"So the age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder"
Any thoughts on how changing the average ages of home ownership from around 30 to 40 might impact family life, our future demographics, our need for immigration in the future?
The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N. Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation. There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway.
I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to.
> @rkrkrk said: > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > > Mr. Kinabalu, definitions have been stretched and abused for a long time. > > > > > > Playing the race card over migration, or the UN wibbling about the UK's human rights record when decade-long squatters were finally forced out of Dale Farm, spring to mind. > > > > > > Mr. Divvie, that's utterly barbaric. > > > > > > I'd be wary of using single instances or small samples to label a whole group, though, unless you consider all the Irish to be represented by the IRA... > > > > I think in the light of this, Ballymurphy & Bloody Sunday we could probably attach some sort of label to 1 PARA. > > At least Mercer's honest enough to say people who are his mates shouldn't be prosecuted.
What I've often wondered in all this is what senior NCO's and junior officers were doing. If they knew, and didn't stop it, surely they were party to the dreadful behaviour. And if they didn't know, what sort of command system do we have in that branch of the Army?
> @OldKingCole said: > > @rkrkrk said: > > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > > > Mr. Kinabalu, definitions have been stretched and abused for a long time. > > > > > > > > Playing the race card over migration, or the UN wibbling about the UK's human rights record when decade-long squatters were finally forced out of Dale Farm, spring to mind. > > > > > > > > Mr. Divvie, that's utterly barbaric. > > > > > > > > I'd be wary of using single instances or small samples to label a whole group, though, unless you consider all the Irish to be represented by the IRA... > > > > > > I think in the light of this, Ballymurphy & Bloody Sunday we could probably attach some sort of label to 1 PARA. > > > > At least Mercer's honest enough to say people who are his mates shouldn't be prosecuted. > > What I've often wondered in all this is what senior NCO's and junior officers were doing. If they knew, and didn't stop it, surely they were party to the dreadful behaviour. And if they didn't know, what sort of command system do we have in that branch of the Army? >
I suppose all organizations have a tendency to protect their own. Also, it's not that surprising that commanders would take the word of their troops over the word of Catholics who didn't like them much.
> @another_richard said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @another_richard said: > > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > > @noneoftheabove said: > > > > > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > > > > @isam said: > > > > > > > > > > My twitter trends sum up ChangeUKs problem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe they will surprise us all at the Euro Elections, but right from the off I never really got how they were meant to appeal to the masses. They seemed like a bunch of upper middle class, dinner party guests who were mildly put out at the food on offer rather than genuinely fired up, passionate activists for social change > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CUK are not designed to appeal to the masses, much like En Marche they are designed to appeal to the liberal, metropolitan, pro EU and relaxed about immigration elite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why on ears. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And that's the LOL bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How many of those who regard themselves as sophisticated, cosmopolitan globalists are no better than wage slaves renting a room in a crime ridden shithole and having inequality rubbed continually in their faces ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Most of them earn signifio > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you could give some data as to how home ownership levels have changed since 2000. > > > > > > > > Home ownership levels seem to be on the rise again, now that private house building has surged. > > > > > > Which is a good thing but there's over a decade of 'catch up' required to get back to where we should be. > > > > > > Meanwhile we have to put up with Hyufd's panglossian view of housing and inheritance. > > > > It is not panglossian to point outnce tax cut. > > > > In 2015 the age at which most voters first voted Tory was 35, by 2017 it was 47. It was not housing which saw that 12 year rise in age of the average first time Tory voter in just 2 years but Brexit > > An inheritance when you are over 50 is not going to help you buy a house. > > Nor for that matter is the student debt the Conservatives have stuck on young graduates. > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48213333 As I have already told you once most people have already bought a property by 40 according to the ONS' very own figures, an inheritance at 50 simply expands their assets (though of course an inheritance of £500 000+ certainly would buy you a house even if only a minority get that much).
Student debt is a different matter and personally I support a graduate tax based on earnings (though you never repay anything unless you earn over £20k a year)
> A reasonable thing to do might be to look at which constituencies have the largest mean income (earned and unearned). There is data on the House of Commons website on this. > > They seem to be Kensington, City of London & Westminster, Westminster North, Wimbledon and Chelsea & Fulham. > > Seems a reasonable definition of a moneyed elite to me, and it seems to be ... err ... metropolitan. >
Sure. But let's be more specific, London, which dominates culturally, financially and politically in a way that is pernicious.
I was more talking about this idea that urban dwellers with liberal attitudes are some sort of social elite. I think that's bollox.
For me, the elite, wherever they live, are people with serious money and/or significant power over significant numbers of others.
And it can't - by definition - comprise more than a tiny fraction.
> @HYUFD said: > > @another_richard said: > > > > ' The chances of a young adult on a middle income owning a home in the UK have more than halved in the past two decades. > > > > New research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows how an explosion in house prices above income growth has increasingly robbed the younger generation of the ability to buy their own home. For 25- to 34-year-olds earning between £22,200 and £30,600 per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago. ' > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/16/homeownership-among-young-adults-collapsed-institute-fiscal-studies > > So the average age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder
So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates.
Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ?
> @OldKingCole said: > > @rkrkrk said: > > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > > > Mr. Kinabalu, definitions have been stretched and abused for a long time. > > > > > > > > Playing the race card over migration, or the UN wibbling about the UK's human rights record when decade-long squatters were finally forced out of Dale Farm, spring to mind. > > > > > > > > Mr. Divvie, that's utterly barbaric. > > > > > > > > I'd be wary of using single instances or small samples to label a whole group, though, unless you consider all the Irish to be represented by the IRA... > > > > > > I think in the light of this, Ballymurphy & Bloody Sunday we could probably attach some sort of label to 1 PARA. > > > > At least Mercer's honest enough to say people who are his mates shouldn't be prosecuted. > > What I've often wondered in all this is what senior NCO's and junior officers were doing. If they knew, and didn't stop it, surely they were party to the dreadful behaviour. And if they didn't know, what sort of command system do we have in that branch of the Army? >
People get pretty hard-hearted, in the face of huge levels of killing. And the level of killing in 1971-76 was huge.
F1: Vettel and Leclerc are 6.2 and 6.3 respectively to win qualifying (Betfair). Yes the Mercs are favourites, but it’s likely to be closer than those odds suggest.
Lewis half a second clear of everyone else in P3, but still asking on the radio where he can make improvements. Gotta love him.
> @noneoftheabove said: > "So the age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder" > > Any thoughts on how changing the average ages of home ownership from around 30 to 40 might impact family life, our future demographics, our need for immigration in the future?
Well given that the average age of first marriage is now 32.5 for men and 30.6 for women, an 8 year rise since 1973 and part of the problem of rising demand for housing comes from Blair's open door approach to immigration from around 2000 home ownership changes are a reflection of social changes and policy decisions not a cause of them
> @HYUFD said: > > @twistedfirestopper3 said: > > CUK don't offer anything change related. If you want bollocks to Brexit, far better to vote LD who are at least a real party. > > CUK's task this election is to at least not fall behind the Greens, then as is likely by this time next year it will be a choice of Corbyn v Boris or Raab they can position themselves for Remainers who want something more fiscally conservative than the LDs or Greens but who dislike a pro hard Brexit Tory Party and a Corbynista Labour Party
Fiscally cautious than the Lib Dems.... (I changed one word there, to make it more objective)..... It was the Lib Dems who were fiscally cautious in the Coalition years, and the Conservatives who were the spendthrifts, as they have been ever since they grabbed power to act alone. How much has this Brexit shambles of a vanity project cost us all?
> Of course there is a metropolitan elite. As there is a rural elite. It is the casual mixing of the words metropolitan and elite together to make the views of 8 million Londoners count for less that is dubious at best.
----
No, there is not a large rural elite.
Have you been to rural Wales? There isn't even a supermarket within 40 miles of my small town. When metropolitan Remain said, people would have to pay more for their food in supermarkets if they voted Leave, we laughed.
I honestly doubt -- when the North of England and Scotland and Wales are routinely ignored by a very London-centric media and political process, when public spending is so heavily skewed towards London -- that there are many people who would agree with you that "the views of 8 million Londoners count for less"
However, if Wales and Scotland get their independence, then I am fine with London going on its own & all 8 million Londoners can complain to each other about how ignored they are.
> @dixiedean said: > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N. > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation. > There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway.
That's a little unfair. Tusk has it right when he says that the UK didn't have a proper Brexit debate until after the referendum.
In fact now that a proper debate has been had, it would make perfect sense to have a referendum in which both sides, Remainers as much as Leavers, would be well aware of what they would be voting for.
I suspect it would still be close but there could be very little doubt now that we'd be voting with eyes open.
If Hamilton has half a second then it seems a bit tricky for anyone else to beat him. I'll check the odds in a bit, but I suspect I'll be sitting qualifying out.
> @OldKingCole said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > > Our brave lads. > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088 > > > > Nobody gives a toss about what may or may not have happened a long time ago in a far away place. > > What an absolutely appalling comment. Many of those involved are still alive, and one can totally understand their anger.
Its a realistic comment.
Few people are overly concerned about current scandals let alone those with a much greater time and distance away from them.
Plenty of people are making things in this country and that are also managing to follow the regulations, pay taxes and give their workers a decent wage rather than being dependent upon the exploitation of a state subsidised imported serf class.
Mr. Sandpit, going to have to break for food shortly, but at the moment I'm more inclined to back Bottas at those odds than anyone else, though I might just sit qualifying out.
> @another_richard said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > ' The chances of a young adult on a middle income owning a home in the UK have more than halved in the past two decades. > > > > > > New research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows how an explosion in house prices above income growth has increasingly robbed the younger generation of the ability to buy their own home. For 25- to 34-year-olds earning between £22,200 and £30,600 per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago. ' > > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/16/homeownership-among-young-adults-collapsed-institute-fiscal-studies > > > > So the average age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder > > So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates. > > Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ? I have told you once and will have to tell you again, the average age of a first time Tory voter was already 35 in 2015 but rose 12 years to 47 in 2017.
It was not lower levels of home ownership and higher debt amongst under 35s that led to the 12 year surge in the average age of a Tory voter in just 2 years given that most over 35s are on the housing ladder and fewer are graduates. No it was Brexit given Brexit led to more over 50s voting Tory but fewer under 50s in comparison to 2015.
According to Mori the Tories tied Labour with 35 to 44s in 2015 on 35% each, trailed Labour only 33% to 36% with 25 to 34s and only led amongst 55 to 64s 37% to 31% and amongst over 65s 47% to 23%.
> @another_richard said: > > @OldKingCole said: > > > @another_richard said: > > > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > > > Our brave lads. > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088 > > > > > > Nobody gives a toss about what may or may not have happened a long time ago in a far away place. > > > > What an absolutely appalling comment. Many of those involved are still alive, and one can totally understand their anger. > > Its a realistic comment. > > Few people are overly concerned about current scandals let alone those with a much greater time and distance away from them.
The relatives of someone whose skull was used as an ashtray are absolutely entitled to livid about it.
The overall problem is that a hierarchy of victims of the Troubles has been created. Some people get enquiries and investigations into the deaths of relatives; most people get told to put up and shut up.
> @kinabalu said: > Sure. But let's be more specific, London, which dominates culturally, financially and politically in a way that is pernicious. > > I was more talking about this idea that urban dwellers with liberal attitudes are some sort of social elite. I think that's bollox. > > For me, the elite, wherever they live, are people with serious money and/or significant power over significant numbers of others. > > And it can't - by definition - comprise more than a tiny fraction.
---
Many of these things are very highly correlated.
Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically.
Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ?
The first makes the second.
The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin.
> @dixiedean said: > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
Tim Farron (then leader) did on TV the morning of the referendum results (technically not "Revoke" because the notification hadn't gone in yet, so it was just Remain then).
My understanding is that at least one of the other MPs (and remember there were only eight MPs at the time) said he would leave the party if Farron didn't back down to a referendum.
Party policy ever since has been set as being as pro-Remain as possible without provoking defections from MPs in Leave areas - and has not completely succeeded, in that they have lost one MP (Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne).
That answers why. Whether it was the right decision is another question.
> @Peter_the_Punter said: > > @dixiedean said: > > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N. > > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation. > > There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway. > > That's a little unfair. Tusk has it right when he says that the UK didn't have a proper Brexit debate until after the referendum. > > In fact now that a proper debate has been had, it would make perfect sense to have a referendum in which both sides, Remainers as much as Leavers, would be well aware of what they would be voting for. > > I suspect it would still be close but there could be very little doubt now that we'd be voting with eyes open.
I think its worse than that.
While after the Referendum PBers discussed the type of Brexit they wanted our politicians didn't.
Instead May made a choice and agreed a deal based on it.
And then, and only then, did our politicians start arguing about what sort of Brexit they wanted.
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. Kinabalu, definitions have been stretched and abused for a long time. > > Playing the race card over migration, or the UN wibbling about the UK's human rights record when decade-long squatters were finally forced out of Dale Farm, spring to mind.
The race card, yes, but remember that this is played in 2 very different ways.
(i) Alleging 'racism' where none exists. This is done in order to close down legitimate debate of the topic you are seeking to avoid addressing - e.g. immigration.
(ii) Alleging 'playing the race card' when genuine racism is called out. This is done in order to close down legitimate debate of one very specific topic you are seeking to avoid addressing - racism.
Not sure which is more prevalent. We would need to research it.
> @Peter_the_Punter said: > > @dixiedean said: > > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N. > > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation. > > There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway. > > That's a little unfair. Tusk has it right when he says that the UK didn't have a proper Brexit debate until after the referendum. > > In fact now that a proper debate has been had, it would make perfect sense to have a referendum in which both sides, Remainers as much as Leavers, would be well aware of what they would be voting for. > > I suspect it would still be close but there could be very little doubt now that we'd be voting with eyes open.
Was it unfair? It wasn't meant to be. And, on this point I agree strongly with Tusk. Everyone took a binary position, however marginal or nuanced, and the majority have spent 3 years arguing backwards to support their original choice. Ignoring and hand waving away contradictory or inconvenient evidence. Which has gradually been filtered down to Revoke and WTO as the two most popular options. Positions that were incredibly niche in the months after the vote. The contrast with the level of debate and knowledge in the Indyref is stark. But, of course, that wasn't driven by a timetable designed to give the Tories the best possible chance of winning a 2020 election.
