless of the resultant human suffering - and who would not object to the return of near Dickensian Workhouse conditions. I have encountered such people on the BBC's website - if not on here! All parties have nasty characters lurking within their organisations . The Tories have form on this extending back to pro-Nazi sympathisers in the 1930s - highlighted by the Scottish Tory MP - Archibald Ramsay - being locked up in World War 2. Labour has had its own monsters - Robert Maxwell comes to mind - but to deny the existence of these people frankly does you no credit.
It does Labour supporters no credit when it is their party conference at which members are considering expelling Jewish organisations and debating the Holocaust (what sort of debate, one wonders - whether it happened, maybe?).
For a party which is so quick to call everyone else Nazis or Fascists, it is curiously - and depressingly - blind to the extent it adopts Nazi tropes as its own while still - absurdly IMO - purporting to claim the moral high ground.
On the topic of political knowledge- these are the questions from the study mentioned down thread. Which would you have known?
I don't know v), and would be guessing on iii) and iv) For vii) do you not have to give a reason? And is it local council you contact?
(i) The unemployment rate in the UK is currently less than 5%; (ii) The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for setting interest rates in the UK; (iii) In 2016 over 500,000 immigrants came to the UK from the European Union; (iv) In the UK, anyone who earns less than £11,500 pays no income tax; (v) The UK is legally required to leave the European Union by March 2019; (vi) The minimum voting age for UK general elections is now 16 years of age; (vii) Any registered voter can obtain a postal vote for a general election by contacting their local council and asking for one; (viii) The UK currently spends just over one per cent of its gross national income on oveRseas aid.
...as well as getting help with deposits to get on the property ladder...
That "getting help with deposits" simple drives the prices up: if you subsidise demand of a good with inelastic supply the prices rise and the more you "help" the worse it gets. That single policy (help-to-buy) has been the single greatest driver of house price inflation since about 2013. From 2010 to 2013 E&W house prices were flat, near as dammit. Then Osborne pushed thru HTB and up they went again.
If you sincerely want to help people buy houses, stop with the help-to-buy demand-side gubbins and use supply-side measures like lowering tax on building firms. But if you want to look like a Big Man and keep spending other people's money, knock yourself out.
+1
If you sincerely want to help people buy houses, use supply-side measures like build more houses.
There is no knowledge test for voting. Get your news from the FT, the Sun, the Canary or PB, it all counts the same.
Of course, but the problem is that newspaper readership and "serious" news viewing are declining. All votes are equal, but it would surely be better if all voters were well informed as well.
I think most people are not very interested in politics and form a vague impression from the "narrative" put out by rival parties and reinforced by the tabloids. "Strong and Stable" Mrs May. "Terrorist sympathiser" Corbyn.
It is only when people take more of an interest during an election campaign, and see the protagonists for themselves, that they become better informed. If the reality doesn't match the narrative, the switch in opinion can be dramatic.
I suspect that Mrs May was prevented from making public appearances to preserve the "strong and stable" narrative.
The solution to better informed voters is unedited televised debates, rallies and town hall meetings so people can see the candidates for themselves rather than relying on the tabloids and social media.
...as well as getting help with deposits to get on the property ladder...
That "getting help with deposits" simple drives the prices up: if you subsidise demand of a good with inelastic supply the prices rise and the more you "help" the worse it gets. That single policy (help-to-buy) has been the single greatest driver of house price inflation since about 2013. From 2010 to 2013 E&W house prices were flat, near as dammit. Then Osborne pushed thru HTB and up they went again.
If you sincerely want to help people buy houses, stop with the help-to-buy demand-side gubbins and use supply-side measures like lowering tax on building firms. But if you want to look like a Big Man and keep spending other people's money, knock yourself out.
Building more houses is fine, as Javid is now pushing but if it comes mainly in the green belt and countryside that hits the Tory vote too and of course you do not mention uncontrolled free movement pushes up demand and prices too
Again I am sure it's great being told by people in their 40s and 50s - who were able to buy housing and lots of it every cheaply in the 1990s (thanks precisely to the crash in the late 80s) that a fall in house prices isn't in their Interests. They cannot afford to buy at current prices - no amount of building will lower prices while interest rates are so low and help to buy is in place to bump up new build prices by 20 or even 40 per cent in London.
Maybe that is the problem - the over 40s don't get it and don't get their anger with a system that has denied them the basics that their parents got. A secure job, an affordable home you could buy on an average wage, no student debt and decent parents.
No wonder they are buying into Corbyn - the Tories aren't offering them any hope at all.
The under 40s are more likely to have gone to university than their parents, very likely to be in a job, can travel more cheaply and widely and will inherit the large nest egg their parents have built up for them (as well as getting help with deposits to get on the property ladder).
