The tories need to apologize to this chap and beg him to come back on board.
What is he suggesting we do about it?
The big, unacknowledged, problem is that we're addicted to the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
Let's say we increase supply through more building, lower demand by cutting immigration, and therefore reduce the price of housing by 30%. This makes it much easier for millennials to end up home owners, which is good.
But it also results in dramatically lower labour mobility, as people with negative equity can no longer move house. It also means that people up their savings rate to compensate for no longer having as much equity in their home. This would result in a significant reduction in the level of aggregate demand, likely tipping the economy into recession.
Gordon Brown and George Osborne made a terrible mess of the UK economy. It will likely take another decade, and a Chancellor of the caliber of Howe, Lawson or Clarke, to turn it back around.
Agree entirely. The other issue is that demand for housing is closely correlated with supply and demand of mortgage finance. As soon as house prices start to fall banks will want higher deposits which will cause further price falls as demand dries up. It could take a fair few years for that situation to normalise, during and after which time, as you say, there will be huge problems of negative equity - as was seen in the early 1990s.
It's a very good point: falling house prices means lower mortgage availability, and higher net interest margins.
I always wonder if those wishing house prices to fall have factored in mortgage offers being 80% LTV rather than 95%. For a first time buyer, the issues around finance are much more important than issues around the actual price of the property.
Isn't that attitude typical of what is wrong. That what really matters is whether you are able to buy not how much debt you are taking on?
No. It depends upon both how much you can buy and how much you can pay.
I'd rather buy a house for say 200k at 3% interest than 100k at 15% interest. The money I'm losing is the interest.
The dire situation today's FTB'ers could be facing is signing up for the first situation and a couple of years later finding themselves dealing with the second situation.
£100k negative equity + high interest rates.
What the economy really needs is wage rises to square the circle.
Labour needs to organise. To reunionise and get back into power.
No. It depends upon both how much you can buy and how much you can pay.
I'd rather buy a house for say 200k at 3% interest than 100k at 15% interest. The money I'm losing is the interest.
And that would be a big financial mistake. With a smaller mortgage and higher rates, overpayments eat into the capital much faster and you can more easily pay off your mortgage early.
With your example, if you assume you have a deposit of 40k (20% of the £200k example), your monthly repayments will be around £760 in both cases, but a monthly overpayment of just £40 will see you pay off your mortgage 6 years earlier in the second example. (And that's before you've taken into account the risk of movements in interest rates which are much more likely to be in your favour if you're starting from a historically high level.)
The next time England tour Australia, I think the squad should be chosen by randomly selecting 11 people from the top 100 players in the country. The current method doesn't seem to be working particularly well.
The next time England tour Australia, I think the squad should be chosen by randomly selecting 11 people from the top 100 players in the country. The current method doesn't seem to be working particularly well.
Or they could randomly pick 11 people from the country....
The next time England tour Australia, I think the squad should be chosen by randomly selecting 11 people from the top 100 players in the country. The current method doesn't seem to be working particularly well.
Or they could randomly pick 11 people from the country....
Good idea, I've always wanted to play for England, lol.
Rather surprised to see in a BBC prediction of European politics for 2018 the reporter to comment thusly, in relation to Macron in comparison to other hyped leaders:
In 2018, I'm interested to see if Mr Macron - dubbed "the emperor" by some - lives up to the hype at home and abroad.
Or will this be a case - rather like Barack Obama who famously received a Nobel Peace Prize before he really achieved anything - of peaking too early?
The next time England tour Australia, I think the squad should be chosen by randomly selecting 11 people from the top 100 players in the country. The current method doesn't seem to be working particularly well.
Or they could randomly pick 11 people from the country....
Good idea, I've always wanted to play for England, lol.
You’d probably have done better than some of the players we did pick.
The next time England tour Australia, I think the squad should be chosen by randomly selecting 11 people from the top 100 players in the country. The current method doesn't seem to be working particularly well.
Or they could randomly pick 11 people from the country....
Good idea, I've always wanted to play for England, lol.
You’d probably have done better than some of the players we did pick.
