> @Cyclefree said: > > @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?
I'm not referring to the people directly affected who will of course see things differently.
But to what will be the general response to the story.
And however much you (and I for that matter) disagree organisations will engage in cover-ups to protect themselves rather than root out wrong doing.
> @Recidivist said: > > @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. > > 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.
We will know when Soldier F's trial happens. A pity that there are some who want to stop that trial happening.
> @algarkirk 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 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.
Leavers have now had nearly three years to articulate what Brexit should be. They remain utterly clueless. The rest of humanity does not need to wait indefinitely for them to alight on a position. Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016 and if Leavers have lost the public’s support, they will need to suck it up and accept that they had their chance and flunked it.
> 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.
I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge.
> @MaxPB said: > 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.
Reducing NI contributions on the young would be a better idea.
> @IanB2 said: > > @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?
Not blinkers, just the fact that some leftwingers and liberals desperation on here to kill off the rightwing and conservative element of British politics is not going to happen
> 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.
Reducing NI contributions on the young would be a better idea.
Indeed.
Instead, we subsidise the elderly and penalise the young.
> > > 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?
Not blinkers, just the fact that some leftwingers desperation on here to kill off the rightwing element of British politics is not going to happen
You were responding to be, but I am not a left winger.
I just note that the Tories no longer stand for aspiration.
> @glw said: > 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.
Its from the same mindset that thought replacing British factories with Chinese factories would be good for the environment.
> @Gardenwalker said: > > 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. > > What’s your solution apart from grizzling about coffee drinkers?
Welsh independence. Which I hope follows shortly after Scottish independence.
Let the rest of England deal with London's controlling over-mighty, over-bearing ways.
> @YBarddCwsc said: > > > 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. >
No Wales is not the poorest region in the UK, gdp per capita in Wales is £18,002 that is higher than the £17,381 it is in the North East of England.
> @YBarddCwsc said: > > @Gardenwalker said: > > > 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. > > > > What’s your solution apart from grizzling about coffee drinkers? > > Welsh independence. Which I hope follows shortly after Scottish independence. > > Let the rest of England deal with London's controlling over-mighty, over-bearing ways.
Wales will never be independent, it has not got North Sea oil unlike Scotland and Wales voted Leave just like England and unlike Remain voting Scotland. Plaid has also never come top in any Welsh election, Assembly, Westminster or European unlike the SNP.
In fact there is more chance of Remain voting wealthy London going independent than Wales
> No Wales is not the poorest region in the UK, gdp per capita in Wales is £18,002 that is higher than the £17,381 it is in the North East of England. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Economy_by_region > > Wales and the NorthEast have had their politics dominated by the Labour Party for decades and not much good it has done them
> @another_richard said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @another_richard said: > > > > @malcolmg said: > > > > > @Theuniondivvie said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Murder is never "dim and distant" to the relatives of those murdered. > > > > > > > > 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? > > I'm not referring to the people directly affected who will of course see things differently. > > But to what will be the general response to the story. > > And however much you (and I for that matter) disagree organisations will engage in cover-ups to protect themselves rather than root out wrong doing.
I'm well aware of your last point. I have spent a working lifetime trying to stop them doing just that. The fact that that is the initial reaction of pretty much every organisation is no reason for the rest of us to acquiesce.
We need to send out a strong signal to those who try to do the right thing that they are not being mugs by doing so. That they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. The lessons we send out to the good guys are even more important, in my view, than the lessons we give to the bad guys. Any group only improves when there are more good people in it than bad ones and when the former feel that their behaviour is rewarded and considered worthwhile.
> @HYUFD said: > > @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
Personally I am fortunate to be able to afford to live in London, but I would like:
a) other people to have a better quality of life whilst doing so, particularly those who put in the effort rather than those who inherit, and public sector workers who are needed to keep London a great city
b) the views of Londoners to be treated with respect, not discounted for happening to live in the same city as some people in Mayfair and both groups having socially liberal values
That this is so difficult for a conservative to understand is why they do so badly in London.