However if they really want to complain a few years of a Corbyn government should see to that!
No offence but your posts on this come across as very smug and patronising, and you are far from alone as a Tory activist suffering from that condition at the moment. Especially, prattling on as if everyone is going to waltz into some kind of life changing inheritance hits a very wrong note.
Aged 41 I'm on the borderline of this under/over 40s phenomenon and Brendan has a good point. And if I, a lifelong Tory voter whom Corbyn would describe as rich, feel that way, it's a poor state of affairs indeed for the Tories. Sure the millennials may well regret electing Corbyn soon after they've done so but that doesn't mean they won't do so in the first place. And lecturing them on how great their lot in life life is and that they should jolly well put up with it won't work and never has done in comparable campaigns; there's no gratitude in politics and never has been.
Those expecting the Leave voting oldies to come flocking back to the Tories after a lacklustre turnout in 2017 are also forgetting the fact that there is going to be either a massive Brexit divorce bill of at least £20bn (probably considerably more) or a falling off a cliff edge Brexit which wrecks the economy and public services for years. Pretty much a 100% likelihood that one of those two happens. And we're due a recession before the end of this parliament.
People want to buy cheap houses and inherit expensive ones, they cannot do both.
As for Brexit we now have a transition period until 2021 and may have a general election before then.
BBC Online, the BBC's news portal, was still the 6th most visited website in the UK in August this year. Twitter was 9th, the Guardian 16th, the Mail online was also in the top 20 in March and April
Most normal people do not share Momentum videos on Youtube and Facebook, they post videos and pictures of their holidays and social events and cats
Of course but the politics that does creep into their social network quite often comes from the sort of idiot who does read and post such stuff.
Most people on social media share political stuff which reflects their own views anyway, it is the same with newspapers. If you are leftwing you buy the Guardian or Mirror, if you are rightwing the Telegraph or Mail.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
Put out the (and the general idea it was time for a change). Blair just meant it was a huge defeat rather than a big one.
Careful, this could be getting contagious!
I agree Smith would have won in 1997, even Kinnock but not on the scale Blair did. Only Blair could have won seats like Shrewsbury and Braintree (though it seems we even agree on that too)
Smith may have got a majority of around 100 after 18 years of Tory rule but it took Blair to get Labour a majority of over 150 and to win seats like Braintree.
Shrewsbury and Atcham currently has a Tory majority of 6, 627, Blair won it in 1997 by 1,670. Braintree has a Tory majority of 18,422, Blair won it in 1997 by 1,451
But the Tory majority in Braintree in October 1974 was just over 1,000 - so it had been a marginal barely 20 years earlier.
Again I am sure it's great being told by people in their 40s and 50s - who were able to buy housing and lots of it every cheaply in the 1990s (thanks precisely to the crash in the late 80s) that a fall in house prices isn't in their Interests. They cannot afford to buy at current prices - no amount of building will lower prices while interest rates are so low and help to buy is in place to bump up new build prices by 20 or even 40 per cent in London.
Maybe that is the problem - the over 40s don't get it and don't get their anger with a system that has denied them the basics that their parents got. A secure job, an affordable home you could buy on an average wage, no student debt and decent parents.
No wonder they are buying into Corbyn - the Tories aren't offering them any hope at all.
Interest rates were 12 to 14% when houses were being bought " cheaply" and you could not borrow more than 2.75 times your income.
Nothing "cheap" about it. And there was much more unemployment.
I get why my children are concerned about their futures. I am too. But Corbyn's policies won't help them. Ruining an economy harms the young and their hopes.
It is worth remembering that a high inflation, high interest rate environment effectively mean that you are paying down your mortgage at an accelerated rate.
In real terms, 10% inflation, 12% mortgage rates means that the real value of your outstanding mortgage loan is declining by 10% a year.
As you say, houses were not cheap when you had to (effectively) pay off 10% of them in a year.
Comments
They are going to have to find new ways to get the message across.
There is no sign so far that they have done so. Eventually it will be adapt, adopt or die.
The age profile of those relying on traditional media is only going to skew older and older.
I am also interested in your reasoning behind
"McDonnell has just lost loads of them today."
How so? For young voters specifically?
Crunch time is coming very soon.
It was not the Sun which won it for the Tories in 1992 and for Labour in 1997, it was Kinnock who won it for the Tories in 1992 and Blair for Labour in 1997. The role of newspapers in winning elections is greatly exaggerated, they reflect the views of their voters and their readers ultimately
Frauke Petry. For the uninitiated. formerly a very high profile figure, she had been sidelined by the current leadership duo. Sidelined enough for her to refuse to take the AfD whip less than 24 hours after she got elected.