I reckon the 14 year old me would have taken more wickets than Moeen has given the same number of overs.
I think a lot of Remainers (and sorry Leavers) think Brexit is now inevitable and are resigned to it. "Let's move on" or "Let's go for a soft Brexit". And that, of course, is how passionate Leavers want Brexit to seem - inevitable.
But if it ceases to seem inevitable for any reason, there will be a tipping point and sentiment could quickly change. Catalysts could be a big fallout in the Cabinet, or a major blockage by the HoL, or an intervention by Macron (please stay), or serious FTA problems.
I'm struggling to see how a speech by Macron could decisively change sentiment in this country.
I've said (for months) the only thing that could is the EU offering a new deal for the UK to Remain, but they're too short-sighted to see it.
This polling is a helpful reminder that most Remainers are not the spiteful types that think anyone that disagrees with them is a racist yokel.
The sneering metropolitan elite - which includes Adonis: speaking on behalf of the 16%. But as in their minds, they're the only ones who count, 16 is greater than 84.
They may be 16% (or up to 20%) but they are amongst the wealthiest, best connected and most influential in the country, with lots of friends and sympathisers in Government, big business, trade associations in the capital, and in the media and arts.
Rather surprised to see in a BBC prediction of European politics for 2018 the reporter to comment thusly, in relation to Macron in comparison to other hyped leaders:
In 2018, I'm interested to see if Mr Macron - dubbed "the emperor" by some - lives up to the hype at home and abroad.
Or will this be a case - rather like Barack Obama who famously received a Nobel Peace Prize before he really achieved anything - of peaking too early?
I think a lot of Remainers (and sorry Leavers) think Brexit is now inevitable and are resigned to it. "Let's move on" or "Let's go for a soft Brexit". And that, of course, is how passionate Leavers want Brexit to seem - inevitable.
But if it ceases to seem inevitable for any reason, there will be a tipping point and sentiment could quickly change. Catalysts could be a big fallout in the Cabinet, or a major blockage by the HoL, or an intervention by Macron (please stay), or serious FTA problems.
Even if support among Remainers doubled, you would still only have 40% of the population, when realistically you need 65%+ for politicians to be willing to overturn the result, or even run another referendum. Cabinet ministers or unelected Lords blocking it would likely be seen badly by the public, and I doubt FTA negotiation details are the sort of thing that preoccupy the British public too much.
The bump in Brexit support after the interim deal actually suggests there is a bigger latent majority for Brexit, which is held down by them thinking the negotiations are being screwed up.
I think the numbers may shift, but only once the form of the final deal becomes clear, the economy seems largely unaffected (by which I mean ongoing growth) and the Government articulates new policies and policy options.
It's possible they stay locked in until GE2022, though, as opinions have become so entrenched.
But local elections are almost totally irrelevant to national politics, and have no bearing whatsoever on general elections.
Sadly that's probably true. In 1983, just a month before the general election, Labour won a big victory in Basildon in the local elections, and then at the general election they lost the seat.
This polling is a helpful reminder that most Remainers are not the spiteful types that think anyone that disagrees with them is a racist yokel.
The sneering metropolitan elite - which includes Adonis: speaking on behalf of the 16%. But as in their minds, they're the only ones who count, 16 is greater than 84.
They may be 16% (or up to 20%) but they are amongst the wealthiest, best connected and most influential in the country, with lots of friends and sympathisers in Government, big business, trade associations in the capital, and in the media and arts.
And they all hang out with each other almost exclusively, so they observe that 90% of the people (that they speak to) think Brexit is stupid and still don’t understand why they lost the referendum even 18 months later.
It seems that Adonis accepts that Brexit cannot be stopped or changed, and is preparing the ground for the longer struggle. Far from being a call to arms against Brexit, it could be that Adonis’s resignation marks the moment the ultra-Remainers admit defeat in this war and start to prepare to fight the next one.
It's not impossible that that happens, but a "rejoin" campaign would start from a position of full membership meaning applying to join a federal union, with adoption of the euro and Schengen required, amongst many others things, and all other UK opt-outs lost.