> @HYUFD said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > > ' The chances of a young adult on a middle income owning a home in the UK have more than halved in the past two decades. > > > > > > > > New research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows how an explosion in house prices above income growth has increasingly robbed the younger generation of the ability to buy their own home. For 25- to 34-year-olds earning between £22,200 and £30,600 per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago. ' > > > > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/16/homeownership-among-young-adults-collapsed-institute-fiscal-studies > > > > > > So the average age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder > > > > So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates. > > > > Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ? > I have told you once and will have to tell you again, the average age of a first time Tory voter was 35 in 2015 but 47 in 2017. > > It was not lower levels of home ownership and higher debt amongst under 35s that led to the 12 year surge in the average age of a Tory voter in just 2 years given that most over 35s are on the housing ladder and fewer are graduates. No it was Brexit given Brexit led to more over 50s voting Tory but fewer under 50s in comparison to 2015. > > > According to Mori the Tories tied Labour with 35 to 44s in 2015 on 35% each, trailed Labour only 33% to 36% with 25 to 34s and only led amongst 55 to 64s 37% to 31% and amongst over 65s 47% to 23%. > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015 >
You're totally in denial about how damaging falling levels of home ownership and increasing levels of debt have been to the Conservatives.
The Conservatives were once the party of aspiration, now that aspiration seems to be limited to hoping for an inheritance when they are in their 50s.
> @HYUFD said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > > ' The chances of a young adult on a middle income owning a home in the UK have more than halved in the past two decades. > > > > > > > > New research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows how an explosion in house prices above income growth has increasingly robbed the younger generation of the ability to buy their own home. For 25- to 34-year-olds earning between £22,200 and £30,600 per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago. ' > > > > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/16/homeownership-among-young-adults-collapsed-institute-fiscal-studies > > > > > > So the average age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder > > > > So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates. > > > > Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ? > I have told you once and will have to tell you again, the average age of a first time Tory voter was already 35 in 2015 but rose 12 years to 47 in 2017. > > It was not lower levels of home ownership and higher debt amongst under 35s that led to the 12 year surge in the average age of a Tory voter in just 2 years given that most over 35s are on the housing ladder and fewer are graduates. No it was Brexit given Brexit led to more over 50s voting Tory but fewer under 50s in comparison to 2015. > > > According to Mori the Tories tied Labour with 35 to 44s in 2015 on 35% each, trailed Labour only 33% to 36% with 25 to 34s and only led amongst 55 to 64s 37% to 31% and amongst over 65s 47% to 23%. > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015 >
By 2017 however the Tories trailed Labour 33% to 49% with 35 to 44s and 27% to 56% with 25s to 34s.
However the Tories lead expanded to 51% to 34% with 55 to 64 year olds and 61% to 25% with over 65s
> @Recidivist said: > Our brave lads. > > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088 > > > > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time.
I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that?
> @Peter_the_Punter said: > > @dixiedean said: > > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N. > > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation. > > There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway. > > That's a little unfair. Tusk has it right when he says that the UK didn't have a proper Brexit debate until after the referendum. > > In fact now that a proper debate has been had, it would make perfect sense to have a referendum in which both sides, Remainers as much as Leavers, would be well aware of what they would be voting for. > > I suspect it would still be close but there could be very little doubt now that we'd be voting with eyes open.
Remain v Leave first question and if Leave wins Leave with a Withdrawal Agreement Deal v Leave with No Deal second question and if Leave with a Withdrawal Agreement Deal wins Leave with May's Deal as is or Leave with Single Market and/or Customs Union Deal third question.
> @another_richard said: > > @Peter_the_Punter said: > > > @dixiedean said: > > > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N. > > > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation. > > > There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway. > > > > That's a little unfair. Tusk has it right when he says that the UK didn't have a proper Brexit debate until after the referendum. > > > > In fact now that a proper debate has been had, it would make perfect sense to have a referendum in which both sides, Remainers as much as Leavers, would be well aware of what they would be voting for. > > > > I suspect it would still be close but there could be very little doubt now that we'd be voting with eyes open. > > I think its worse than that. > > While after the Referendum PBers discussed the type of Brexit they wanted our politicians didn't. > > Instead May made a choice and agreed a deal based on it. > > And then, and only then, did our politicians start arguing about what sort of Brexit they wanted.
Indeed. There is much truth in that. The inadequacies of our MPs across the board with a very few exceptions, has been laid bare.
> @another_richard said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @another_richard said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > > > > ' The chances of a young adult on a middle income owning a home in the UK have more than halved in the past two decades. > > > > > > > > > > New research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows how an explosion in house prices above income growth has increasingly robbed the younger generation of the ability to buy their own home. For 25- to 34-year-olds earning between £22,200 and £30,600 per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago. ' > > > > > > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/16/homeownership-among-young-adults-collapsed-institute-fiscal-studies > > > > > > > > So the average age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder > > > > > > So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates. > > > > > > Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ? > > I have told you once and will have to tell you again, the average age of a first time Tory voter was 35 in 2015 but 47 in 2017. > > > > It was not lower levels of home ownership and higher debt amongst under 35s that led to the 12 year surge in the average age of a Tory voter in just 2 years given that most over 35s are on the housing ladder and fewer are graduates. No it was Brexit given Brexit led to more over 50s voting Tory but fewer under 50s in comparison to 2015. > > > > > > According to Mori the Tories tied Labour with 35 to 44s in 2015 on 35% each, trailed Labour only 33% to 36% with 25 to 34s and only led amongst 55 to 64s 37% to 31% and amongst over 65s 47% to 23%. > > > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015 > > > > You're totally in denial about how damaging falling levels of home ownership and increasing levels of debt have been to the Conservatives. > > The Conservatives were once the party of aspiration, now that aspiration seems to be limited to hoping for an inheritance when they are in their 50s.
Absolutely! It is a bizarre way to run a socitey, we have forgotten how to make money for the country and are fighting over the family silver rather than working out how to be a 21st century economy.
A tip on the doorstep for HYUFD would be to focus on things the Tories have achieved like banning fees on rental contracts, the proposed changes to section 21 when people below 50 bring up housing, it is limited but they are steps in the right direction, and ones I would not particularly have expected from them given their voter base.
> @po8crg said: > > @dixiedean said: > > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? > > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation. > > Tim Farron (then leader) did on TV the morning of the referendum results (technically not "Revoke" because the notification hadn't gone in yet, so it was just Remain then). > > My understanding is that at least one of the other MPs (and remember there were only eight MPs at the time) said he would leave the party if Farron didn't back down to a referendum. > > Party policy ever since has been set as being as pro-Remain as possible without provoking defections from MPs in Leave areas - and has not completely succeeded, in that they have lost one MP (Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne). > > That answers why. Whether it was the right decision is another question.
Mmm. Short term decisions to prioritise Party unity at the expense of principles and strategy, has been a running theme...
> @justin124 said: > > @Recidivist said: > > Our brave lads. > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088 > > > > > > > > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time. > > I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that?
That would be fine if equal zeal were applied towards apprehending those on the other side of the conflict - but it won't be.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > > > > > > > > ' Th > > > > > > > > > > > > New research from ' > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/money/es > > > > > > > > > > So the > > > > > > > > So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates. > > > > > > > > Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ? > > > I have told you once and will have to tell you again, the average age of a first time Tory voter was 35 in 2015 but 47 in 2017. > > > > > > It was not lower levels of h. > > > > > > > > > According to Mori the Tories tied Labour with 35 to 44s in 2015 on 35% each, trailed Labour only 33% to 36% with 25 to 34s and only led amongst 55 to 64s 37% to 31% and amongst over 65s 47% to 23%. > > > > > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015 > > > > > > > You're totally in denial about how damaging falling levels of home ownership and increasing levels of debt have been to the Conservatives. > > > > The Conservatives were once the party of aspiration, now that aspiration seems to be limited to hoping for an inheritance when they are in their 50s. > > Absolutely! It is a bizarre way to run a socitey, we have forgotten how to make money for the country and are fighting over the family silver rather than working out how to be a 21st century economy. > > A tip on the doorstep for HYUFD would be to focus on things the Tories have achieved like banning fees on rental contracts, the proposed changes to section 21 when people below 50 bring up housing, it is limited but they are steps in the right direction, and ones I would not particularly have expected from them given their voter base.
I am not in denial at all, the Tories won an overall majority in 2015 despite most under 35s not being home owners and despite the levels of debt they face.
George Osborne's raising the inheritance tax threshold in 2015 certainly helped the Tories win an overall majority then in comparison to May's disastrous dementia tax plan in 2017 but again as I already pointed out according to the ONS most people own a home from the age of 35 to 44 ie well before 50 anyway and of course the Tories are also expanding house building too despite opposition from NIMBY LDs and Residents' Associations to help more young people get on the housing ladder (as well as the actions on things like banning fees for rental contracts and changes to s21 you point out and the abolition of stamp duty for first time buyers below £500k).
Hammond is also looking to slash the maximum level of student fees' payments from £9000 to £75000
> @dixiedean said: > > @po8crg said: > > > @dixiedean said: > > > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? > > > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation. > > > > Tim Farron (then leader) did on TV the morning of the referendum results (technically not "Revoke" because the notification hadn't gone in yet, so it was just Remain then). > > > > My understanding is that at least one of the other MPs (and remember there were only eight MPs at the time) said he would leave the party if Farron didn't back down to a referendum. > > > > Party policy ever since has been set as being as pro-Remain as possible without provoking defections from MPs in Leave areas - and has not completely succeeded, in that they have lost one MP (Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne). > > > > That answers why. Whether it was the right decision is another question. > > Mmm. Short term decisions to prioritise Party unity at the expense of principles and strategy, has been a running theme...
According to Wikipedia "Lloyd resigned the Liberal Democrat whip as his party's position on Brexit was inconsistent with his pledge to his constituency that he would "respect the result" of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016.[4] Lloyd now sits in the House of Commons as an Independent."
I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that?
It would have been better for everyone involved if the regiment had been disbanded after Bloody Sunday. However they are now untouchable while the memory of Goose Green, Wireless Ridge and Mount Longdon endure.
They haven't made a combat drop for 60+ years which begs the question as to why the Army needs them. Certainly no contemporaty politician is going to sign off on a non-spec ops mass parachute assault in the age of 24 hour news coverage and social media. If anything goes wrong on those type of ops everyone dies.
> @Sean_F said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @Recidivist said: > > > Our brave lads. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088 > > > > > > > > > > > > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time. > > > > I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that? > > That would be fine if equal zeal were applied towards apprehending those on the other side of the conflict - but it won't be.
I understand the point and we have been there before too. I am not aware of serious attempts being made to apprehend Allied troops for crimes commiteed in World War 2 - eg the shooting of captured German prisoners following the Normandy landings in 1944. Not very different to the murder of British and Canadian troops by the SS in France at the time of Dunkirk in 1940.
> @Blue_rog said: I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to.
For better or worse we're part of the UK state, and we should hold it to a higher standard than paramiltaries, terrorists, freedom fighters or whichever term you prefer. In fact a central factor of such conflicts is the state proclaiming its own legitimacy while refusing to accord legitimacy to the paramilitaries etc (though with occasional blind eyes turned to its own amateurs going off piste).
If you are going to set up a new party when there is one outstanding great issue in the country and you want to be clear why none of the other parties will do you have to explain not only what your Remain/Revoke policy is but why you are holding it. That Remain is the line of least resistance won't do. Do the TIGGERS want to remain because they want a European nation, do they think they can reform from within, and if so why have we failed so far, do they think it isn't a political union. Why is the Euro a good thing? If so why are we out of it? do they like the way the Greeks have been treated?.....and so on. I think they are messing us about, and themselves.
I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to.
Adams and the rest of the IRA didn’t want a truth and reconciliation commission as they had plenty of skeletons - including the paedophilia.
This is a phase of the conflict that is coming to an end as people die of old age. The reaction of both sides to the murder of the young journalist suggests support for gangsters hiding behind freedom fighter claims has past its sell by date.
> @another_richard said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > > Mr. Jonathan, the Lib Dems could fulfil that role, though. > > > > They can now, but back in February we were still wondering how long it would take them to throw off the taint of the Coalition years. > > > > As I said yesterday, the incompetence of TIG seems to have reminded a whole bunch of centrist voters that they would miss the Lib Dems if they went away, and convinced them that it's time to forgive them for tuition fees and all that. > > > > I don't think the timing of the Lib Dem resurgence is a coincidence. I don't think it would have happened if TIG hadn't happened. > > Yet the LibDems aren't doing any better than they were two years ago let alone the levels they reached regularly in the 1990s and 2000s. > > And I'm not sure the ever increasing number of graduates with huge debts will ever forgive the LibDems for their betrayal as they will continually be reminded of it with every payslip they receive.
I think that the LibDems should have fought harder against the tuition fees rise, bit it mustn't be forgotten that they didn't win the 2010 election and had to defer ti the tories on many issues. Also remember that Labour introduced tuition fees.
> @algarkirk said: > If you are going to set up a new party when there is one outstanding great issue in the country and you want to be clear why none of the other parties will do you have to explain not only what your Remain/Revoke policy is but why you are holding it. That Remain is the line of least resistance won't do. Do the TIGGERS want to remain because they want a European nation, do they think they can reform from within, and if so why have we failed so far, do they think it isn't a political union. Why is the Euro a good thing? If so why are we out of it? do they like the way the Greeks have been treated?.....and so on. I think they are messing us about, and themselves.
> @algarkirk said: > If you are going to set up a new party when there is one outstanding great issue in the country and you want to be clear why none of the other parties will do you have to explain not only what your Remain/Revoke policy is but why you are holding it. That Remain is the line of least resistance won't do. Do the TIGGERS want to remain because they want a European nation, do they think they can reform from within, and if so why have we failed so far, do they think it isn't a political union. Why is the Euro a good thing? If so why are we out of it? do they like the way the Greeks have been treated?.....and so on. I think they are messing us about, and themselves.
As @Alistair Meeks likes to say, when you're doing karaoke, you have to put your heart into it.
If you're campaigning to revoke, then you have to argue that the EU is God's gift to humanity.
> @TGOHF said: > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > > Our brave lads. > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088 > > > > > > I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to. > > Adams and the rest of the IRA didn’t want a truth and reconciliation commission as they had plenty of skeletons - including the paedophilia. > > This is a phase of the conflict that is coming to an end as people die of old age. The reaction of both sides to the murder of the young journalist suggests support for gangsters hiding behind freedom fighter claims has past its sell by date.
Lyra McKee's murderer will probably be a local councillor, ten years from now.
"the abolition of stamp duty for first time buyers below £500k"
If they look clued up do not mention the abolition of stamp duty is as despite how it initially looks this is a transfer of wealth to property owners rather than 1st time buyers (through market forces leaving net prices the same but it all going to home owners rather than a mix of homeowner + tax payer).
> I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to.
>
> Adams and the rest of the IRA didn’t want a truth and reconciliation commission as they had plenty of skeletons - including the paedophilia.
>
> This is a phase of the conflict that is coming to an end as people die of old age. The reaction of both sides to the murder of the young journalist suggests support for gangsters hiding behind freedom fighter claims has past its sell by date.