Her defection to be an independent was possibly expected, but there are suggestions in the German media that she may take others with her.
As for interest rates and mortgage rates - why would those renting care much about that. Of course it might just crash the housing market and give some of them an outside chance of borrowing 4 times their salary to buy a one bed flat in Dagenham. Perhaps that's why they care about Uber - because they are desperate to escape their awful rented dives and shared accommodation every chance they can get,
I am sure the older voter will be horrified. But as for the younger voters - why should they care if a system they no longer have a stake in takes a turn for the worse for the boomers.
Or to put it bluntly why would they not want to see the collapse of system they believe has essentially ruined their futures?
Whilst dealing with Brexit. It is a challenge, sure. But it is not insurmountable. I fear, however, that there will be a retreat to familiar tactics and themes at the Conference, next week.
Well halfway anyway. It was Kinnock who won it for the Tories.
However. in 1997, I reckon Kinnock, John Smith, Krusty the Clown or even Jeremy Corbyn could have won.
Conservative Party dysfunction (and the general idea it was time for a change). Blair just meant it was a huge defeat rather than a big one.
If you have no direct stake in a society - a secure job, a secure home you own and a chance to build a secure future for your future family - why would you vote Conservative for a promise of more of the same. The prospect you might inherit half a house from your parents when you reach your 60s seems a long way off when you are 25 or 30.
Firstly, a collapse would cut off the supply of new builds. In the long run, the price is a result of the supply of and the demand for housing. Cutting off long term supply will do nothing to make housing more affordable five years down the line.
Secondly, if houses prices came down sharply, it would result in many millions of people in negative equity. This reduces labour mobility (negatively impacting the economy as a whole), and means that those properties won't come on the market. People in negative equity - whether their house is too small or too large for them - will be unable to move.
Thirdly, if banks are suddenly under water on their property books, they'll tighten up lending standards. This means that credit to buy new homes is reduced. It's great that a flat is now available for £200,000 - but now the bank wants a 15% deposit, and a mortgage of no more than three times salary. (Sound ridiculous: in 1994, following the '89-'92 downturn had those kind of requirements.)
Tangentially, I'd also point out that falling house prices will inevitably mean a higher savings rate as people would no longer feel they could rely on the Bank of Bricks and Mortar. That would be incredibly painful for the economy.
I agree Smith would have won in 1997, even Kinnock but not on the scale Blair did. Only Blair could have won seats like Shrewsbury and Braintree (though it seems we even agree on that too)
Corbyn's policies will harm the young above all. A nationalised water company is of no comfort if you cannot find a job and have to pay more income tax even if you do. The biggest lie told by Labour at the last election was the claim that they could fund everything they wanted to do without raising taxes for anyone less than £85,000.
It is good, however,(given some of the stories downthread) that we can disagree so vehemently, without ever descending into personal animus.
Long may it continue!
Maybe that is the problem - the over 40s don't get it and don't get their anger with a system that has denied them the basics that their parents got. A secure job, an affordable home you could buy on an average wage, no student debt and decent parents.
No wonder they are buying into Corbyn - the Tories aren't offering them any hope at all.
Smith's seat tally would quite likely have included Shrewsbury, where the Tory vote in 92 was only 45% or so. And indeed it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that Corbyn might win it if he manages a majority when the Tories get kicked out in a year or two. Probably agree with you about Braintree, remarkable Labour ever won there.
However if they really want to complain a few years of a Corbyn government should see to that!
There were more secure jobs, but they weren't leader writer for the Guardian or top job at the Bank Of England.
They were rough, unpleasant jobs like coal mining or steelmaking. The people who did them have had hard lives.
There are still plenty of affordable homes, just not in the South East.
Shrewsbury and Atcham currently has a Tory majority of 6, 627, Blair won it in 1997 by 1,670. Braintree has a Tory majority of 18,422, Blair won it in 1997 by 1,451
Nothing "cheap" about it. And there was much more unemployment.
I get why my children are concerned about their futures. I am too. But Corbyn's policies won't help them. Ruining an economy harms the young and their hopes.
It is very easy to engineer a house price crash: take all the props away, the special exclusions, the subsidised housing, the help-to-buy, put interest rates up a little bit, and wait. The fact that it continually doesn't happen is testament to British government refusal to carry things thru to its logical conclusion: "kicking-the-can" is an English expression. But technically it's quite easy to do.
Aged 41 I'm on the borderline of this under/over 40s phenomenon and Brendan has a good point. And if I, a lifelong Tory voter whom Corbyn would describe as rich, feel that way, it's a poor state of affairs indeed for the Tories. Sure the millennials may well regret electing Corbyn soon after they've done so but that doesn't mean they won't do so in the first place. And lecturing them on how great their lot in life life is and that they should jolly well put up with it won't work and never has done in comparable campaigns; there's no gratitude in politics and never has been.