I think the greatest enemy of a rejoin campaign would be the arch-Remainers themselves. The likes of AC Grayling, Jo Maugham and Alastair Campbell would think they'd made their point and revert to UK politics c.2000-2002, and, in so doing, massively overplay their hand.
This polling is a helpful reminder that most Remainers are not the spiteful types that think anyone that disagrees with them is a racist yokel.
The sneering metropolitan elite - which includes Adonis: speaking on behalf of the 16%. But as in their minds, they're the only ones who count, 16 is greater than 84.
They may be 16% (or up to 20%) but they are amongst the wealthiest, best connected and most influential in the country, with lots of friends and sympathisers in Government, big business, trade associations in the capital, and in the media and arts.
You've just described those who have no experience of being losers.
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
The tories need to apologize to this chap and beg him to come back on board.
What is he suggesting we do about it?
The big, unacknowledged, problem is that we're addicted to the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
Let's say we increase supply through more building, lower demand by cutting immigration, and therefore reduce the price of housing by 30%. This makes it much easier for millennials to end up home owners, which is good.
But it also results in dramatically lower labour mobility, as people with negative equity can no longer move house. It also means that people up their savings rate to compensate for no longer having as much equity in their home. This would result in a significant reduction in the level of aggregate demand, likely tipping the economy into recession.
Gordon Brown and George Osborne made a terrible mess of the UK economy. It will likely take another decade, and a Chancellor of the caliber of Howe, Lawson or Clarke, to turn it back around.
Agree entirely. The other issue is that demand for housing is closely correlated with supply and demand of mortgage finance. As soon as house prices start to fall banks will want higher deposits which will cause further price falls as demand dries up. It could take a fair few years for that situation to normalise, during and after which time, as you say, there will be huge problems of negative equity - as was seen in the early 1990s.
Brits love to think they're doomed.
Of course, we'll face some big challenges. But, overall, I'm not worried: there's very few places (if any) I'd rather live.
This polling is a helpful reminder that most Remainers are not the spiteful types that think anyone that disagrees with them is a racist yokel.
The sneering metropolitan elite - which includes Adonis: speaking on behalf of the 16%. But as in their minds, they're the only ones who count, 16 is greater than 84.
They may be 16% (or up to 20%) but they are amongst the wealthiest, best connected and most influential in the country, with lots of friends and sympathisers in Government, big business, trade associations in the capital, and in the media and arts.
You've just described those who have no experience of being losers.
And boy, does it show....
What's interesting is that that group, which is very London dominant, probably up until the 1990s, would historically have split between the Conservatives (Big Bang/privatisation/capitalist) and Labour (Hampstead/Islington/Fabian), ensuring some sort of debate.
Now, it's cultural, political and economic interests are very much aligned.
The tories need to apologize to this chap and beg him to come back on board.
What is he suggesting we do about it?
The big, unacknowledged, problem is that we're addicted to the Bank of Bricks and Mortar.
Let's say we increase supply through more building, lower demand by cutting immigration, and therefore reduce the price of housing by 30%. This makes it much easier for millennials to end up home owners, which is good.
But it also results in dramatically lower labour mobility, as people with negative equity can no longer move house. It also means that people up their savings rate to compensate for no longer having as much equity in their home. This would result in a significant reduction in the level of aggregate demand, likely tipping the economy into recession.
Gordon Brown and George Osborne made a terrible mess of the UK economy. It will likely take another decade, and a Chancellor of the caliber of Howe, Lawson or Clarke, to turn it back around.
Agree entirely.
It's a very good point: falling house prices means lower mortgage availability, and higher net interest margins.
I always wonder if those wishing house prices to fall have factored in mortgage offers being 80% LTV rather than 95%. For a first time buyer, the issues around finance are much more important than issues around the actual price of the property.
Isn't that attitude typical of what is wrong. That what really matters is whether you are able to buy not how much debt you are taking on?
No. It depends upon both how much you can buy and how much you can pay.
I'd rather buy a house for say 200k at 3% interest than 100k at 15% interest. The money I'm losing is the interest.