Lyra McKee's murderer will probably be a local councillor, ten years from now.
> Many of these things are very highly correlated. > > Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically. > > Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ? > > The first makes the second. > > The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin.
Of course. When you haven't eaten for a week you won't be fretting about LGBT rights, even if you are Owen Jones. Get back to that, having scavenged something digestible.
Marx would no doubt make that point to Owen now, if he could.
But where I think you and I might be at odds is that (with the above caveat in place) I do not consider liberal attitudes to be a 'luxury' which come with wealth. Bit of that, yes I get the idea, but on the whole no, that is a little too baleful for my taste.
Liberal attitudes - a.k.a. 'live and let live' - come quite naturally to a human being, IMO, but they can be bigoted out quite easily too. That is how I would put it.
A person who has successfully resisted that bigoting out process to stay as liberal as they were as a newborn, regardless of where they live or how much money they have, should be celebrated not tagged as 'elite'.
And, OK, your point, such a person who is broke and lives in Blackpool should probably be MORE celebrated than one who is wealthy and lives in Blackheath.
Bit like BBB at the local comp trumps AAA at the posh private.
Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
To constantly claim that a second vote was needed because the facts have changed in relation to a referendum, and then refuse to have one for your own constituents was hypocrisy on stilts.
Ex-Labour turncoats collaborating with ex-Tory turncoats was also a recipe for disaster as the voters of both major parties would frown upon them.
I'd be surprised if more than the odd one or two survived a byelection now. They really needed to have the gumption to fight them en masse and straight away, but I suspect they knew defeat would be the outcome.
How big is the UK wide pool of uber-remainers that are simultaneously and strongly committed to the EU and UK?
20%? That's a small pool to fish in with the Lib Dems and Greens.
Labour are out-polling that on a promise to leave.
> @logical_song said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > > > Mr. Jonathan, the Lib Dems could fulfil that role, though. > > > > > > They can now, but back in February we were still wondering how long it would take them to throw off the taint of the Coalition years. > > > > > > As I said yesterday, the incompetence of TIG seems to have reminded a whole bunch of centrist voters that they would miss the Lib Dems if they went away, and convinced them that it's time to forgive them for tuition fees and all that. > > > > > > I don't think the timing of the Lib Dem resurgence is a coincidence. I don't think it would have happened if TIG hadn't happened. > > > > Yet the LibDems aren't doing any better than they were two years ago let alone the levels they reached regularly in the 1990s and 2000s. > > > > And I'm not sure the ever increasing number of graduates with huge debts will ever forgive the LibDems for their betrayal as they will continually be reminded of it with every payslip they receive. > > I think that the LibDems should have fought harder against the tuition fees rise, bit it mustn't be forgotten that they didn't win the 2010 election and had to defer ti the tories on many issues. Also remember that Labour introduced tuition fees.
There's plenty of blame to go around re tuition fees.
But it was the LibDems who made opposition to them the cornerstone of their campaign and then allowed the increase when they were in a position to block it.
> @kinabalu said: > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > Many of these things are very highly correlated. > > > > Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically. > > > > Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ? > > > > The first makes the second. > > > > The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin. > > Of course. When you haven't eaten for a week you won't be fretting about LGBT rights, even if you are Owen Jones. Get back to that, having scavenged something digestible. > > Marx would no doubt make that point to Owen now, if he could. > > But where I think you and I might be at odds is that (with the above caveat in place) I do not consider liberal attitudes to be a 'luxury' which come with wealth. Bit of that, yes I get the idea, but on the whole no, that is a little too baleful for my taste. > > Liberal attitudes - a.k.a. 'live and let live' - come quite naturally to a human being, IMO, but they can be bigoted out quite easily too. That is how I would put it. > > A person who has successfully resisted that bigoting out process to stay as liberal as they were as a newborn, regardless of where they live or how much money they have, should be celebrated not tagged as 'elite'. > > And, OK, your point, such a person who is broke and lives in Blackpool should probably be MORE celebrated than one who is wealthy and lives in Blackheath. > > Bit like BBB at the local comp trumps AAA at the posh private. > > Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
I don't see why being socially liberal and sleeping around and taking recreational drugs makes you more worthy of merit than someone more socially conservative who volunteers at a foodbank for example. Being socially liberal is a political viewpoint and perhaps a symbol of tolerance but it is not a badge of honour
> @Sean_F said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @Recidivist said: > > > Our brave lads. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088 > > > > > > > > > > > > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time. > > > > I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that? > > That would be fine if equal zeal were applied towards apprehending those on the other side of the conflict - but it won't
How many British soldiers have gone to prison vs how many unionists and loyalists have gone to prison (often without a trial)?
> @kinabalu said: > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > Many of these things are very highly correlated. > > > > Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically. > > > > Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ? > > > > The first makes the second. > > > > The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin. > > Of course. When you haven't eaten for a week you won't be fretting about LGBT rights, even if you are Owen Jones. Get back to that, having scavenged something digestible. > > Marx would no doubt make that point to Owen now, if he could. > > But where I think you and I might be at odds is that (with the above caveat in place) I do not consider liberal attitudes to be a 'luxury' which come with wealth. Bit of that, yes I get the idea, but on the whole no, that is a little too baleful for my taste. > > Liberal attitudes - a.k.a. 'live and let live' - come quite naturally to a human being, IMO, but they can be bigoted out quite easily too. That is how I would put it. > > A person who has successfully resisted that bigoting out process to stay as liberal as they were as a newborn, regardless of where they live or how much money they have, should be celebrated not tagged as 'elite'. > > And, OK, your point, such a person who is broke and lives in Blackpool should probably be MORE celebrated than one who is wealthy and lives in Blackheath. > > Bit like BBB at the local comp trumps AAA at the posh private. > > Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
I'd have thought the more natural course is to want to compel people ro live according to one's own standards. That is as common among self-declared social liberals as it is among self-declared social conservatives.
> @Theuniondivvie said: > > @Blue_rog said: > I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to. > > > > For better or worse we're part of the UK state, and we should hold it to a higher standard than paramiltaries, terrorists, freedom fighters or whichever term you prefer. In fact a central factor of such conflicts is the state proclaiming its own legitimacy while refusing to accord legitimacy to the paramilitaries etc (though with occasional blind eyes turned to its own amateurs going off piste).
Wrongdoing within state organisations, of which the military is one, has been a central theme of scandals in recent decades.
As in the consequent cover-up and mendacious "lessons have been learnt" if inconvenient stories ever arise.
> @logical_song said: > > @dixiedean said: > > > @po8crg said: > > > > @dixiedean said: > > > > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? > > > > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation. > > > > > > Tim Farron (then leader) did on TV the morning of the referendum results (technically not "Revoke" because the notification hadn't gone in yet, so it was just Remain then). > > > > > > My understanding is that at least one of the other MPs (and remember there were only eight MPs at the time) said he would leave the party if Farron didn't back down to a referendum. > > > > > > Party policy ever since has been set as being as pro-Remain as possible without provoking defections from MPs in Leave areas - and has not completely succeeded, in that they have lost one MP (Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne). > > > > > > That answers why. Whether it was the right decision is another question. > > > > Mmm. Short term decisions to prioritise Party unity at the expense of principles and strategy, has been a running theme... > > According to Wikipedia > "Lloyd resigned the Liberal Democrat whip as his party's position on Brexit was inconsistent with his pledge to his constituency that he would "respect the result" of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016.[4] Lloyd now sits in the House of Commons as an Independent."
So they lost him anyway. Wasted a couple of years trying to keep him on board, when they could have taken the hit immediately, and become the unequivocal voice of Remain /Revoke directly after the referendum. A clear, distinct USP is always an advantage,
> @rkrkrk said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @justin124 said: > > > > @Recidivist said: > > > > Our brave lads. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time. > > > > > > I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that? > > > > That would be fine if equal zeal were applied towards apprehending those on the other side of the conflict - but it won't > > How many British soldiers have gone to prison vs how many unionists and loyalists have gone to prison (often without a trial)?
Far more loyalists have gone to jail than British soldiers.
> @HYUFD said: > > @kinabalu said: > > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > > > Many of these things are very highly correlated. > > > > > > Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically. > > > > > > Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ? > > > > > > The first makes the second. > > > > > > The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin. > > > > Of course. When you haven't eaten for a week you won't be fretting about LGBT rights, even if you are Owen Jones. Get back to that, having scavenged something digestible. > > > > Marx would no doubt make that point to Owen now, if he could. > > > > But where I think you and I might be at odds is that (with the above caveat in place) I do not consider liberal attitudes to be a 'luxury' which come with wealth. Bit of that, yes I get the idea, but on the whole no, that is a little too baleful for my taste. > > > > Liberal attitudes - a.k.a. 'live and let live' - come quite naturally to a human being, IMO, but they can be bigoted out quite easily too. That is how I would put it. > > > > A person who has successfully resisted that bigoting out process to stay as liberal as they were as a newborn, regardless of where they live or how much money they have, should be celebrated not tagged as 'elite'. > > > > And, OK, your point, such a person who is broke and lives in Blackpool should probably be MORE celebrated than one who is wealthy and lives in Blackheath. > > > > Bit like BBB at the local comp trumps AAA at the posh private. > > > > Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money. > > I don't see why being socially liberal and sleeping around and taking recreational drugs makes you more worthy of merit than someone more socially conservative who volunteers at a foodbank for example. Being socially liberal is a political viewpoint and perhaps a symbol of tolerance but it is not a badge of honour
I'm quite sure being socially liberal encompasses slightly more than sleeping around and taking drugs. They are merely side benefits.
> @rkrkrk said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @justin124 said: > > > > @Recidivist said: > > > > Our brave lads. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time. > > > > > > I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that? > > > > That would be fine if equal zeal were applied towards apprehending those on the other side of the conflict - but it won't > > How many British soldiers have gone to prison vs how many unionists and loyalists have gone to prison (often without a trial)?
How many bombs were planted by British soldiers in Dublin ? How many Irish politicians and royals were murdered by the Paras ?
There is no equivalence between the sides. The British used espionage and dirty tricks to end the war which ultimately saved a lot of lives. Ulster is now a fair better place - raking over the past doesnt help. Prosperity will.
> Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
I'd agree with that. It was what I was trying to say.
There is a strong correlation between London's wealth & influence and the social liberalism of many of its citizenry.
Hence, the idea of a wealthy metropolitan elite, with a set of socially liberal values, is not without substance.
It is perhaps a slight exaggeration, a slight caricature -- but there is enough truth in it for it to be very effective weapon in the hands of Farage (notwithstanding the fact that Farage himself of course is a very wealthy man).
It also feeds into the neglect that many parts of the country rightly feel, and the resentment against an over-mighty London.
One of the things I look forward to at the next GE will be watching slaphead, Anna Strawberry and the rest of faceless wonders getting obliterated.
To split from your party on the grounds of wanting a second EU vote then deny a by-election (even UKIP held a by-election), to call yourself 'Change' but then try and preserve the current status quo, to criticise your former parties as incompetent or nasty then to arrogantly rebuff the LD and greens who offer collaboration.
I certainly can't remember such a terrible launch in my lifetime.
> @TGOHF said: > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > > Our brave lads. > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088 > > > > > > I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to. > > Adams and the rest of the IRA didn’t want a truth and reconciliation commission as they had plenty of skeletons - including the paedophilia. > > This is a phase of the conflict that is coming to an end as people die of old age. The reaction of both sides to the murder of the young journalist suggests support for gangsters hiding behind freedom fighter claims has past its sell by date.
One would like to hope so. But note that the killer of the journalist has yet to be found and no-one has dobbed that person into the authorities. So perhaps a bit premature to claim that those old attitudes have disappeared.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > Harsh but fair. They’ve been inexplicably useless. Any electoral success they get will be despite not because of what they have done. > > They should focus on their aims in this Parliament. They stand better chances of achieving them.
As I said a few weeks ago, they are a vanity project in search of a purpose.
> @YBarddCwsc said: > > @kinabalu said: > > > @noneoftheabove said: > > > > > Why on earth does living in a city make someone elite? Living in your rural country estate sending your children to Eton, (when not with their nanny) seems to be salt of the earth today, whereas renting a two bed shared ownership flat in Croydon counts as elite. What a strange change of meaning for the word elite over the last ten years. > > > > * > > > > I've noticed this too. > > > > 'Elite' has come to mean knowing what a cappuccino is and not being discombobulated by foreigners and tall buildings. > > A reasonable thing to do might be to look at which constituencies have the largest mean income (earned and unearned). There is data on the House of Commons website on this. > > They seem to be Kensington, City of London & Westminster, Westminster North, Wimbledon and Chelsea & Fulham. > > Seems a reasonable definition of a moneyed elite to me, and it seems to be ... err ... metropolitan. >
Old crimes should not go unpunished. Mercer is a spoilt twat.
Welsh poverty is a problem the Welsh themselves don’t appear able to recognise or deal with. Whining about flat whites from a dung hill in the valleys is not going to help.
Quantitative easing and Anglo-Saxon attitudes to property have priced out a generation from home ownership - the Tories were too slow to recognise this and are doomed long term.
> @YBarddCwsc said: > > @kinabalu said: > > > Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money. > > I'd agree with that. It was what I was trying to say. > > There is a strong correlation between London's wealth & influence and the social liberalism of many of its citizenry. > > Hence, the idea of a wealthy metropolitan elite, with a set of socially liberal values, is not without substance. > > It is perhaps a slight exaggeration, a slight caricature -- but there is enough truth in it for it to be very effective weapon in the hands of Farage (notwithstanding the fact that Farage himself of course is a very wealthy man). > > It also feeds into the neglect that many parts of the country rightly feel, and the resentment against an over-mighty London.
I think there is a need to separate London and Londoners. Yes UK policy has been too London centric in the last 30 years, but that has not been to the benefit of most Londoners.
It has undoubtedly helped many London based businesses, but has been to the detriment of London based teachers, nurses, police, civil servants or indeed cleaners or service sector workers. They have suffered from globalisation and the enrichment of the true global 1% elite as much as many people in post industrial small towns.
Suggesting that the views of those people are lumped in with the global elite and can be discounted simply because both tend to be socially liberal and live in a city is common place but clearly incorrect.
> I don't see why being socially liberal and sleeping around and taking recreational drugs makes you more worthy of merit than someone more socially conservative who volunteers at a foodbank for example. Being socially liberal is a political viewpoint and perhaps a symbol of tolerance but it is not a badge of honour
I'm saying that preserving the 'Live And Let Live' social liberalism that one is imbued with at birth, in the face of all the many and varied forces which can act to destroy it, is the achievement. Just that. It has nothing to do with being sexually generous or having a coke habit. Or with working for charity.