> Wales will never be independent, it has not got North Sea oil unlike Scotland and voted Leave just like England. Plaid has also never come top in any Welsh election unlike the SNP.
It is interesting to hear your pontifications on Wales from deepest Essex.
If Slovenia -- a country that has much less history as an independent stat than either Wales or Scotland -- can be independent, then so can Wales and Scotland.
> @Gardenwalker said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > > @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? > > > > Not blinkers, just the fact that some leftwingers desperation on here to kill off the rightwing element of British politics is not going to happen > > You were responding to be, but I am not a left winger. > > I just note that the Tories no longer stand for aspiration.
You are not a conservative either but a liberal Remainer.
It is also rubbish the Tories do not stand for aspiration, housebuilding is up over the last few years, taxes and unemployment are down on 2010 etc.
If you really want parties which do not stand for aspiration try the high tax, high welfare Corbyn Labour Party or the NIMBY anti development LDs
> @YBarddCwsc said: > > Welsh independence. Which I hope follows shortly after Scottish independence. > > Let the rest of England deal with London's controlling over-mighty, over-bearing ways.
How about we dissolve the UK and all join the EU as individual member states and adopt the Euro?
> a) other people to have a better quality of life whilst doing so, particularly those who put in the effort rather than those who inherit, and public sector workers who are needed to keep London a great city
I don't see how you do that. Too many people want to live in London, and the lower quality of life comes from too may people chasing scarce resources like housing.
> b) the views of Londoners to be treated with respect, not discounted for happening to live in the same city as some people in Mayfair and both groups having socially liberal values
This thread provides a perfect illustration of how Londoners (like Gardenwalker) describe Wales, so maybe this is a two-way thing.
I think Londoners are more sinners, than sinned against, in this regard.
> 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.
Reducing NI contributions on the young would be a better idea.
Completely agree. Also equalise NI for the old. That's a huge injustice. Wealthy older workers are paying less tax but require a much larger share of healthcare resources that the young.
> @williamglenn said: > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > > Welsh independence. Which I hope follows shortly after Scottish independence. > > > > Let the rest of England deal with London's controlling over-mighty, over-bearing ways. > > How about we dissolve the UK and all join the EU as individual member states and adopt the Euro?
That would definitely dissolve the UK but because England would declare independence rather than be forced into the EU and Eurozone (in fact the English Democrats have in the past supported English independence, though they now just back an English Parliament and I could see the Brexit Party following suit if remaining in the EU and adding the Euro was the price of keeping the UK together)
> @YBarddCwsc said: > > > Wales will never be independent, it has not got North Sea oil unlike Scotland and voted Leave just like England. Plaid has also never come top in any Welsh election unlike the SNP. > > It is interesting to hear your pontifications on Wales from deepest Essex. > > If Slovenia -- a country that has much less history as an independent stat than either Wales or Scotland -- can be independent, then so can Wales and Scotland. >
Slovenia is richer per head than Wales, certainly in PPP terms and has a more highly educated population
> @MaxPB said: > > @MaxPB said: > > > 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. > > > > Reducing NI contributions on the young would be a better idea. > > Completely agree. Also equalise NI for the old. That's a huge injustice. Wealthy older workers are paying less tax but require a much larger share of healthcare resources that the young. Damian Green's idea that over 50s should pay higher NI to fund extra money for social care and the NHS was a good one
> 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.
Its from the same mindset that thought replacing British factories with Chinese factories would be good for the environment.
I'm in favour of making companies do their bit to combat climate change, but as a policy delisting stocks seems to have no teeth, and it is relatively easy for companies to sidestep. It looks to me that it would do UK plc a fair bit of harm, and do little to no good for the environment.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @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. > > > > > > I 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 > > Personally I am fortunate to be able to afford to live in London, but I would like: > > a) other people to have a better quality of life whilst doing so, particularly those who put in the effort rather than those who inherit, and public sector workers who are needed to keep London a great city > > b) the views of Londoners to be treated with respect, not discounted for happening to live in the same city as some people in Mayfair and both groups having socially liberal values > > That this is so difficult for a conservative to understand is why they do so badly in London.