The dire situation today's FTB'ers could be facing is signing up for the first situation and a couple of years later finding themselves dealing with the second situation.
£100k negative equity + high interest rates.
What the economy really needs is wage rises to square the circle.
Labour needs to organise. To reunionise and get back into power.
Yep. I can't wait for flying pickets, secondary strike actions, and the return of the closed shop.
It seems that Adonis accepts that Brexit cannot be stopped or changed, and is preparing the ground for the longer struggle. Far from being a call to arms against Brexit, it could be that Adonis’s resignation marks the moment the ultra-Remainers admit defeat in this war and start to prepare to fight the next one.
It's not impossible that that happens, but a "rejoin" campaign would start from a position of full membership meaning applying to join a federal union, with adoption of the euro and Schengen required, amongst many others things, and all other UK opt-outs lost.
I think the greatest enemy of a rejoin campaign would be the arch-Remainers themselves. The likes of AC Grayling, Jo Maugham and Alastair Campbell would think they'd made their point and revert to UK politics c.2000-2002, and, in so doing, massively overplay their hand.
And lose.
Adonis is also looking for a job in due course with Corbyn and so stands in the long tradition of "principled" new Labour politicians.
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
It basically says 'but don't worry about it, it won't happen in your lifetime'...
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
It basically says 'but don't worry about it, it won't happen in your lifetime'...
Quite so. It is an absolutely crap argument, and not just because it comes from the Daily Mail. I was there then and I am here now and I am not my children's children, I'm me.
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
I'm not sure an argument that it was all in the small print from the start, and more fool you for not reading it, is going to win many over to your side.
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
I'm not sure an argument that it was all in the small print from the start, and more fool you for not reading it, is going to win many over to your side.
Heath made the political case openly and unapologetically. It won then and will win again.
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
The bit which says "if and when our children or children's children want to join Europe into one integrated nation"?
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
It basically says 'but don't worry about it, it won't happen in your lifetime'...
The Ballot Paper referred to the Common Market, as did the official Government booklet sent out to every household, and both the PM and the Leader of the Opposition (one Margaret Thatcher) consistently referred to it as such.
Suggestions of full political union were either considered fanciful, and dismissed, or played down - as, indeed, they have been at each successive European treaty ever since.
I think Edward Heath both knew and supported the endgame, but most other British political leaders wouldn't have given it much more thought other than it was idealistic rhetoric grounded in the desire to avoid yet another terrible conflict within Europe, whilst at the same time keeping the Soviets without.
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
It basically says 'but don't worry about it, it won't happen in your lifetime'...
There should be a Godwins Law equivalent for mentions of the Daily Mail.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
Every single word is something I have argued at some point in the last 18 months particularly:
Political Union will not happen unless and until the nation states are all ready We should have the confidence of our own influence in the project It should probably not happen in my lifetime
All still bang on in 2017.
The trouble with Leavers was that they always seek to do Britain down when it comes to the influence she had within Europe and the EU.
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
http
Helpfully
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
I'm not sure an argument that it was all in the small print from the start, and more fool you for not reading it, is going to win many over to your side.
Heath made the political case openly and unapologetically. It won then and will win again.
Except it didn't win last year, did it? And you lost the vast majority of those voters you did win over at the time in the intervening 40 years.
You need to hang your hat on something a little more robust than false-consciousness of the electorate, or bravado.
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
It basically says 'but don't worry about it, it won't happen in your lifetime'...
There should be a Godwins Law equivalent for mentions of the Daily Mail.
Godwin had no mandate from the people to make a law. He must have been a EU commissioner.
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
It basically says 'but don't worry about it, it won't happen in your lifetime'...
There should be a Godwins Law equivalent for mentions of the Daily Mail.
Godwin had no mandate from the people to make a law. He must have been a EU commissioner.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
T had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
Every single word is something I have argued at some point in the last 18 months particularly:
Political Union will not happen unless and until the nation states are all ready We should have the confidence of our own influence in the project It should probably not happen in my lifetime
All still bang on in 2017.