Consider the ideal template of the newborn. Archie, say. Right now he is pure live and let live. He is not prejudiced against muslims, or jews, or indeed anybody, whatever religion, whatever skin colour, male or female, young and old, it is all the same to Archie. He is the ultimate social liberal and hopefully he will stay that way. Having money will make it a smidge easier for him to do so - that is the point I happily incorporate from 'YBarddCwsc'.
And Archie does not sleep around or do drugs. His social liberalism does not require that.
> The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N.
> Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
> There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway.
That's a little unfair. Tusk has it right when he says that the UK didn't have a proper Brexit debate until after the referendum.
In fact now that a proper debate has been had, it would make perfect sense to have a referendum in which both sides, Remainers as much as Leavers, would be well aware of what they would be voting for.
I suspect it would still be close but there could be very little doubt now that we'd be voting with eyes open.
I don't think it's good for our society to say in effect "Remain deliberately ran a rubbish campaign, sure it could win on 'the man in Whitehall knows best', ignorance and project fear and then lost. Because they ran such a terrible campaign they should be allowed to do it again".
Better by far to focus on the fact that the day we leave the EU the referendum mandate has been discharged. It then becomes completely proper to campaign to change our minds - and because the leaving process will be long and difficult the rejoiners would have the wind behind them. It's a lot more than they deserve and they should settle for it.
> Welsh poverty is a problem the Welsh themselves don’t appear able to >recognise or deal with. Whining about flat whites from a dung hill in the valleys >is not going to help.
Ahh, the Cymrophobe returns, muttering about Welsh dung hills in the valleys. A nasty racist trope, if ever there was one.
Which Uk county was the richest in the nineteenth century?
Surrey, no? Middlesex, no?
It was Glamorgan.
What happened? What happened to all the mineral wealth of South Wales?
English colonialists took it. Much like what is happening now to Scotland's oil wealth.
Wales is a colonial country run for the benefit of the English. That is why it is poor.
I agree, mostly, with the lead. As a long time LibDem, I was very sympathetic to the launch of TIG and hoping it would usher in the long awaited chance to break the mould of Britain’s rotten political system.
I registered as a supporter, and during the early days received a series of email updates and links to online petitions they launched on a range of issues such as lifting the benefits freeze. So I don’t think point 4 in the lead is entirely fair.
Where they have gone wrong is in believing, as did the early days SDP in 1981, that as established politicians they could ignore the LibDems and overlook the harsh realities of their new future as another ‘third party’ in British politics. Almost all of their early media interviews - when they had the chance to establish a new narrative - were wasted by MPs such as Gapes, Leslie and Soubry explaining that they were still loyal to the values of their previous party. A huge missed opportunity to map out some brave new territory. And an obvious nonsense for both Gapes and Soubry to claim that their new ‘party’ represents the values they have always supported.
Point 6 I think is both unfair and unrealistic. Fighting local elections so soon after their launch would have been a huge distraction, and a waste of resources. They should, however, have provided sitting councillors with a way of signing up to the new movement. The number of councillor defections from Tory and Labour to ‘independent’ has been well above the normal handful since they launched, but none of these had the chance to sign up to the new party.
The hostile cold shoulder they gave to the LibDems illustrates an obliviousness to the realities of their new situation. For me, hearing that their lead candidate in the EU elections for my region is a recently expelled Tory MEP aged in his 70s, clearly simply wanting to retain his seat on the gravy train, was the final straw. How does offering up such a candidate represent any chance of ‘change’?
It is possible that the results of the Euro elections will force CUK to arrive at Reality Checkpoint, leading to some sort of understanding with the LibDems and eventually most of their less tribal MPs joining that party.
Alternatively, the progress (or otherwise) of Brexit will prompt a significant slice of either Labour or Tory MPs to break away and inject new life into TIG/CUK.
Otherwise, their destiny is to fade into obscurity having simply hindered the long-awaited opportunity to realign British politics.
> @another_richard said: > > @malcolmg said: > > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > > > > Our brave lads. > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088 > > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody gives a toss about what may or may not have happened a long time ago in a far away place. > > > > Clown > > Maybe so but I'm still right. > > The imagery of a b&w photo - it really is the dim and distant to people now.
Murder is never "dim and distant" to the relatives of those murdered.
Ask the families of those murdered at Srebenica, still searching for their loved ones bodies, for identification and a proper burial and finally given some sort of justice. Or the Yazidis or the many Iraqis and Syrians. Or the many other victims of murder by terrorists or state authorities.
There are very difficult questions to address when trying to bring vicious conflicts to an end. Blind eyes are turned to all sorts of reprehensible behaviour in the hope that this will help reconciliation. And this may be the only way to go if countries or provinces are ever to get past their history. But the past has a horrible way of slapping the present in the face if it is not addressed intelligently. The long history of Anglo-Irish relations should have taught this lesson, if nothing else.
Mercer may be of the army tribe. Soldiers deserve support given the difficult job they are sometimes asked to do. But they are are not excused from having a conscience or from being held responsible when they do wrong. Mercer showed poor judgment in coming across as seeming to want wholesale exoneration of soldiers just because they are soldiers. Perhaps he did not explain himself well. But saying this is my tribe and I must stand behind them, right or wrong, is the sort of attitude which can lead to bad behaviour happening and others turning a blind eye to it, precisely the sort of behaviour we don't want to have - in the army or anywhere else.
If those who behave badly get away with it, why should the good guys try to be good guys?
> > > > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time.
> > >
> > > I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that?
> >
> > That would be fine if equal zeal were applied towards apprehending those on the other side of the conflict - but it won't
>
> How many British soldiers have gone to prison vs how many unionists and loyalists have gone to prison (often without a trial)?
Far more loyalists have gone to jail than British soldiers.
British soldiers should only go to jail if they break the law. Most of them didn't and I'd hope none of them did. But the paras' behaviour on Bloody Sunday doesn't sound like it was legal - though as it's never been tested in a court of law there's no way of being sure.
> @Sean_F said: > > @kinabalu said: > > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > > > Many of these things are very highly correlated. > > > > > > Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically. > > > > > > Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ? > > > > > > The first makes the second. > > > > > > The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin. > > > > Of course. When you haven't eaten for a week you won't be fretting about LGBT rights, even if you are Owen Jones. Get back to that, having scavenged something digestible. > > > > Marx would no doubt make that point to Owen now, if he could. > > > > But where I think you and I might be at odds is that (with the above caveat in place) I do not consider liberal attitudes to be a 'luxury' which come with wealth. Bit of that, yes I get the idea, but on the whole no, that is a little too baleful for my taste. > > > > Liberal attitudes - a.k.a. 'live and let live' - come quite naturally to a human being, IMO, but they can be bigoted out quite easily too. That is how I would put it. > > > A person who has successfully resisted that bigoting out process to stay as liberal as they were as a newborn, regardless of where they live or how much money they have, should be celebrated not tagged as 'elite'. > > > > And, OK, your point, such a person who is broke and lives in Blackpool should probably be MORE celebrated than one who is wealthy and lives in Blackheath. > > > > Bit like BBB at the local comp trumps AAA at the posh private. > > > > Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money. > > I'd have thought the more natural course is to want to compel people ro live according to one's own standards. That is as common among self-declared social liberals as it is among self-declared social conservatives. > ______________________________________________________________________ John Stuart Mill, in "On Liberty" claimed that social tyranny could be worse than political tyranny.
He said "There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism".
Social liberals agree with Mill, even if they sometimes transgress. Social conservatives, especially if they claim to represent The People, do not agree with Mill that "we should live and let live". They use social coercion aka The Daily Mail.
Just read that Labour want to end the youth minimum wage. Truly an idiotic move. There's a huge incentive for employers to take on inexperienced young people at the moment and we've seen youth unemployment drop to around 10%.
If I ran a small business I would save up to £5k in a year from hiring someone aged between 18 and 24. It's a massive, massive incentive. Take that away and young people will be competing in a much tougher environment where people will already bring much more experience and be paid the same.
It's a rubbish policy that's going to hurt young people and increase youth unemployment.
> @Gardenwalker said: > Old crimes should not go unpunished. Mercer is a spoilt twat.
Obvious point so apols if already made by others, but to me Mercer's statement looked like a blatant piece of virtue signalling to the membership with an eye on career prospects.
> @YBarddCwsc said: > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > Welsh poverty is a problem the Welsh themselves don’t appear able to >recognise or deal with. Whining about flat whites from a dung hill in the valleys >is not going to help. > > > Ahh, the Cymrophobe returns, muttering about Welsh dung hills in the valleys. A nasty racist trope, if ever there was one. > > Which Uk county was the richest in the nineteenth century? > > Surrey, no? Middlesex, no? > > It was Glamorgan. > > What happened? What happened to all the mineral wealth of South Wales? > > English colonialists took it. Much like what is happening now to Scotland's oil wealth. > > Wales is a colonial country run for the benefit of the English. That is why it is poor.
Wales has its own Assembly, unlike England and while not rich is still richer than a few English regions like the North East
> Welsh poverty is a problem the Welsh themselves don’t appear able to >recognise or deal with. Whining about flat whites from a dung hill in the valleys >is not going to help.
Ahh, the Cymrophobe returns, muttering about Welsh dung hills in the valleys. A nasty racist trope, if ever there was one.
Which Uk county was the richest in the nineteenth century?
Surrey, no? Middlesex, no?
It was Glamorgan.
What happened? What happened to all the mineral wealth of South Wales?
English colonialists took it. Much like what is happening now to Scotland's oil wealth.
Wales is a colonial country run for the benefit of the English. That is why it is poor.
So should we open up the coal mines again? London’s taxes are paying for you to opine and wibble while offering no practical solutions to your own decrepitude.
> @Gardenwalker said: > Old crimes should not go unpunished. Mercer is a spoilt twat. > > Welsh poverty is a problem the Welsh themselves don’t appear able to recognise or deal with. Whining about flat whites from a dung hill in the valleys is not going to help. > > Quantitative easing and Anglo-Saxon attitudes to property have priced out a generation from home ownership - the Tories were too slow to recognise this and are doomed long term. > > And the CUKs have ballsed up completely.
50 to 100 years ago most of the country rented and the Tories still won some elections even after the introduction of universal suffrage, home ownership boosts the Tory vote of course but the Tories can win without it. As I pointed out the Tories are now building more houses to help young people get on the ladder but still most over 35s are homeowners
"Better by far to focus on the fact that the day we leave the EU the referendum mandate has been discharged. It then becomes completely proper to campaign to change our minds -"
Spot on. It's also why the LDs struggled for traction with the immediate "We want another referendum because it's unfair we lost campaign."
I agree, mostly, with the lead. As a long time LibDem, I was very sympathetic to the launch of TIG and hoping it would usher in the long awaited chance to break the mould of Britain’s rotten political system.
I registered as a supporter, and during the early days received a series of email updates and links to online petitions they launched on a range of issues such as lifting the benefits freeze. So I don’t think point 4 in the lead is entirely fair.
Where they have gone wrong is in believing, as did the early days SDP in 1981, that as established politicians they could ignore the LibDems and overlook the harsh realities of their new future as another ‘third party’ in British politics. Almost all of their early media interviews - when they had the chance to establish a new narrative - were wasted by MPs such as Gapes, Leslie and Soubry explaining that they were still loyal to the values of their previous party. A huge missed opportunity to map out some brave new territory. And an obvious nonsense for both Gapes and Soubry to claim that their new ‘party’ represents the values they have always supported.
Point 6 I think is both unfair and unrealistic. Fighting local elections so soon after their launch would have been a huge distraction, and a waste of resources. They should, however, have provided sitting councillors with a way of signing up to the new movement. The number of councillor defections from Tory and Labour to ‘independent’ has been well above the normal handful since they launched, but none of these had the chance to sign up to the new party.
The hostile cold shoulder they gave to the LibDems illustrates an obliviousness to the realities of their new situation. For me, hearing that their lead candidate in the EU elections for my region is a recently expelled Tory MEP aged in his 70s, clearly simply wanting to retain his seat on the gravy train, was the final straw. How does offering up such a candidate represent any chance of ‘change’?
It is possible that the results of the Euro elections will force CUK to arrive at Reality Checkpoint, leading to some sort of understanding with the LibDems and eventually most of their less tribal MPs joining that party.
Alternatively, the progress (or otherwise) of Brexit will prompt a significant slice of either Labour or Tory MPs to break away and inject new life into TIG/CUK.
Otherwise, their destiny is to fade into obscurity having simply hindered the long-awaited opportunity to realign British politics.
I started off, and indeed still am, sympathetic. But they have been far too cautious. Only boldness was ever going to work.
Even now they could mix things up. For example they could resign in a co-ordinated way so that there is a by election on Brexit every 6-8 weeks. That would at least keep them newsworthy.
> @HYUFD said: > > @Gardenwalker said: > > Old crimes should not go unpunished. Mercer is a spoilt twat. > > > > Welsh poverty is a problem the Welsh themselves don’t appear able to recognise or deal with. Whining about flat whites from a dung hill in the valleys is not going to help. > > > > Quantitative easing and Anglo-Saxon attitudes to property have priced out a generation from home ownership - the Tories were too slow to recognise this and are doomed long term. > > > > And the CUKs have ballsed up completely. > > 50 to 100 years ago most of the country rented and the Tories still won some elections even after the introduction of universal suffrage, home ownership boosts the Tory vote of course but the Tories can win without it. As I pointed out the Tories are now building more houses to help young people get on the ladder but still most over 35s are homeowners
Your blinkers are surely the biggest of any poster in here?
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > @kinabalu said: > > > > > Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money. > > > > I'd agree with that. It was what I was trying to say. > > > > There is a strong correlation between London's wealth & influence and the social liberalism of many of its citizenry. > > > > Hence, the idea of a wealthy metropolitan elite, with a set of socially liberal values, is not without substance. > > > > It is perhaps a slight exaggeration, a slight caricature -- but there is enough truth in it for it to be very effective weapon in the hands of Farage (notwithstanding the fact that Farage himself of course is a very wealthy man). > > > > It also feeds into the neglect that many parts of the country rightly feel, and the resentment against an over-mighty London. > > I think there is a need to separate London and Londoners. Yes UK policy has been too London centric in the last 30 years, but that has not been to the benefit of most Londoners. > > It has undoubtedly helped many London based businesses, but has been to the detriment of London based teachers, nurses, police, civil servants or indeed cleaners or service sector workers. They have suffered from globalisation and the enrichment of the true global 1% elite as much as many people in post industrial small towns. > > Suggesting that the views of those people are lumped in with the global elite and can be discounted simply because both tend to be socially liberal and live in a city is common place but clearly incorrect. >
London is now a global city competing with New York, Paris, LA and Singapore and Hong Kong and Tokyo for talent so inevitably rich people will live there.