If the Tories did better in London ie by abandoning support for Brexit principally they would lose support in most of the rest of the country, particularly to the Brexit Party. Pre Brexit as Boris showed in 2008 and 2012 and Cameron did to some extent in 2010 and 2015 the Tories could occasionally win in London
> @HYUFD said: > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > > > Wales will never be independent, it has not got North Sea oil unlike Scotland and voted Leave just like England. Plaid has also never come top in any Welsh election unlike the SNP. > > > > It is interesting to hear your pontifications on Wales from deepest Essex. > > > > If Slovenia -- a country that has much less history as an independent stat than either Wales or Scotland -- can be independent, then so can Wales and Scotland. > > > > Slovenia is richer per head than Wales, certainly in PPP terms and has a more highly educated population
When Ireland became independent, what was is its GDP per head? No doubt there were HYUFDs in 1920 saying Ireland will never prosper, it will always be poor, it can't survive separated from the rest of the UK.
What is Ireland's GDP per head now? It is better than the UKs.
The point is it is alway better for a country to control its own destiny, and to take responsibility for its own decisions. And such a country will prosper.
> @YBarddCwsc said: > I am not unsympathetic, but > > > a) other people to have a better quality of life whilst doing so, particularly those who put in the effort rather than those who inherit, and public sector workers who are needed to keep London a great city > > I don't see how you do that. Too many people want to live in London, and the lower quality of life comes from too may people chasing scarce resources like housing. > > > b) the views of Londoners to be treated with respect, not discounted for happening to live in the same city as some people in Mayfair and both groups having socially liberal values > > This thread provides a perfect illustration of how Londoners (like Gardenwalker) describe Wales, so maybe this is a two-way thing. > > I think Londoners are more sinners, than sinned against, in this regard. >
In person I have challenged many a Londoner who insults the Leave voters so agree it is a two way thing, it is still bad for the country either way.
On housing, a couple of simple things that can help, taking away the govt props that push up prices such as help to buy, free stamp duty, introduce a big (10%) surcharge on foreign ownership, higher taxes on empty properties (some councils still have reduced council tax for empty properties fgs), take out some of the inheritance tax loopholes that favour the "truly" elite.
As a bigger change a land value tax system would make a difference.
> @YBarddCwsc said: > I am not unsympathetic, but > > > a) other people to have a better quality of life whilst doing so, particularly those who put in the effort rather than those who inherit, and public sector workers who are needed to keep London a great city > > I don't see how you do that. Too many people want to live in London, and the lower quality of life comes from too may people chasing scarce resources like housing. > > > b) the views of Londoners to be treated with respect, not discounted for happening to live in the same city as some people in Mayfair and both groups having socially liberal values > > This thread provide a perfect illustration of how Londoners (like Gardenwalker) describe Wales, so maybe this is a two-way thing. > > I think Londoners are more sinners, than sinned against, in this regard. >
We talk about people as if they are the same because of the region they live in or the ethnicity or nationality they are.
Some Londoners own homes worth millions they paid barely thousands for - some live 10 to a house or in cramped poor quality rental flats for which they are charged crazy rents. Their house prices and wages may be lower - but are people in other parts of England and Wales all less happy?
Many inherited such wealth - some worked for it, some have no chance of ever achieving it. Would Cameron and Osborne and Johnson and Rees Mogg have got where they are if they had grown up on a council estate in Wigan instead of being born to well off parents who sent them to good public schools?
Measuring wealth in terms of GDP or wages relatively doesn't tell the whole story - and when you travel on the central line every day packed in like cattle and look at the depressed miserable faces in said cattle class they don't exactly look 'happy'. The crowds, rudeness - even basics like letting people off trains first, noise and more - because people just don't care. And then you go to somewhere like Singapore which is equally as crowded and yet there is an attempt made for people to be civil on the metro and even guides on platform to explain where you stand to allow people off the train first...