The trouble with Leavers was that they always seek to do Britain down when it comes to the influence she had within Europe and the EU.
Who decides if all the nation states are ready? And what if they subsequently decide it was a mistake, and not for them?
One of the reasons I voted Leave was because the last Labour Government, preceded by the previous Conservative administration, both took it upon themselves to decide that for me without any further national consultation.
I didn't have any confidence that future Governments, particularly Labour Governments, wouldn't do the same again off the back of a 2016 mandate, notwithstanding the rather loosely worded European Union Act 2011. And, in any event, the Lisbon Treaty was sufficiently broad in scope and remit to give a lot of latitude to the CJEU and EU institutions to pursue further jurisprudence and integration without reference to either.
Heath made the political case openly and unapologetically. It won then and will win again.
Given that the PM, CotE, HS and FS and LOTO officially supported Yes, what is the justification for treating the recently ex LOTO as the mouthpiece of the Yes campaign? Is it because nobody higher up the batting order said what you want them to have said?
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
It basically says 'but don't worry about it, it won't happen in your lifetime'...
Noone should read the Daily Mail. Its a thoroughly nasty little paper, Little Englander mentality, pandering to peoples worst sentiments.
Every single word is something I have argued at some point in the last 18 months particularly:
Political Union will not happen unless and until the nation states are all ready We should have the confidence of our own influence in the project It should probably not happen in my lifetime
All still bang on in 2017.
The trouble with Leavers was that they always seek to do Britain down when it comes to the influence she had within Europe and the EU.
No it's not still bang on. The Euro changed things.
Every single word is something I have argued at some point in the last 18 months particularly:
Political Union will not happen unless and until the nation states are all ready We should have the confidence of our own influence in the project It should probably not happen in my lifetime
All still bang on in 2017.
The trouble with Leavers was that they always seek to do Britain down when it comes to the influence she had within Europe and the EU.
No it's not still bang on. The Euro changed things.
What did it change? No-one’s stopping us from joining.
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
They should have read the Daily Mail:
Indeed the Daily Mail (75 edition) was correct in saying that we weren't joining a political union and wouldn't until we were ready.
But an irreversible divergence occured after Maastricht. The Euro was the political union equivalent of a child playing hide and seek saying "ready or not, here I come".
Every single word is something I have argued at some point in the last 18 months particularly:
Political Union will not happen unless and until the nation states are all ready We should have the confidence of our own influence in the project It should probably not happen in my lifetime
All still bang on in 2017.
The trouble with Leavers was that they always seek to do Britain down when it comes to the influence she had within Europe and the EU.
No it's not still bang on. The Euro changed things.
What did it change? No-one’s stopping us from joining.
Just the voters.
That perennial fly in the ointment of the European Project. Ungrateful bastards. Can't they see how much effort the Eurocrats put into trying to save them the effort of actually voting?
Every single word is something I have argued at some point in the last 18 months particularly:
Political Union will not happen unless and until the nation states are all ready We should have the confidence of our own influence in the project It should probably not happen in my lifetime
All still bang on in 2017.
The trouble with Leavers was that they always seek to do Britain down when it comes to the influence she had within Europe and the EU.
No it's not still bang on. The Euro changed things.
What did it change? No-one’s stopping us from joining.
"Political union will not come unless and until we - and the French and the Germans - are ready for it. And we're nowhere near ready for it now, and a lot of us probably won't live to see it."
Your solution is to join the Euro but unless we're ready for political union that's the wrong move. Your own link says we're not ready for it and it won't happen until we are. That's what's changed.
You won’t draw him out of his EU Opus Dei sanctum to the god of one unaccountable government spanning from Kerry to Kiev. Thankfully he’s in there for the duration..
It seems that Adonis accepts that Brexit cannot be stopped or changed, and is preparing the ground for the longer struggle. Far from being a call to arms against Brexit, it could be that Adonis’s resignation marks the moment the ultra-Remainers admit defeat in this war and start to prepare to fight the next one.
It's not impossible that that happens, but a "rejoin" campaign would start from a position of full membership meaning applying to join a federal union, with adoption of the euro and Schengen required, amongst many others things, and all other UK opt-outs lost.