That makes it an exciting city but expensive to live in, if you want somewhere cheaper and more affordable move somewhere else in the country
> Wales has its own Assembly, unlike England and while not rich is still richer than a few English regions like the North East
Wales is the poorest region in the UK, as measured by GDP per capita. It is nearly the poorest in the whole of Western Europe. . The political parties that run Wales (either from Cardiff or Westminster) have established a system that guarantees Welsh poverty.
Just read that Labour want to end the youth minimum wage. Truly an idiotic move. There's a huge incentive for employers to take on inexperienced young people at the moment and we've seen youth unemployment drop to around 10%.
If I ran a small business I would save up to £5k in a year from hiring someone aged between 18 and 24. It's a massive, massive incentive. Take that away and young people will be competing in a much tougher environment where people will already bring much more experience and be paid the same.
It's a rubbish policy that's going to hurt young people and increase youth unemployment.
Labour's policy of delisting companies that aren't doing enough to fight climate change strikes me as one of the dumbest things I have ever heard proposed. I can't see how it helps, as surely companies would simply move to a different stock exchange. Of course if you are some moonbat Marxist forcing companies to list overseas, and causing huge damage to the City, might sound like a good idea.
Comments
This is interesting on the below-the-radar aspect of social media.
Any thoughts on how changing the average ages of home ownership from around 30 to 40 might impact family life, our future demographics, our need for immigration in the future?
Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway.
> Our brave lads.
>
> https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to.
> > @Theuniondivvie said:
> > > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > > Mr. Kinabalu, definitions have been stretched and abused for a long time.
> > >
> > > Playing the race card over migration, or the UN wibbling about the UK's human rights record when decade-long squatters were finally forced out of Dale Farm, spring to mind.
> > >
> > > Mr. Divvie, that's utterly barbaric.
> > >
> > > I'd be wary of using single instances or small samples to label a whole group, though, unless you consider all the Irish to be represented by the IRA...
> >
> > I think in the light of this, Ballymurphy & Bloody Sunday we could probably attach some sort of label to 1 PARA.
>
> At least Mercer's honest enough to say people who are his mates shouldn't be prosecuted.
What I've often wondered in all this is what senior NCO's and junior officers were doing. If they knew, and didn't stop it, surely they were party to the dreadful behaviour. And if they didn't know, what sort of command system do we have in that branch of the Army?
> > @rkrkrk said:
> > > @Theuniondivvie said:
> > > > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > > > Mr. Kinabalu, definitions have been stretched and abused for a long time.
> > > >
> > > > Playing the race card over migration, or the UN wibbling about the UK's human rights record when decade-long squatters were finally forced out of Dale Farm, spring to mind.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Divvie, that's utterly barbaric.
> > > >
> > > > I'd be wary of using single instances or small samples to label a whole group, though, unless you consider all the Irish to be represented by the IRA...
> > >
> > > I think in the light of this, Ballymurphy & Bloody Sunday we could probably attach some sort of label to 1 PARA.
> >
> > At least Mercer's honest enough to say people who are his mates shouldn't be prosecuted.
>
> What I've often wondered in all this is what senior NCO's and junior officers were doing. If they knew, and didn't stop it, surely they were party to the dreadful behaviour. And if they didn't know, what sort of command system do we have in that branch of the Army?
>
I suppose all organizations have a tendency to protect their own. Also, it's not that surprising that commanders would take the word of their troops over the word of Catholics who didn't like them much.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @another_richard said:
> > > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > > > > @noneoftheabove said:
> > > > > > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > > > > > @isam said:
> > > > > > > > > > My twitter trends sum up ChangeUKs problem
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe they will surprise us all at the Euro Elections, but right from the off I never really got how they were meant to appeal to the masses. They seemed like a bunch of upper middle class, dinner party guests who were mildly put out at the food on offer rather than genuinely fired up, passionate activists for social change
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CUK are not designed to appeal to the masses, much like En Marche they are designed to appeal to the liberal, metropolitan, pro EU and relaxed about immigration elite.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why on ears.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And that's the LOL bit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How many of those who regard themselves as sophisticated, cosmopolitan globalists are no better than wage slaves renting a room in a crime ridden shithole and having inequality rubbed continually in their faces ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most of them earn signifio
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps you could give some data as to how home ownership levels have changed since 2000.
> > > >
> > > > Home ownership levels seem to be on the rise again, now that private house building has surged.
> > >
> > > Which is a good thing but there's over a decade of 'catch up' required to get back to where we should be.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile we have to put up with Hyufd's panglossian view of housing and inheritance.
> >
> > It is not panglossian to point outnce tax cut.
> >
> > In 2015 the age at which most voters first voted Tory was 35, by 2017 it was 47. It was not housing which saw that 12 year rise in age of the average first time Tory voter in just 2 years but Brexit
>
> An inheritance when you are over 50 is not going to help you buy a house.
>
> Nor for that matter is the student debt the Conservatives have stuck on young graduates.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48213333
As I have already told you once most people have already bought a property by 40 according to the ONS' very own figures, an inheritance at 50 simply expands their assets (though of course an inheritance of £500 000+ certainly would buy you a house even if only a minority get that much).
Student debt is a different matter and personally I support a graduate tax based on earnings (though you never repay anything unless you earn over £20k a year)
> > @kinabalu said:
> A reasonable thing to do might be to look at which constituencies have the largest mean income (earned and unearned). There is data on the House of Commons website on this.
>
> They seem to be Kensington, City of London & Westminster, Westminster North, Wimbledon and Chelsea & Fulham.
>
> Seems a reasonable definition of a moneyed elite to me, and it seems to be ... err ... metropolitan.
>
Sure. But let's be more specific, London, which dominates culturally, financially and politically in a way that is pernicious.
I was more talking about this idea that urban dwellers with liberal attitudes are some sort of social elite. I think that's bollox.
For me, the elite, wherever they live, are people with serious money and/or significant power over significant numbers of others.
And it can't - by definition - comprise more than a tiny fraction.
> > @another_richard said:
> >
> > ' The chances of a young adult on a middle income owning a home in the UK have more than halved in the past two decades.
> >
> > New research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows how an explosion in house prices above income growth has increasingly robbed the younger generation of the ability to buy their own home. For 25- to 34-year-olds earning between £22,200 and £30,600 per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago. '
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/16/homeownership-among-young-adults-collapsed-institute-fiscal-studies
>
> So the average age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder
So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates.
Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ?
> > @rkrkrk said:
> > > @Theuniondivvie said:
> > > > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > > > Mr. Kinabalu, definitions have been stretched and abused for a long time.
> > > >
> > > > Playing the race card over migration, or the UN wibbling about the UK's human rights record when decade-long squatters were finally forced out of Dale Farm, spring to mind.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Divvie, that's utterly barbaric.
> > > >
> > > > I'd be wary of using single instances or small samples to label a whole group, though, unless you consider all the Irish to be represented by the IRA...
> > >
> > > I think in the light of this, Ballymurphy & Bloody Sunday we could probably attach some sort of label to 1 PARA.
> >
> > At least Mercer's honest enough to say people who are his mates shouldn't be prosecuted.
>
> What I've often wondered in all this is what senior NCO's and junior officers were doing. If they knew, and didn't stop it, surely they were party to the dreadful behaviour. And if they didn't know, what sort of command system do we have in that branch of the Army?
>
People get pretty hard-hearted, in the face of huge levels of killing. And the level of killing in 1971-76 was huge.
Lewis half a second clear of everyone else in P3, but still asking on the radio where he can make improvements. Gotta love him.
> "So the age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder"
>
> Any thoughts on how changing the average ages of home ownership from around 30 to 40 might impact family life, our future demographics, our need for immigration in the future?
Well given that the average age of first marriage is now 32.5 for men and 30.6 for women, an 8 year rise since 1973 and part of the problem of rising demand for housing comes from Blair's open door approach to immigration from around 2000 home ownership changes are a reflection of social changes and policy decisions not a cause of them
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/bulletins/marriagesinenglandandwalesprovisional/2013
> > @twistedfirestopper3 said:
> > CUK don't offer anything change related. If you want bollocks to Brexit, far better to vote LD who are at least a real party.
>
> CUK's task this election is to at least not fall behind the Greens, then as is likely by this time next year it will be a choice of Corbyn v Boris or Raab they can position themselves for Remainers who want something more fiscally conservative than the LDs or Greens but who dislike a pro hard Brexit Tory Party and a Corbynista Labour Party
Fiscally cautious than the Lib Dems.... (I changed one word there, to make it more objective)..... It was the Lib Dems who were fiscally cautious in the Coalition years, and the Conservatives who were the spendthrifts, as they have been ever since they grabbed power to act alone. How much has this Brexit shambles of a vanity project cost us all?
> Of course there is a metropolitan elite. As there is a rural elite. It is the casual mixing of the words metropolitan and elite together to make the views of 8 million Londoners count for less that is dubious at best.
----
No, there is not a large rural elite.
Have you been to rural Wales? There isn't even a supermarket within 40 miles of my small town. When metropolitan Remain said, people would have to pay more for their food in supermarkets if they voted Leave, we laughed.
I honestly doubt -- when the North of England and Scotland and Wales are routinely ignored by a very London-centric media and political process, when public spending is so heavily skewed towards London -- that there are many people who would agree with you that "the views of 8 million Londoners count for less"
However, if Wales and Scotland get their independence, then I am fine with London going on its own & all 8 million Londoners can complain to each other about how ignored they are.
> The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N.
> Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
> There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway.
That's a little unfair. Tusk has it right when he says that the UK didn't have a proper Brexit debate until after the referendum.
In fact now that a proper debate has been had, it would make perfect sense to have a referendum in which both sides, Remainers as much as Leavers, would be well aware of what they would be voting for.
I suspect it would still be close but there could be very little doubt now that we'd be voting with eyes open.
If Hamilton has half a second then it seems a bit tricky for anyone else to beat him. I'll check the odds in a bit, but I suspect I'll be sitting qualifying out.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @Theuniondivvie said:
> > > Our brave lads.
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
> >
> > Nobody gives a toss about what may or may not have happened a long time ago in a far away place.
>
> What an absolutely appalling comment. Many of those involved are still alive, and one can totally understand their anger.
Its a realistic comment.
Few people are overly concerned about current scandals let alone those with a much greater time and distance away from them.
> Mr. Sandpit, hmm.
>
> If Hamilton has half a second then it seems a bit tricky for anyone else to beat him. I'll check the odds in a bit, but I suspect I'll be sitting qualifying out.
Lewis is 1.6 if you prefer that, or Valtteri is 3.8
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/motor-sport/event/29260705/market?marketId=1.158258640
> https://twitter.com/sdpyorkshumber/status/1127107098989539329
>
>
>
> Is it wrong that I'm actually pleasantly surprised someone is making something in this country?
Plenty of people are making things in this country and that are also managing to follow the regulations, pay taxes and give their workers a decent wage rather than being dependent upon the exploitation of a state subsidised imported serf class.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @another_richard said:
> > >
> > > ' The chances of a young adult on a middle income owning a home in the UK have more than halved in the past two decades.
> > >
> > > New research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows how an explosion in house prices above income growth has increasingly robbed the younger generation of the ability to buy their own home. For 25- to 34-year-olds earning between £22,200 and £30,600 per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago. '
> > >
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/16/homeownership-among-young-adults-collapsed-institute-fiscal-studies
> >
> > So the average age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder
>
> So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates.
>
> Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ?
I have told you once and will have to tell you again, the average age of a first time Tory voter was already 35 in 2015 but rose 12 years to 47 in 2017.
It was not lower levels of home ownership and higher debt amongst under 35s that led to the 12 year surge in the average age of a Tory voter in just 2 years given that most over 35s are on the housing ladder and fewer are graduates. No it was Brexit given Brexit led to more over 50s voting Tory but fewer under 50s in comparison to 2015.
According to Mori the Tories tied Labour with 35 to 44s in 2015 on 35% each, trailed Labour only 33% to 36% with 25 to 34s and only led amongst 55 to 64s 37% to 31% and amongst over 65s 47% to 23%.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
> > @OldKingCole said:
> > > @another_richard said:
> > > > @Theuniondivvie said:
> > > > Our brave lads.
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
> > >
> > > Nobody gives a toss about what may or may not have happened a long time ago in a far away place.
> >
> > What an absolutely appalling comment. Many of those involved are still alive, and one can totally understand their anger.
>
> Its a realistic comment.
>
> Few people are overly concerned about current scandals let alone those with a much greater time and distance away from them.
The relatives of someone whose skull was used as an ashtray are absolutely entitled to livid about it.
The overall problem is that a hierarchy of victims of the Troubles has been created. Some people get enquiries and investigations into the deaths of relatives; most people get told to put up and shut up.
> Sure. But let's be more specific, London, which dominates culturally, financially and politically in a way that is pernicious.
>
> I was more talking about this idea that urban dwellers with liberal attitudes are some sort of social elite. I think that's bollox.
>
> For me, the elite, wherever they live, are people with serious money and/or significant power over significant numbers of others.
>
> And it can't - by definition - comprise more than a tiny fraction.
---
Many of these things are very highly correlated.
Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically.
Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ?
The first makes the second.
The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin.
> The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier?
> Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
Tim Farron (then leader) did on TV the morning of the referendum results (technically not "Revoke" because the notification hadn't gone in yet, so it was just Remain then).
My understanding is that at least one of the other MPs (and remember there were only eight MPs at the time) said he would leave the party if Farron didn't back down to a referendum.
Party policy ever since has been set as being as pro-Remain as possible without provoking defections from MPs in Leave areas - and has not completely succeeded, in that they have lost one MP (Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne).
That answers why. Whether it was the right decision is another question.
> > @dixiedean said:
> > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N.
> > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
> > There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway.
>
> That's a little unfair. Tusk has it right when he says that the UK didn't have a proper Brexit debate until after the referendum.
>
> In fact now that a proper debate has been had, it would make perfect sense to have a referendum in which both sides, Remainers as much as Leavers, would be well aware of what they would be voting for.
>
> I suspect it would still be close but there could be very little doubt now that we'd be voting with eyes open.
I think its worse than that.
While after the Referendum PBers discussed the type of Brexit they wanted our politicians didn't.
Instead May made a choice and agreed a deal based on it.
And then, and only then, did our politicians start arguing about what sort of Brexit they wanted.
> Mr. Kinabalu, definitions have been stretched and abused for a long time.
>
> Playing the race card over migration, or the UN wibbling about the UK's human rights record when decade-long squatters were finally forced out of Dale Farm, spring to mind.
The race card, yes, but remember that this is played in 2 very different ways.
(i) Alleging 'racism' where none exists. This is done in order to close down legitimate debate of the topic you are seeking to avoid addressing - e.g. immigration.