Social liberal, live and let live etc etc - or no respect, lack of civility, anti social behaviour and I don't really care about anyone else?
Wales is a beautiful places - and yes it has its problems - but how do you measure quality of life vs GDP and house prices. GDP and high wages don't bring happiness if you can't afford basics like shelter.
> @YBarddCwsc said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > > > > > Wales will never be independent, it has not got North Sea oil unlike Scotland and voted Leave just like England. Plaid has also never come top in any Welsh election unlike the SNP. > > > > > > It is interesting to hear your pontifications on Wales from deepest Essex. > > > > > > If Slovenia -- a country that has much less history as an independent stat than either Wales or Scotland -- can be independent, then so can Wales and Scotland. > > > > > > > Slovenia is richer per head than Wales, certainly in PPP terms and has a more highly educated population > > When Ireland became independent, what was is its GDP per head? No doubt there were HYUFDs in 1920 saying Ireland will never prosper, it will always be poor, it can't survive separated from the rest of the UK. > > What is Ireland's GDP per head now? It is better than the UKs. > > The point is it is alway better for a country to control its own destiny, and to take responsibility for its own decisions. And such a country will prosper. >
Ireland has become rich in recent years by slashing taxes, particularly for global companies like Apple and Amazon to attract investment and by a construction boom (at least pre 2008) and by EU investment.
Ireland currently has a centre right PM in Varadkar from Fine Gael.
Wales has elected centre left tax and spend Labour governments at the Assembly ever since it was founded and has always elected mainly Labour MPs. Wales also voted to Leave the EU.
From David L on the previous thread: We are having a crazy week in July when we are doing open days in Oxford, LSE and Cambridge on 3 successive days. I can only presume that it is deliberate that they overlap like this so people choose earlier or something.
I can’t understand the “we”. If a person is old enough to go to University, to vote (moreso in Scotland I think), have children etc they’re old enough to decide without parents.
May be you make big decisions without consulting your family, but I doubt everyone is like that
> @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
Data on homeownership is based on households - not numbers of people actually owning. Do we know how many over 35s are actually homeowners?
Take two houses next to each other - one lived in by an elderly lady and one rented by 4 young people in their 20s.
On the Government's data that implies that 50% of people own - because 50% of households do. But only 20% of people and voters actually own.
Take two people still living at their parents home in their 30s in London - the data suggests 100% 'homeownership' but only the mum and dad own the place so 50% of people own there. Now the kids may or may not inherit in their 60s - but they don't own now in their 'child bearing' years.
Its a bit like the average age of a first time buyer - it only measures those who buy but ignores those who never buy.
The proportion of people who own property as opposed to the proportion of households (as per offical stats) where the home is owned is not the same thing. And I would suggest respectfully that true home ownership levels are actually well below the figures stated.
Do we know how many over 35s own a home - as opposed to households? Do we know have many over 35s have their name on the deeds of at least one property - because I have never seen that data which is the true measure?
So I expect true homeownership is well below the official figures stated - and that is a problem for the Tories as there is little social housing unless you are poor and have a large family and private renting can be a precarious existence.
> I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge.
I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF.
There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it.
Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes?
If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote?
> @kinabalu said: > > @Recidivist said: > > > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge. > > I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF. > > There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it. > > Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes? > > If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote?
I would have thought the answer to that question is Yes.
> > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge.
> I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF.
> There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it
> Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes?
>
> If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote?
I would have thought the answer to that question is Yes.
Is the whole point not that, having agreed the historic agreement for peace on Good Friday 1998, the past should now be left in the past and we shouldn’t be dragging up old misdeeds from any side in the conflict?
> @FrancisUrquhart said: > Thanks for coming lads...but Jos Butler is just a bit out of your league...kiddie game down the street. > > But I still can't believe they have picked Woakes and Willey over Archer.