I think the greatest enemy of a rejoin campaign would be the arch-Remainers themselves. The likes of AC Grayling, Jo Maugham and Alastair Campbell would think they'd made their point and revert to UK politics c.2000-2002, and, in so doing, massively overplay their hand.
And lose.
Adonis is also looking for a job in due course with Corbyn and so stands in the long tradition of "principled" new Labour politicians.
Adonis is looking for a job from Corbyn?
The great philosopher John McEnroe had an apt phrase for that...
It seems that Adonis accepts that Brexit cannot be stopped or changed, and is preparing the ground for the longer struggle. Far from being a call to arms against Brexit, it could be that Adonis’s resignation marks the moment the ultra-Remainers admit defeat in this war and start to prepare to fight the next one.
It's not impossible that that happens, but a "rejoin" campaign would start from a position of full membership meaning applying to join a federal union, with adoption of the euro and Schengen required, amongst many others things, and all other UK opt-outs lost.
I think the greatest enemy of a rejoin campaign would be the arch-Remainers themselves. The likes of AC Grayling, Jo Maugham and Alastair Campbell would think they'd made their point and revert to UK politics c.2000-2002, and, in so doing, massively overplay their hand.
And lose.
Adonis is also looking for a job in due course with Corbyn and so stands in the long tradition of "principled" new Labour politicians.
Adonis is looking for a job from Corbyn?
The great philosopher John McEnroe had an apt phrase for that...
Labour will call for one, once the public wants one. And not before.
Maybe politicians should have courage of their convictions and try leading debates rather than merely responding to them. If nothing else, if they actually want to go down that path, relying on the public to get to that point without such leadership is very risky.
As are the LibDems.
If the public does turn against, the LDs deserve to be the ones who benefit, since they have been pretty clear where they stand (not entirely, there was confusion about remain/rejoin post referendum). But other factors in who benefits most in a two party system will always count against them there.
I'm always suspicious of polls quoted to prove a point where the full question and range of answers isn't stated. I suspect here that there were four or more options, with "2nd referendum" being at one extreme.
Helpfully 2nd vote / abandon Brexit entirely got about the same number of responses, so you can double the numbers if you want a full picture of "no Brexit"
Huh. Thought so.
Edit: some of the other results show a worryingly stark generational gap. Two nations, really.
It'll work itself out over time, I'm not worried.
Unless people's views change as they get older......
Those who are old now were young then.
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
You are calling them stupid? How elitist!
I was just, but only just, too young to vote in the last referendum. But I remember very well the debate. It was rather higher in standard than the latter one. Of course it was obvious we were joining a political project not just some common market arrangement.
Do you really find anything compelling in that speech? Apart from anything else, his main sound bite is completely ahistoric. Britain didn't exist as an independent state for a thousand years.
I can't believe you find the economic arguments relevant, and time has proven that his 'tests' for the kind of Europe he would wish to join have been met.
Rather surprised to see in a BBC prediction of European politics for 2018 the reporter to comment thusly, in relation to Macron in comparison to other hyped leaders:
In 2018, I'm interested to see if Mr Macron - dubbed "the emperor" by some - lives up to the hype at home and abroad.
Or will this be a case - rather like Barack Obama who famously received a Nobel Peace Prize before he really achieved anything - of peaking too early?
Gauke showed poor emotional intelligence in the charging phone lines to people on universal credit issue recently.Lidlington is older than May.Andrea Leadsom will have alienated lots of Tory MP`s during sexual harassment charges.Penny Mordaunt will have more appeal both to Brexiteers and the general public than Leadsom . Thinking outside the box if May were to change senior cabinet posts this year she might replace Davis with Steve Baker,Hammond with Greg Clark or Liz Truss ,Boris with Rory Stewart.
Comments
£100k negative equity + high interest rates.
What the economy really needs is wage rises to square the circle.
Labour needs to organise. To reunionise and get back into power.