(ii) Alleging 'playing the race card' when genuine racism is called out. This is done in order to close down legitimate debate of one very specific topic you are seeking to avoid addressing - racism.
Not sure which is more prevalent. We would need to research it.
> > @dixiedean said:
> > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N.
> > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
> > There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway.
>
> That's a little unfair. Tusk has it right when he says that the UK didn't have a proper Brexit debate until after the referendum.
>
> In fact now that a proper debate has been had, it would make perfect sense to have a referendum in which both sides, Remainers as much as Leavers, would be well aware of what they would be voting for.
>
> I suspect it would still be close but there could be very little doubt now that we'd be voting with eyes open.
Was it unfair? It wasn't meant to be. And, on this point I agree strongly with Tusk. Everyone took a binary position, however marginal or nuanced, and the majority have spent 3 years arguing backwards to support their original choice. Ignoring and hand waving away contradictory or inconvenient evidence. Which has gradually been filtered down to Revoke and WTO as the two most popular options.
Positions that were incredibly niche in the months after the vote. The contrast with the level of debate and knowledge in the Indyref is stark. But, of course, that wasn't driven by a timetable designed to give the Tories the best possible chance of winning a 2020 election.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @another_richard said:
> > > >
> > > > ' The chances of a young adult on a middle income owning a home in the UK have more than halved in the past two decades.
> > > >
> > > > New research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows how an explosion in house prices above income growth has increasingly robbed the younger generation of the ability to buy their own home. For 25- to 34-year-olds earning between £22,200 and £30,600 per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago. '
> > > >
> > > > https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/16/homeownership-among-young-adults-collapsed-institute-fiscal-studies
> > >
> > > So the average age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder
> >
> > So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates.
> >
> > Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ?
> I have told you once and will have to tell you again, the average age of a first time Tory voter was 35 in 2015 but 47 in 2017.
>
> It was not lower levels of home ownership and higher debt amongst under 35s that led to the 12 year surge in the average age of a Tory voter in just 2 years given that most over 35s are on the housing ladder and fewer are graduates. No it was Brexit given Brexit led to more over 50s voting Tory but fewer under 50s in comparison to 2015.
>
>
> According to Mori the Tories tied Labour with 35 to 44s in 2015 on 35% each, trailed Labour only 33% to 36% with 25 to 34s and only led amongst 55 to 64s 37% to 31% and amongst over 65s 47% to 23%.
>
> https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
>
You're totally in denial about how damaging falling levels of home ownership and increasing levels of debt have been to the Conservatives.
The Conservatives were once the party of aspiration, now that aspiration seems to be limited to hoping for an inheritance when they are in their 50s.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @another_richard said:
> > > >
> > > > ' The chances of a young adult on a middle income owning a home in the UK have more than halved in the past two decades.
> > > >
> > > > New research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows how an explosion in house prices above income growth has increasingly robbed the younger generation of the ability to buy their own home. For 25- to 34-year-olds earning between £22,200 and £30,600 per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago. '
> > > >
> > > > https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/16/homeownership-among-young-adults-collapsed-institute-fiscal-studies
> > >
> > > So the average age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder
> >
> > So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates.
> >
> > Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ?
> I have told you once and will have to tell you again, the average age of a first time Tory voter was already 35 in 2015 but rose 12 years to 47 in 2017.
>
> It was not lower levels of home ownership and higher debt amongst under 35s that led to the 12 year surge in the average age of a Tory voter in just 2 years given that most over 35s are on the housing ladder and fewer are graduates. No it was Brexit given Brexit led to more over 50s voting Tory but fewer under 50s in comparison to 2015.
>
>
> According to Mori the Tories tied Labour with 35 to 44s in 2015 on 35% each, trailed Labour only 33% to 36% with 25 to 34s and only led amongst 55 to 64s 37% to 31% and amongst over 65s 47% to 23%.
>
> https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
>
By 2017 however the Tories trailed Labour 33% to 49% with 35 to 44s and 27% to 56% with 25s to 34s.
However the Tories lead expanded to 51% to 34% with 55 to 64 year olds and 61% to 25% with over 65s
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2017-election
> Our brave lads.
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
>
>
>
> One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time.
I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that?
> > @dixiedean said:
> > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N.
> > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
> > There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway.
>
> That's a little unfair. Tusk has it right when he says that the UK didn't have a proper Brexit debate until after the referendum.
>
> In fact now that a proper debate has been had, it would make perfect sense to have a referendum in which both sides, Remainers as much as Leavers, would be well aware of what they would be voting for.
>
> I suspect it would still be close but there could be very little doubt now that we'd be voting with eyes open.
Remain v Leave first question and if Leave wins Leave with a Withdrawal Agreement Deal v Leave with No Deal second question and if Leave with a Withdrawal Agreement Deal wins Leave with May's Deal as is or Leave with Single Market and/or Customs Union Deal third question.
Simples!!
> > @Peter_the_Punter said:
> > > @dixiedean said:
> > > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier? It would have been a niche position 2 years ago sure, but sometimes you have to say what you mean clearly and unequivocally. See Farage, N.
> > > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
> > > There were plenty of folk who believed the referendum to be a terrible mistake, even before it was called. Lots wanted it ignored or dismissed the moment it happened. Yet no Party had the "bollocks" to say as much. Loudly and clearly anyway.
> >
> > That's a little unfair. Tusk has it right when he says that the UK didn't have a proper Brexit debate until after the referendum.
> >
> > In fact now that a proper debate has been had, it would make perfect sense to have a referendum in which both sides, Remainers as much as Leavers, would be well aware of what they would be voting for.
> >
> > I suspect it would still be close but there could be very little doubt now that we'd be voting with eyes open.
>
> I think its worse than that.
>
> While after the Referendum PBers discussed the type of Brexit they wanted our politicians didn't.
>
> Instead May made a choice and agreed a deal based on it.
>
> And then, and only then, did our politicians start arguing about what sort of Brexit they wanted.
Indeed. There is much truth in that. The inadequacies of our MPs across the board with a very few exceptions, has been laid bare.
> https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1127143069009289217
>
> This is interesting on the below-the-radar aspect of social media.
UKIP's star candidates for the EP are mainly ranting Youtubers.
This is what the 20 year olds watch for political discourse. A lot of it is fake news.
And many of them promote the idea of a white genocide or "the great replacement" as they often call it. It is very worrying stuff.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @another_richard said:
> > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > >
> > > > > ' The chances of a young adult on a middle income owning a home in the UK have more than halved in the past two decades.
> > > > >
> > > > > New research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows how an explosion in house prices above income growth has increasingly robbed the younger generation of the ability to buy their own home. For 25- to 34-year-olds earning between £22,200 and £30,600 per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago. '
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/16/homeownership-among-young-adults-collapsed-institute-fiscal-studies
> > > >
> > > > So the average age of a first time buyer has shifted from 25 to 34 to 35 to 44 but given we marry later now too if at all and more of us are graduates and join the workforce later that is also to be expected in line with that trend and house building is also finally increasing again to help more young people get on the housing ladder
> > >
> > > So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates.
> > >
> > > Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ?
> > I have told you once and will have to tell you again, the average age of a first time Tory voter was 35 in 2015 but 47 in 2017.
> >
> > It was not lower levels of home ownership and higher debt amongst under 35s that led to the 12 year surge in the average age of a Tory voter in just 2 years given that most over 35s are on the housing ladder and fewer are graduates. No it was Brexit given Brexit led to more over 50s voting Tory but fewer under 50s in comparison to 2015.
> >
> >
> > According to Mori the Tories tied Labour with 35 to 44s in 2015 on 35% each, trailed Labour only 33% to 36% with 25 to 34s and only led amongst 55 to 64s 37% to 31% and amongst over 65s 47% to 23%.
> >
> > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
> >
>
> You're totally in denial about how damaging falling levels of home ownership and increasing levels of debt have been to the Conservatives.
>
> The Conservatives were once the party of aspiration, now that aspiration seems to be limited to hoping for an inheritance when they are in their 50s.
Absolutely! It is a bizarre way to run a socitey, we have forgotten how to make money for the country and are fighting over the family silver rather than working out how to be a 21st century economy.
A tip on the doorstep for HYUFD would be to focus on things the Tories have achieved like banning fees on rental contracts, the proposed changes to section 21 when people below 50 bring up housing, it is limited but they are steps in the right direction, and ones I would not particularly have expected from them given their voter base.
> > @dixiedean said:
> > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier?
> > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
>
> Tim Farron (then leader) did on TV the morning of the referendum results (technically not "Revoke" because the notification hadn't gone in yet, so it was just Remain then).
>
> My understanding is that at least one of the other MPs (and remember there were only eight MPs at the time) said he would leave the party if Farron didn't back down to a referendum.
>
> Party policy ever since has been set as being as pro-Remain as possible without provoking defections from MPs in Leave areas - and has not completely succeeded, in that they have lost one MP (Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne).
>
> That answers why. Whether it was the right decision is another question.
Mmm. Short term decisions to prioritise Party unity at the expense of principles and strategy, has been a running theme...
> > @Recidivist said:
> > Our brave lads.
> >
> >
> >
> > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
> >
> >
> >
> > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time.
>
> I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that?
That would be fine if equal zeal were applied towards apprehending those on the other side of the conflict - but it won't be.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ' Th
> > > > > >
> > > > > > New research from '
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/money/es
> > > > >
> > > > > So the
> > > >
> > > > So lower levels of home ownership and a lifetime of debt for future graduates.
> > > >
> > > > Do you not see how this might be non-beneficial for the Conservatives ?
> > > I have told you once and will have to tell you again, the average age of a first time Tory voter was 35 in 2015 but 47 in 2017.
> > >
> > > It was not lower levels of h.
> > >
> > >
> > > According to Mori the Tories tied Labour with 35 to 44s in 2015 on 35% each, trailed Labour only 33% to 36% with 25 to 34s and only led amongst 55 to 64s 37% to 31% and amongst over 65s 47% to 23%.
> > >
> > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2015
> > >
> >
> > You're totally in denial about how damaging falling levels of home ownership and increasing levels of debt have been to the Conservatives.
> >
> > The Conservatives were once the party of aspiration, now that aspiration seems to be limited to hoping for an inheritance when they are in their 50s.
>
> Absolutely! It is a bizarre way to run a socitey, we have forgotten how to make money for the country and are fighting over the family silver rather than working out how to be a 21st century economy.
>
> A tip on the doorstep for HYUFD would be to focus on things the Tories have achieved like banning fees on rental contracts, the proposed changes to section 21 when people below 50 bring up housing, it is limited but they are steps in the right direction, and ones I would not particularly have expected from them given their voter base.
I am not in denial at all, the Tories won an overall majority in 2015 despite most under 35s not being home owners and despite the levels of debt they face.
George Osborne's raising the inheritance tax threshold in 2015 certainly helped the Tories win an overall majority then in comparison to May's disastrous dementia tax plan in 2017 but again as I already pointed out according to the ONS most people own a home from the age of 35 to 44 ie well before 50 anyway and of course the Tories are also expanding house building too despite opposition from NIMBY LDs and Residents' Associations to help more young people get on the housing ladder (as well as the actions on things like banning fees for rental contracts and changes to s21 you point out and the abolition of stamp duty for first time buyers below £500k).
Hammond is also looking to slash the maximum level of student fees' payments from £9000 to £75000
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chancellor-philip-hammond-set-to-slash-university-tuition-fees-by-5-000-mxrkh0qxn
> > @po8crg said:
> > > @dixiedean said:
> > > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier?
> > > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
> >
> > Tim Farron (then leader) did on TV the morning of the referendum results (technically not "Revoke" because the notification hadn't gone in yet, so it was just Remain then).
> >
> > My understanding is that at least one of the other MPs (and remember there were only eight MPs at the time) said he would leave the party if Farron didn't back down to a referendum.
> >
> > Party policy ever since has been set as being as pro-Remain as possible without provoking defections from MPs in Leave areas - and has not completely succeeded, in that they have lost one MP (Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne).
> >
> > That answers why. Whether it was the right decision is another question.
>
> Mmm. Short term decisions to prioritise Party unity at the expense of principles and strategy, has been a running theme...
According to Wikipedia
"Lloyd resigned the Liberal Democrat whip as his party's position on Brexit was inconsistent with his pledge to his constituency that he would "respect the result" of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016.[4] Lloyd now sits in the House of Commons as an Independent."
They haven't made a combat drop for 60+ years which begs the question as to why the Army needs them. Certainly no contemporaty politician is going to sign off on a non-spec ops mass parachute assault in the age of 24 hour news coverage and social media. If anything goes wrong on those type of ops everyone dies.
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @Recidivist said:
> > > Our brave lads.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time.
> >
> > I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that?
>
> That would be fine if equal zeal were applied towards apprehending those on the other side of the conflict - but it won't be.
I understand the point and we have been there before too. I am not aware of serious attempts being made to apprehend Allied troops for crimes commiteed in World War 2 - eg the shooting of captured German prisoners following the Normandy landings in 1944. Not very different to the murder of British and Canadian troops by the SS in France at the time of Dunkirk in 1940.
I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to.
For better or worse we're part of the UK state, and we should hold it to a higher standard than paramiltaries, terrorists, freedom fighters or whichever term you prefer. In fact a central factor of such conflicts is the state proclaiming its own legitimacy while refusing to accord legitimacy to the paramilitaries etc (though with occasional blind eyes turned to its own amateurs going off piste).
This is a phase of the conflict that is coming to an end as people die of old age. The reaction of both sides to the murder of the young journalist suggests support for gangsters hiding behind freedom fighter claims has past its sell by date.
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > > Mr. Jonathan, the Lib Dems could fulfil that role, though.
> >
> > They can now, but back in February we were still wondering how long it would take them to throw off the taint of the Coalition years.
> >
> > As I said yesterday, the incompetence of TIG seems to have reminded a whole bunch of centrist voters that they would miss the Lib Dems if they went away, and convinced them that it's time to forgive them for tuition fees and all that.
> >
> > I don't think the timing of the Lib Dem resurgence is a coincidence. I don't think it would have happened if TIG hadn't happened.
>
> Yet the LibDems aren't doing any better than they were two years ago let alone the levels they reached regularly in the 1990s and 2000s.
>
> And I'm not sure the ever increasing number of graduates with huge debts will ever forgive the LibDems for their betrayal as they will continually be reminded of it with every payslip they receive.
I think that the LibDems should have fought harder against the tuition fees rise, bit it mustn't be forgotten that they didn't win the 2010 election and had to defer ti the tories on many issues. Also remember that Labour introduced tuition fees.