Those expecting the Leave voting oldies to come flocking back to the Tories after a lacklustre turnout in 2017 are also forgetting the fact that there is going to be either a massive Brexit divorce bill of at least £20bn (probably considerably more) or a falling off a cliff edge Brexit which wrecks the economy and public services for years. Pretty much a 100% likelihood that one of those two happens. And we're due a recession before the end of this parliament.
If you sincerely want to help people buy houses, stop with the help-to-buy demand-side gubbins and use supply-side measures like lowering tax on building firms. But if you want to look like a Big Man and keep spending other people's money, knock yourself out.
In July this year, the average price of a property - including flats - was £225K and a good graduate starting salary is 25-30K.
I take your point, but to quote rates without quoting prices is insufficient
(for the avoidance of doubt, the mortgage rate today is around 3.75% - it isn't the base rate)
"...Young people in Britain are spending three times more on housing than their grandparents did, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank.They also have to cope with less space and longer commutes to get to work..."
Let's rewind there.
House repossessions and subsequent auctions are *not* a consequence of the difference between house prices past and present. They are a consequence of people losing their jobs and being unable to afford their mortgages. Now, in the event there is substantial equity, lenders are quite willing to show patience. But if there is not, they want the house sold.
In the event of a house price crash, but where unemployment remained low, (perhaps caused by a sharp decline in immigration) then the most visible consequence would be an extremely illiquid housing market.
In real terms, 10% inflation, 12% mortgage rates means that the real value of your outstanding mortgage loan is declining by 10% a year.
As you say, houses were not cheap when you had to (effectively) pay off 10% of them in a year.
- the Employer's NI contribution is not payable by the Employee and ,therefore, will not arise as far as wage earners and salaried staff are concerned. It is a charge paid by the Company or other business form.
- the National Enterprise Board was initially established with a view to extending public ownership in industry. Gradually its function did change and the focus increasingly directed to providing funds for investment.It was fairly similar in purpose to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation set up under the 1964 - 70 Government.
- I do not read Ed Miliband's comment as you describe it at all.I believe he is suggesting that there be an automatic right to Trade Union membership - not that such membership should become compulsory.
- as for my final comment , there is nothing vile at pointing out that there are individuals within Tory ranks who would happily take profits from slave labour regardless of the resultant human suffering - and who would not object to the return of near Dickensian Workhouse conditions. I have encountered such people on the BBC's website - if not on here! All parties have nasty characters lurking within their organisations . The Tories have form on this extending back to pro-Nazi sympathisers in the 1930s - highlighted by the Scottish Tory MP - Archibald Ramsay - being locked up in World War 2. Labour has had its own monsters - Robert Maxwell comes to mind - but to deny the existence of these people frankly does you no credit.
Single Person A, homeowner, no savings, took out a mortgage and has £20k equity - gets universal credit and mortgage interest paid by government.
Single Person B, private renting, £20k savings in a lifetime isa - gets no universal credit, depletes savings and pays a 6.25% penalty.
For a party which is so quick to call everyone else Nazis or Fascists, it is curiously - and depressingly - blind to the extent it adopts Nazi tropes as its own while still - absurdly IMO - purporting to claim the moral high ground.
I don't know v), and would be guessing on iii) and iv)
For vii) do you not have to give a reason? And is it local council you contact?
(i) The unemployment rate in the UK is currently less than 5%; (ii) The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for setting interest rates in the UK; (iii) In 2016 over 500,000 immigrants came to the UK from the European Union; (iv) In the UK, anyone who earns less than £11,500 pays no income tax; (v) The UK is legally required to leave the European Union by March 2019; (vi) The minimum voting age for UK general elections is now 16 years of age; (vii) Any registered voter can obtain a postal vote for a general election by contacting their local council and asking for one; (viii) The UK currently spends just over one per cent of its gross national income on oveRseas aid.
You can register to vote if you are:
16 years old or over (but you cannot vote until you are 18 years old)
http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/register/
There are other false statements in there as well.
It is only when people take more of an interest during an election campaign, and see the protagonists for themselves, that they become better informed. If the reality doesn't match the narrative, the switch in opinion can be dramatic.
I suspect that Mrs May was prevented from making public appearances to preserve the "strong and stable" narrative.
The solution to better informed voters is unedited televised debates, rallies and town hall meetings so people can see the candidates for themselves rather than relying on the tabloids and social media.
That's what happens in the US.
As for Brexit we now have a transition period until 2021 and may have a general election before then.