With your example, if you assume you have a deposit of 40k (20% of the £200k example), your monthly repayments will be around £760 in both cases, but a monthly overpayment of just £40 will see you pay off your mortgage 6 years earlier in the second example. (And that's before you've taken into account the risk of movements in interest rates which are much more likely to be in your favour if you're starting from a historically high level.)
Or they could randomly pick 11 people from the country....
In 2018, I'm interested to see if Mr Macron - dubbed "the emperor" by some - lives up to the hype at home and abroad.
Or will this be a case - rather like Barack Obama who famously received a Nobel Peace Prize before he really achieved anything - of peaking too early?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42433669
I've said (for months) the only thing that could is the EU offering a new deal for the UK to Remain, but they're too short-sighted to see it.
It's possible they stay locked in until GE2022, though, as opinions have become so entrenched.
I think the greatest enemy of a rejoin campaign would be the arch-Remainers themselves. The likes of AC Grayling, Jo Maugham and Alastair Campbell would think they'd made their point and revert to UK politics c.2000-2002, and, in so doing, massively overplay their hand.
And lose.
And boy, does it show....
Most of those aged 18-34 who voted in the 1975, full of youthful optimism, voted to Leave in 2016.
They thought they were voting for a common market, but were had.
Of course, we'll face some big challenges. But, overall, I'm not worried: there's very few places (if any) I'd rather live.
Corbyn is just
not going to win despite his cult following with the young.
Now, it's cultural, political and economic interests are very much aligned.
Adonis is also looking for a job in due course with Corbyn and so stands in the long tradition of "principled" new Labour politicians.
Why were you lot so afraid to ask?
Suggestions of full political union were either considered fanciful, and dismissed, or played down - as, indeed, they have been at each successive European treaty ever since.
I think Edward Heath both knew and supported the endgame, but most other British political leaders wouldn't have given it much more thought other than it was idealistic rhetoric grounded in the desire to avoid yet another terrible conflict within Europe, whilst at the same time keeping the Soviets without.
To: RobD
Pay: £Billions (EU says)
For: Broken sarcasm meter
Political Union will not happen unless and until the nation states are all ready
We should have the confidence of our own influence in the project
It should probably not happen in my lifetime
All still bang on in 2017.
The trouble with Leavers was that they always seek to do Britain down when it comes to the influence she had within Europe and the EU.
You need to hang your hat on something a little more robust than false-consciousness of the electorate, or bravado.
One of the reasons I voted Leave was because the last Labour Government, preceded by the previous Conservative administration, both took it upon themselves to decide that for me without any further national consultation.
I didn't have any confidence that future Governments, particularly Labour Governments, wouldn't do the same again off the back of a 2016 mandate, notwithstanding the rather loosely worded European Union Act 2011. And, in any event, the Lisbon Treaty was sufficiently broad in scope and remit to give a lot of latitude to the CJEU and EU institutions to pursue further jurisprudence and integration without reference to either.
But an irreversible divergence occured after Maastricht. The Euro was the political union equivalent of a child playing hide and seek saying "ready or not, here I come".
That perennial fly in the ointment of the European Project. Ungrateful bastards. Can't they see how much effort the Eurocrats put into trying to save them the effort of actually voting?
Your solution is to join the Euro but unless we're ready for political union that's the wrong move. Your own link says we're not ready for it and it won't happen until we are. That's what's changed.
You won’t draw him out of his EU Opus Dei sanctum to the god of one unaccountable government spanning from Kerry to Kiev. Thankfully he’s in there for the duration..
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5239069/brexit-secretary-david-davis-britain-may-never-leave-the-eu/
The great philosopher John McEnroe had an apt phrase for that...
I was just, but only just, too young to vote in the last referendum. But I remember very well the debate. It was rather higher in standard than the latter one. Of course it was obvious we were joining a political project not just some common market arrangement.
I can't believe you find the economic arguments relevant, and time has proven that his 'tests' for the kind of Europe he would wish to join have been met.
New Thread
Thinking outside the box if May were to change senior cabinet posts this year she might replace Davis with Steve Baker,Hammond with Greg Clark or Liz Truss ,Boris with Rory Stewart.