> If you are going to set up a new party when there is one outstanding great issue in the country and you want to be clear why none of the other parties will do you have to explain not only what your Remain/Revoke policy is but why you are holding it. That Remain is the line of least resistance won't do. Do the TIGGERS want to remain because they want a European nation, do they think they can reform from within, and if so why have we failed so far, do they think it isn't a political union. Why is the Euro a good thing? If so why are we out of it? do they like the way the Greeks have been treated?.....and so on. I think they are messing us about, and themselves.
> @algarkirk said:
> If you are going to set up a new party when there is one outstanding great issue in the country and you want to be clear why none of the other parties will do you have to explain not only what your Remain/Revoke policy is but why you are holding it. That Remain is the line of least resistance won't do. Do the TIGGERS want to remain because they want a European nation, do they think they can reform from within, and if so why have we failed so far, do they think it isn't a political union. Why is the Euro a good thing? If so why are we out of it? do they like the way the Greeks have been treated?.....and so on. I think they are messing us about, and themselves.
As @Alistair Meeks likes to say, when you're doing karaoke, you have to put your heart into it.
If you're campaigning to revoke, then you have to argue that the EU is God's gift to humanity.
> > @Theuniondivvie said:
>
> > Our brave lads.
>
> >
>
> > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to.
>
> Adams and the rest of the IRA didn’t want a truth and reconciliation commission as they had plenty of skeletons - including the paedophilia.
>
> This is a phase of the conflict that is coming to an end as people die of old age. The reaction of both sides to the murder of the young journalist suggests support for gangsters hiding behind freedom fighter claims has past its sell by date.
Lyra McKee's murderer will probably be a local councillor, ten years from now.
If they look clued up do not mention the abolition of stamp duty is as despite how it initially looks this is a transfer of wealth to property owners rather than 1st time buyers (through market forces leaving net prices the same but it all going to home owners rather than a mix of homeowner + tax payer).
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/05/spain-pre-qualifying-2019.html
> Many of these things are very highly correlated.
>
> Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically.
>
> Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ?
>
> The first makes the second.
>
> The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin.
Of course. When you haven't eaten for a week you won't be fretting about LGBT rights, even if you are Owen Jones. Get back to that, having scavenged something digestible.
Marx would no doubt make that point to Owen now, if he could.
But where I think you and I might be at odds is that (with the above caveat in place) I do not consider liberal attitudes to be a 'luxury' which come with wealth. Bit of that, yes I get the idea, but on the whole no, that is a little too baleful for my taste.
Liberal attitudes - a.k.a. 'live and let live' - come quite naturally to a human being, IMO, but they can be bigoted out quite easily too. That is how I would put it.
A person who has successfully resisted that bigoting out process to stay as liberal as they were as a newborn, regardless of where they live or how much money they have, should be celebrated not tagged as 'elite'.
And, OK, your point, such a person who is broke and lives in Blackpool should probably be MORE celebrated than one who is wealthy and lives in Blackheath.
Bit like BBB at the local comp trumps AAA at the posh private.
Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
To constantly claim that a second vote was needed because the facts have changed in relation to a referendum, and then refuse to have one for your own constituents was hypocrisy on stilts.
Ex-Labour turncoats collaborating with ex-Tory turncoats was also a recipe for disaster as the voters of both major parties would frown upon them.
I'd be surprised if more than the odd one or two survived a byelection now. They really needed to have the gumption to fight them en masse and straight away, but I suspect they knew defeat would be the outcome.
How big is the UK wide pool of uber-remainers that are simultaneously and strongly committed to the EU and UK?
20%? That's a small pool to fish in with the Lib Dems and Greens.
Labour are out-polling that on a promise to leave.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > > > Mr. Jonathan, the Lib Dems could fulfil that role, though.
> > >
> > > They can now, but back in February we were still wondering how long it would take them to throw off the taint of the Coalition years.
> > >
> > > As I said yesterday, the incompetence of TIG seems to have reminded a whole bunch of centrist voters that they would miss the Lib Dems if they went away, and convinced them that it's time to forgive them for tuition fees and all that.
> > >
> > > I don't think the timing of the Lib Dem resurgence is a coincidence. I don't think it would have happened if TIG hadn't happened.
> >
> > Yet the LibDems aren't doing any better than they were two years ago let alone the levels they reached regularly in the 1990s and 2000s.
> >
> > And I'm not sure the ever increasing number of graduates with huge debts will ever forgive the LibDems for their betrayal as they will continually be reminded of it with every payslip they receive.
>
> I think that the LibDems should have fought harder against the tuition fees rise, bit it mustn't be forgotten that they didn't win the 2010 election and had to defer ti the tories on many issues. Also remember that Labour introduced tuition fees.
There's plenty of blame to go around re tuition fees.
But it was the LibDems who made opposition to them the cornerstone of their campaign and then allowed the increase when they were in a position to block it.
> > @YBarddCwsc said:
>
> > Many of these things are very highly correlated.
> >
> > Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically.
> >
> > Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ?
> >
> > The first makes the second.
> >
> > The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin.
>
> Of course. When you haven't eaten for a week you won't be fretting about LGBT rights, even if you are Owen Jones. Get back to that, having scavenged something digestible.
>
> Marx would no doubt make that point to Owen now, if he could.
>
> But where I think you and I might be at odds is that (with the above caveat in place) I do not consider liberal attitudes to be a 'luxury' which come with wealth. Bit of that, yes I get the idea, but on the whole no, that is a little too baleful for my taste.
>
> Liberal attitudes - a.k.a. 'live and let live' - come quite naturally to a human being, IMO, but they can be bigoted out quite easily too. That is how I would put it.
>
> A person who has successfully resisted that bigoting out process to stay as liberal as they were as a newborn, regardless of where they live or how much money they have, should be celebrated not tagged as 'elite'.
>
> And, OK, your point, such a person who is broke and lives in Blackpool should probably be MORE celebrated than one who is wealthy and lives in Blackheath.
>
> Bit like BBB at the local comp trumps AAA at the posh private.
>
> Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
I don't see why being socially liberal and sleeping around and taking recreational drugs makes you more worthy of merit than someone more socially conservative who volunteers at a foodbank for example. Being socially liberal is a political viewpoint and perhaps a symbol of tolerance but it is not a badge of honour
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @Recidivist said:
> > > Our brave lads.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time.
> >
> > I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that?
>
> That would be fine if equal zeal were applied towards apprehending those on the other side of the conflict - but it won't
How many British soldiers have gone to prison vs how many unionists and loyalists have gone to prison (often without a trial)?
> > @YBarddCwsc said:
>
> > Many of these things are very highly correlated.
> >
> > Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically.
> >
> > Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ?
> >
> > The first makes the second.
> >
> > The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin.
>
> Of course. When you haven't eaten for a week you won't be fretting about LGBT rights, even if you are Owen Jones. Get back to that, having scavenged something digestible.
>
> Marx would no doubt make that point to Owen now, if he could.
>
> But where I think you and I might be at odds is that (with the above caveat in place) I do not consider liberal attitudes to be a 'luxury' which come with wealth. Bit of that, yes I get the idea, but on the whole no, that is a little too baleful for my taste.
>
> Liberal attitudes - a.k.a. 'live and let live' - come quite naturally to a human being, IMO, but they can be bigoted out quite easily too. That is how I would put it.
>
> A person who has successfully resisted that bigoting out process to stay as liberal as they were as a newborn, regardless of where they live or how much money they have, should be celebrated not tagged as 'elite'.
>
> And, OK, your point, such a person who is broke and lives in Blackpool should probably be MORE celebrated than one who is wealthy and lives in Blackheath.
>
> Bit like BBB at the local comp trumps AAA at the posh private.
>
> Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
I'd have thought the more natural course is to want to compel people ro live according to one's own standards. That is as common among self-declared social liberals as it is among self-declared social conservatives.
> > @Blue_rog said:
> I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to.
>
>
>
> For better or worse we're part of the UK state, and we should hold it to a higher standard than paramiltaries, terrorists, freedom fighters or whichever term you prefer. In fact a central factor of such conflicts is the state proclaiming its own legitimacy while refusing to accord legitimacy to the paramilitaries etc (though with occasional blind eyes turned to its own amateurs going off piste).
Wrongdoing within state organisations, of which the military is one, has been a central theme of scandals in recent decades.
As in the consequent cover-up and mendacious "lessons have been learnt" if inconvenient stories ever arise.
> > @dixiedean said:
> > > @po8crg said:
> > > > @dixiedean said:
> > > > The question is why no one went for outright Revoke much earlier?
> > > > Had they done so, I believe the LDs would have revived much sooner and have been the natural home for these defectors, creating acres of publicity, and a near doubling of their representation.
> > >
> > > Tim Farron (then leader) did on TV the morning of the referendum results (technically not "Revoke" because the notification hadn't gone in yet, so it was just Remain then).
> > >
> > > My understanding is that at least one of the other MPs (and remember there were only eight MPs at the time) said he would leave the party if Farron didn't back down to a referendum.
> > >
> > > Party policy ever since has been set as being as pro-Remain as possible without provoking defections from MPs in Leave areas - and has not completely succeeded, in that they have lost one MP (Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne).
> > >
> > > That answers why. Whether it was the right decision is another question.
> >
> > Mmm. Short term decisions to prioritise Party unity at the expense of principles and strategy, has been a running theme...
>
> According to Wikipedia
> "Lloyd resigned the Liberal Democrat whip as his party's position on Brexit was inconsistent with his pledge to his constituency that he would "respect the result" of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016.[4] Lloyd now sits in the House of Commons as an Independent."
So they lost him anyway. Wasted a couple of years trying to keep him on board, when they could have taken the hit immediately, and become the unequivocal voice of Remain /Revoke directly after the referendum.
A clear, distinct USP is always an advantage,
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @justin124 said:
> > > > @Recidivist said:
> > > > Our brave lads.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time.
> > >
> > > I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that?
> >
> > That would be fine if equal zeal were applied towards apprehending those on the other side of the conflict - but it won't
>
> How many British soldiers have gone to prison vs how many unionists and loyalists have gone to prison (often without a trial)?
Far more loyalists have gone to jail than British soldiers.
They should focus on their aims in this Parliament. They stand better chances of achieving them.
> > @kinabalu said:
> > > @YBarddCwsc said:
> >
> > > Many of these things are very highly correlated.
> > >
> > > Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically.
> > >
> > > Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ?
> > >
> > > The first makes the second.
> > >
> > > The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin.
> >
> > Of course. When you haven't eaten for a week you won't be fretting about LGBT rights, even if you are Owen Jones. Get back to that, having scavenged something digestible.
> >
> > Marx would no doubt make that point to Owen now, if he could.
> >
> > But where I think you and I might be at odds is that (with the above caveat in place) I do not consider liberal attitudes to be a 'luxury' which come with wealth. Bit of that, yes I get the idea, but on the whole no, that is a little too baleful for my taste.
> >
> > Liberal attitudes - a.k.a. 'live and let live' - come quite naturally to a human being, IMO, but they can be bigoted out quite easily too. That is how I would put it.
> >
> > A person who has successfully resisted that bigoting out process to stay as liberal as they were as a newborn, regardless of where they live or how much money they have, should be celebrated not tagged as 'elite'.
> >
> > And, OK, your point, such a person who is broke and lives in Blackpool should probably be MORE celebrated than one who is wealthy and lives in Blackheath.
> >
> > Bit like BBB at the local comp trumps AAA at the posh private.
> >
> > Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
>
> I don't see why being socially liberal and sleeping around and taking recreational drugs makes you more worthy of merit than someone more socially conservative who volunteers at a foodbank for example. Being socially liberal is a political viewpoint and perhaps a symbol of tolerance but it is not a badge of honour
I'm quite sure being socially liberal encompasses slightly more than sleeping around and taking drugs.
They are merely side benefits.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @justin124 said:
> > > > @Recidivist said:
> > > > Our brave lads.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One of my friends was serving as a squaddie in NI in 72. He said the rest of the army were disgusted by the paras. To be scrupulously fair to Mr Mercer, there isn't much to be achieved by re-opening the sorry episode now. But we'd have been a lot better off if the behaviour of a small number of our troops that didn't live up to the standards we expect of them had been addressed at the time.
> > >
> > > I don't really agree. Efforts are still made to apprehend Nazi war criminals for deeds committed 75 years ago.The behaviour of some of the Paras sounds little different to members of the SS conducted themselves on a much greater scale.How can Mercer et al turn a blind eye to that?
> >
> > That would be fine if equal zeal were applied towards apprehending those on the other side of the conflict - but it won't
>
> How many British soldiers have gone to prison vs how many unionists and loyalists have gone to prison (often without a trial)?
How many bombs were planted by British soldiers in Dublin ? How many Irish politicians and royals were murdered by the Paras ?
There is no equivalence between the sides. The British used espionage and dirty tricks to end the war which ultimately saved a lot of lives. Ulster is now a fair better place - raking over the past doesnt help. Prosperity will.
> Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
I'd agree with that. It was what I was trying to say.
There is a strong correlation between London's wealth & influence and the social liberalism of many of its citizenry.
Hence, the idea of a wealthy metropolitan elite, with a set of socially liberal values, is not without substance.
It is perhaps a slight exaggeration, a slight caricature -- but there is enough truth in it for it to be very effective weapon in the hands of Farage (notwithstanding the fact that Farage himself of course is a very wealthy man).
It also feeds into the neglect that many parts of the country rightly feel, and the resentment against an over-mighty London.
To split from your party on the grounds of wanting a second EU vote then deny a by-election (even UKIP held a by-election), to call yourself 'Change' but then try and preserve the current status quo, to criticise your former parties as incompetent or nasty then to arrogantly rebuff the LD and greens who offer collaboration.
I certainly can't remember such a terrible launch in my lifetime.
> > @Theuniondivvie said:
>
> > Our brave lads.
>
> >
>
> > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm not condoning this in any way but it's interesting all the recent articles are about the alleged offences committed by British soldiers, there's nothing about what the paramilitaries (on both sides) got up to.
>
> Adams and the rest of the IRA didn’t want a truth and reconciliation commission as they had plenty of skeletons - including the paedophilia.
>
> This is a phase of the conflict that is coming to an end as people die of old age. The reaction of both sides to the murder of the young journalist suggests support for gangsters hiding behind freedom fighter claims has past its sell by date.
One would like to hope so. But note that the killer of the journalist has yet to be found and no-one has dobbed that person into the authorities. So perhaps a bit premature to claim that those old attitudes have disappeared.
> Harsh but fair. They’ve been inexplicably useless. Any electoral success they get will be despite not because of what they have done.
>
> They should focus on their aims in this Parliament. They stand better chances of achieving them.
As I said a few weeks ago, they are a vanity project in search of a purpose.
> > @Theuniondivvie said:
>
> > Our brave lads.
>
> >
>
> > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
>
>
>
>
>
> Nobody gives a toss about what may or may not have happened a long time ago in a far away place.
>
> Clown
Maybe so but I'm still right.