This game doesn't matter but its a bowl off to see who is going to bowl with Archer. No problem with that. Buttler is indeed a god but bowling on this pitch is going to test any bowler to the limits.
> @Sandpit said: > > @kinabalu said: > > > > @Recidivist said: > > > > > > > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge. > > > > > I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF. > > > > There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it > > > Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes? > > > > > > If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote? > > > I would have thought the answer to that question is Yes. > > Is the whole point not that, having agreed the historic agreement for peace on Good Friday 1998, the past should now be left in the past and we shouldn’t be dragging up old misdeeds from any side in the conflict?
I think so, I'd imagine I would feel differently if it was my relative that had been killed but for the greater good it is better to move on. Achieving peace in NI is something we should celebrate, sometimes it is necessary for justice to take a back seat to move on.
However if the conflict was ongoing I would support justice being served, I get the impression that Mercer thinks trials of soldiers are rarely if ever appropriate.
> @kinabalu said: > > @Recidivist said: > > > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge. > > I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF. > > There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it. > > Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes? > > If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote?
How can he now stand given that he has just given up the Whip?
> @brendan16 said: > > @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 > > Data on homeownership is based on households - not numbers of people actually owning. Do we know how many over 35s are actually homeowners? > > Take two houses next to each other - one lived in by an elderly lady and one rented by 4 young people in their 20s. > > On the Government's data that implies that 50% of people own - because 50% of households do. But only 20% of people and voters actually own. > > Take two people still living at their parents home in their 30s in London - the data suggests 100% 'homeownership' but only the mum and dad own the place so 50% of people own there. Now the kids may or may not inherit in their 60s - but they don't own now in their 'child bearing' years. > > Its a bit like the average age of a first time buyer - it only measures those who buy but ignores those who never buy. > > The proportion of people who own property as opposed to the proportion of households (as per offical stats) where the home is owned is not the same thing. And I would suggest respectfully that true home ownership levels are actually well below the figures stated. > > Do we know how many over 35s own a home - as opposed to households? Do we know have many over 35s have their name on the deeds of at least one property - because I have never seen that data which is the true measure? > > So I expect true homeownership is well below the official figures stated - and that is a problem for the Tories as there is little social housing unless you are poor and have a large family and private renting can be a precarious existence. >
You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014.
> @Sandpit said: > > @kinabalu said: > > > > @Recidivist said: > > > > > > > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge. > > > > > I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF. > > > > There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it > > > Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes? > > > > > > If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote? > > > I would have thought the answer to that question is Yes. > > Is the whole point not that, having agreed the historic agreement for peace on Good Friday 1998, the past should now be left in the past and we shouldn’t be dragging up old misdeeds from any side in the conflict?
But we have been chasing SS officers decades after the end of World War 2 - rightly so in my opinion.
> @justin124 said: > > @Sandpit said: > > > @kinabalu said: > > > > > > @Recidivist said: > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge. > > > > > > > > > I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF. > > > > > > > There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it > > > > > Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes? > > > > > > > > > > If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote? > > > > > > I would have thought the answer to that question is Yes. > > > > Is the whole point not that, having agreed the historic agreement for peace on Good Friday 1998, the past should now be left in the past and we shouldn’t be dragging up old misdeeds from any side in the conflict? > > But we have been chasing SS officers decades after the end of World War 2 - rightly so in my opinion.
There was never any equivalent to the GFA with Germany.
> > > > 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.
Paras murdered people on Bloody Sunday, did they not? And then there was the original Bloody Sunday in 1920, during the War of Independence. And the previous year, 1919, I could have sworn there was an even bigger massacre carried out by British troops somewhere else in the Empire that year...
> > > > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF.
> >
> >
> > > There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it
> >
> > > Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote?
> >
> >
> > I would have thought the answer to that question is Yes.
> >
> > Is the whole point not that, having agreed the historic agreement for peace on Good Friday 1998, the past should now be left in the past and we shouldn’t be dragging up old misdeeds from any side in the conflict?