The imagery of a b&w photo - it really is the dim and distant to people now.
> > @kinabalu said:
> > > @noneoftheabove said:
> >
> > > Why on earth does living in a city make someone elite? Living in your rural country estate sending your children to Eton, (when not with their nanny) seems to be salt of the earth today, whereas renting a two bed shared ownership flat in Croydon counts as elite. What a strange change of meaning for the word elite over the last ten years.
> >
> > *
> >
> > I've noticed this too.
> >
> > 'Elite' has come to mean knowing what a cappuccino is and not being discombobulated by foreigners and tall buildings.
>
> A reasonable thing to do might be to look at which constituencies have the largest mean income (earned and unearned). There is data on the House of Commons website on this.
>
> They seem to be Kensington, City of London & Westminster, Westminster North, Wimbledon and Chelsea & Fulham.
>
> Seems a reasonable definition of a moneyed elite to me, and it seems to be ... err ... metropolitan.
>
That's your Osborne vote right there.
Welsh poverty is a problem the Welsh themselves don’t appear able to recognise or deal with. Whining about flat whites from a dung hill in the valleys is not going to help.
Quantitative easing and Anglo-Saxon attitudes to property have priced out a generation from home ownership - the Tories were too slow to recognise this and are doomed long term.
And the CUKs have ballsed up completely.
> > @kinabalu said:
>
> > Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
>
> I'd agree with that. It was what I was trying to say.
>
> There is a strong correlation between London's wealth & influence and the social liberalism of many of its citizenry.
>
> Hence, the idea of a wealthy metropolitan elite, with a set of socially liberal values, is not without substance.
>
> It is perhaps a slight exaggeration, a slight caricature -- but there is enough truth in it for it to be very effective weapon in the hands of Farage (notwithstanding the fact that Farage himself of course is a very wealthy man).
>
> It also feeds into the neglect that many parts of the country rightly feel, and the resentment against an over-mighty London.
I think there is a need to separate London and Londoners. Yes UK policy has been too London centric in the last 30 years, but that has not been to the benefit of most Londoners.
It has undoubtedly helped many London based businesses, but has been to the detriment of London based teachers, nurses, police, civil servants or indeed cleaners or service sector workers. They have suffered from globalisation and the enrichment of the true global 1% elite as much as many people in post industrial small towns.
Suggesting that the views of those people are lumped in with the global elite and can be discounted simply because both tend to be socially liberal and live in a city is common place but clearly incorrect.
> I don't see why being socially liberal and sleeping around and taking recreational drugs makes you more worthy of merit than someone more socially conservative who volunteers at a foodbank for example. Being socially liberal is a political viewpoint and perhaps a symbol of tolerance but it is not a badge of honour
I'm saying that preserving the 'Live And Let Live' social liberalism that one is imbued with at birth, in the face of all the many and varied forces which can act to destroy it, is the achievement. Just that. It has nothing to do with being sexually generous or having a coke habit. Or with working for charity.
Consider the ideal template of the newborn. Archie, say. Right now he is pure live and let live. He is not prejudiced against muslims, or jews, or indeed anybody, whatever religion, whatever skin colour, male or female, young and old, it is all the same to Archie. He is the ultimate social liberal and hopefully he will stay that way. Having money will make it a smidge easier for him to do so - that is the point I happily incorporate from 'YBarddCwsc'.
And Archie does not sleep around or do drugs. His social liberalism does not require that.
I don't think it's good for our society to say in effect "Remain deliberately ran a rubbish campaign, sure it could win on 'the man in Whitehall knows best', ignorance and project fear and then lost. Because they ran such a terrible campaign they should be allowed to do it again".
Better by far to focus on the fact that the day we leave the EU the referendum mandate has been discharged. It then becomes completely proper to campaign to change our minds - and because the leaving process will be long and difficult the rejoiners would have the wind behind them. It's a lot more than they deserve and they should settle for it.
> Welsh poverty is a problem the Welsh themselves don’t appear able to >recognise or deal with. Whining about flat whites from a dung hill in the valleys >is not going to help.
Ahh, the Cymrophobe returns, muttering about Welsh dung hills in the valleys. A nasty racist trope, if ever there was one.
Which Uk county was the richest in the nineteenth century?
Surrey, no? Middlesex, no?
It was Glamorgan.
What happened? What happened to all the mineral wealth of South Wales?
English colonialists took it. Much like what is happening now to Scotland's oil wealth.
Wales is a colonial country run for the benefit of the English. That is why it is poor.
I registered as a supporter, and during the early days received a series of email updates and links to online petitions they launched on a range of issues such as lifting the benefits freeze. So I don’t think point 4 in the lead is entirely fair.
Where they have gone wrong is in believing, as did the early days SDP in 1981, that as established politicians they could ignore the LibDems and overlook the harsh realities of their new future as another ‘third party’ in British politics. Almost all of their early media interviews - when they had the chance to establish a new narrative - were wasted by MPs such as Gapes, Leslie and Soubry explaining that they were still loyal to the values of their previous party. A huge missed opportunity to map out some brave new territory. And an obvious nonsense for both Gapes and Soubry to claim that their new ‘party’ represents the values they have always supported.
Point 6 I think is both unfair and unrealistic. Fighting local elections so soon after their launch would have been a huge distraction, and a waste of resources. They should, however, have provided sitting councillors with a way of signing up to the new movement. The number of councillor defections from Tory and Labour to ‘independent’ has been well above the normal handful since they launched, but none of these had the chance to sign up to the new party.
The hostile cold shoulder they gave to the LibDems illustrates an obliviousness to the realities of their new situation. For me, hearing that their lead candidate in the EU elections for my region is a recently expelled Tory MEP aged in his 70s, clearly simply wanting to retain his seat on the gravy train, was the final straw. How does offering up such a candidate represent any chance of ‘change’?
It is possible that the results of the Euro elections will force CUK to arrive at Reality Checkpoint, leading to some sort of understanding with the LibDems and eventually most of their less tribal MPs joining that party.
Alternatively, the progress (or otherwise) of Brexit will prompt a significant slice of either Labour or Tory MPs to break away and inject new life into TIG/CUK.
Otherwise, their destiny is to fade into obscurity having simply hindered the long-awaited opportunity to realign British politics.
> > @malcolmg said:
> > > @Theuniondivvie said:
> >
> > > Our brave lads.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > https://twitter.com/ainemagu/status/1127148123795673088
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nobody gives a toss about what may or may not have happened a long time ago in a far away place.
> >
> > Clown
>
> Maybe so but I'm still right.
>
> The imagery of a b&w photo - it really is the dim and distant to people now.
Murder is never "dim and distant" to the relatives of those murdered.
Ask the families of those murdered at Srebenica, still searching for their loved ones bodies, for identification and a proper burial and finally given some sort of justice. Or the Yazidis or the many Iraqis and Syrians. Or the many other victims of murder by terrorists or state authorities.
There are very difficult questions to address when trying to bring vicious conflicts to an end. Blind eyes are turned to all sorts of reprehensible behaviour in the hope that this will help reconciliation. And this may be the only way to go if countries or provinces are ever to get past their history. But the past has a horrible way of slapping the present in the face if it is not addressed intelligently. The long history of Anglo-Irish relations should have taught this lesson, if nothing else.
Mercer may be of the army tribe. Soldiers deserve support given the difficult job they are sometimes asked to do. But they are are not excused from having a conscience or from being held responsible when they do wrong. Mercer showed poor judgment in coming across as seeming to want wholesale exoneration of soldiers just because they are soldiers. Perhaps he did not explain himself well. But saying this is my tribe and I must stand behind them, right or wrong, is the sort of attitude which can lead to bad behaviour happening and others turning a blind eye to it, precisely the sort of behaviour we don't want to have - in the army or anywhere else.
If those who behave badly get away with it, why should the good guys try to be good guys?
> > @kinabalu said:
> > > @YBarddCwsc said:
> >
> > > Many of these things are very highly correlated.
> > >
> > > Suppose London did NOT dominate in a highly pernicious way, culturally, financially and politically.
> > >
> > > Would it then have a large population of urban dwellers with liberal attitudes ?
> > >
> > > The first makes the second.
> > >
> > > The very soul of the world is economic. The lowest abyss is not the absence of love but the absence of the coin.
> >
> > Of course. When you haven't eaten for a week you won't be fretting about LGBT rights, even if you are Owen Jones. Get back to that, having scavenged something digestible.
> >
> > Marx would no doubt make that point to Owen now, if he could.
> >
> > But where I think you and I might be at odds is that (with the above caveat in place) I do not consider liberal attitudes to be a 'luxury' which come with wealth. Bit of that, yes I get the idea, but on the whole no, that is a little too baleful for my taste.
> >
> > Liberal attitudes - a.k.a. 'live and let live' - come quite naturally to a human being, IMO, but they can be bigoted out quite easily too. That is how I would put it.
>
> > A person who has successfully resisted that bigoting out process to stay as liberal as they were as a newborn, regardless of where they live or how much money they have, should be celebrated not tagged as 'elite'.
> >
> > And, OK, your point, such a person who is broke and lives in Blackpool should probably be MORE celebrated than one who is wealthy and lives in Blackheath.
> >
> > Bit like BBB at the local comp trumps AAA at the posh private.
> >
> > Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
>
> I'd have thought the more natural course is to want to compel people ro live according to one's own standards. That is as common among self-declared social liberals as it is among self-declared social conservatives.
>
______________________________________________________________________
John Stuart Mill, in "On Liberty" claimed that social tyranny could be worse than political tyranny.
He said "There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism".
Social liberals agree with Mill, even if they sometimes transgress. Social conservatives, especially if they claim to represent The People, do not agree with Mill that "we should live and let live". They use social coercion aka The Daily Mail.
If I ran a small business I would save up to £5k in a year from hiring someone aged between 18 and 24. It's a massive, massive incentive. Take that away and young people will be competing in a much tougher environment where people will already bring much more experience and be paid the same.
It's a rubbish policy that's going to hurt young people and increase youth unemployment.
> Old crimes should not go unpunished. Mercer is a spoilt twat.
Obvious point so apols if already made by others, but to me Mercer's statement looked like a blatant piece of virtue signalling to the membership with an eye on career prospects.
I imagine it went down well.
> > @Gardenwalker said:
>
> > Welsh poverty is a problem the Welsh themselves don’t appear able to >recognise or deal with. Whining about flat whites from a dung hill in the valleys >is not going to help.
>
>
> Ahh, the Cymrophobe returns, muttering about Welsh dung hills in the valleys. A nasty racist trope, if ever there was one.
>
> Which Uk county was the richest in the nineteenth century?
>
> Surrey, no? Middlesex, no?
>
> It was Glamorgan.
>
> What happened? What happened to all the mineral wealth of South Wales?
>
> English colonialists took it. Much like what is happening now to Scotland's oil wealth.
>
> Wales is a colonial country run for the benefit of the English. That is why it is poor.
Wales has its own Assembly, unlike England and while not rich is still richer than a few English regions like the North East
London’s taxes are paying for you to opine and wibble while offering no practical solutions to your own decrepitude.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-deficit-grows-to-more-than-10bn-as-people-spend-less
> Old crimes should not go unpunished. Mercer is a spoilt twat.
>
> Welsh poverty is a problem the Welsh themselves don’t appear able to recognise or deal with. Whining about flat whites from a dung hill in the valleys is not going to help.
>
> Quantitative easing and Anglo-Saxon attitudes to property have priced out a generation from home ownership - the Tories were too slow to recognise this and are doomed long term.
>
> And the CUKs have ballsed up completely.
50 to 100 years ago most of the country rented and the Tories still won some elections even after the introduction of universal suffrage, home ownership boosts the Tory vote of course but the Tories can win without it. As I pointed out the Tories are now building more houses to help young people get on the ladder but still most over 35s are homeowners
"Better by far to focus on the fact that the day we leave the EU the referendum mandate has been discharged. It then becomes completely proper to campaign to change our minds -"
Spot on. It's also why the LDs struggled for traction with the immediate "We want another referendum because it's unfair we lost campaign."
BTW, do you really come from God's own county?
Even now they could mix things up. For example they could resign in a co-ordinated way so that there is a by election on Brexit every 6-8 weeks. That would at least keep them newsworthy.
> > @Gardenwalker said:
> > Old crimes should not go unpunished. Mercer is a spoilt twat.
> >
> > Welsh poverty is a problem the Welsh themselves don’t appear able to recognise or deal with. Whining about flat whites from a dung hill in the valleys is not going to help.
> >
> > Quantitative easing and Anglo-Saxon attitudes to property have priced out a generation from home ownership - the Tories were too slow to recognise this and are doomed long term.
> >
> > And the CUKs have ballsed up completely.
>
> 50 to 100 years ago most of the country rented and the Tories still won some elections even after the introduction of universal suffrage, home ownership boosts the Tory vote of course but the Tories can win without it. As I pointed out the Tories are now building more houses to help young people get on the ladder but still most over 35s are homeowners
Your blinkers are surely the biggest of any poster in here?
> > @YBarddCwsc said:
> > > @kinabalu said:
> >
> > > Summary: Being socially liberal is an ACHIEVEMENT which almost all in the UK are capable of, but which is easier to attain if one has plenty of money.
> >
> > I'd agree with that. It was what I was trying to say.
> >
> > There is a strong correlation between London's wealth & influence and the social liberalism of many of its citizenry.
> >
> > Hence, the idea of a wealthy metropolitan elite, with a set of socially liberal values, is not without substance.
> >
> > It is perhaps a slight exaggeration, a slight caricature -- but there is enough truth in it for it to be very effective weapon in the hands of Farage (notwithstanding the fact that Farage himself of course is a very wealthy man).
> >
> > It also feeds into the neglect that many parts of the country rightly feel, and the resentment against an over-mighty London.
>
> I think there is a need to separate London and Londoners. Yes UK policy has been too London centric in the last 30 years, but that has not been to the benefit of most Londoners.
>
> It has undoubtedly helped many London based businesses, but has been to the detriment of London based teachers, nurses, police, civil servants or indeed cleaners or service sector workers. They have suffered from globalisation and the enrichment of the true global 1% elite as much as many people in post industrial small towns.
>
> Suggesting that the views of those people are lumped in with the global elite and can be discounted simply because both tend to be socially liberal and live in a city is common place but clearly incorrect.
>
London is now a global city competing with New York, Paris, LA and Singapore and Hong Kong and Tokyo for talent so inevitably rich people will live there.
That makes it an exciting city but expensive to live in, if you want somewhere cheaper and more affordable move somewhere else in the country
Wales is the poorest region in the UK, as measured by GDP per capita. It is nearly the poorest in the whole of Western Europe.
.
The political parties that run Wales (either from Cardiff or Westminster) have established a system that guarantees Welsh poverty.