>
> But we have been chasing SS officers decades after the end of World War 2 - rightly so in my opinion.
There was never any equivalent to the GFA with Germany.
> @YBarddCwsc said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > > > > > Wales will never be independent, it has not got North Sea oil unlike Scotland and voted Leave just like England. Plaid has also never come top in any Welsh election unlike the SNP. > > > > > > It is interesting to hear your pontifications on Wales from deepest Essex. > > > > > > If Slovenia -- a country that has much less history as an independent stat than either Wales or Scotland -- can be independent, then so can Wales and Scotland. > > > > > > > Slovenia is richer per head than Wales, certainly in PPP terms and has a more highly educated population > > When Ireland became independent, what was is its GDP per head? No doubt there were HYUFDs in 1920 saying Ireland will never prosper, it will always be poor, it can't survive separated from the rest of the UK. > > What is Ireland's GDP per head now? It is better than the UKs. > > The point is it is alway better for a country to control its own destiny, and to take responsibility for its own decisions. And such a country will prosper. >
"You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014."
Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y?
All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there.
Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments
I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience.
Mr. Sandpit, quite. The news had a spot on Azerbaijan (no direct flights, a long way off, and less than half the seating for actual fans). Football fans might whine but they'll pay up, so why will the suits change their minds? They've got a mindlessly obedient and enormous fanbase who'll fork out a fortune.
It's not unlike S&M. Sure, the sub will yelp. But they'll still come back for more.
Edited extra bit: slight shame Verstappen couldn't get third on the grid, but fourth is still reasonable. Be interesting to see if his odds (34 pre-qualifying) for the win have shortened. I think he's in with a good podium shot.
> @Sunil_Prasannan > Paras murdered people on Bloody Sunday, did they not? And then there was the original Bloody Sunday in 1920, during the War of Independence. And the previous year, 1919, I could have sworn there was an even bigger massacre carried out by British troops somewhere else in the Empire that year...
Sunil we did a family trace back and 7 out of 8 members of my ancestors at their home in County Cork died in the Irish potato famine in the late 1840s - 7 out of 1.5 million plus? This was while the British government was exporting food from Ireland which could have fed them.
It was hardly the fault of the British working class who in the 1840s who were mostly living in the gutter themselves - but the rich landowning aristocracy who ran the government. The vast majority of Brits or Americans never owned slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries either - the rich did though.
In the end you have to move on - the ordinary working classes didn't do the exploiting or cause the damage but governments and aristocratic landowners did (across the world from the Ottoman empire to slavery in Africa which was only legally abolished in Mauritania barely a decade ago). The sort who would mostly pee their pants if asked to do the same thing as those working class kids sent to the front line were ordered to do.
Some times you have to move on - and blame those who were really responsible (i.e. not the vast majority of poor working class Brits who had little or nothing either).
> @brendan16 said: > > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014." > > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y? > > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there. > > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest > > Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments > > I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience.
Mr. Sandpit, quite. The news had a spot on Azerbaijan (no direct flights, a long way off, and less than half the seating for actual fans). Football fans might whine but they'll pay up, so why will the suits change their minds? They've got a mindlessly obedient and enormous fanbase who'll fork out a fortune.
It's not unlike S&M. Sure, the sub will yelp. But they'll still come back for more.
Edited extra bit: slight shame Verstappen couldn't get third on the grid, but fourth is still reasonable. Be interesting to see if his odds (34 pre-qualifying) for the win have shortened. I think he's in with a good podium shot.
Quite amazed to see the Mercs so far ahead in qualifying, this year is unexpectedly like 2014 all over again.
Mr. Sandpit, one of the Mercedes. Bottas was unable to get close to his own time on his second run, it might be that he pulled out a stunning lap to exaggerate the gap.
> @brendan16 said: > > @Sunil_Prasannan > > Paras murdered people on Bloody Sunday, did they not? And then there was the original Bloody Sunday in 1920, during the War of Independence. And the previous year, 1919, I could have sworn there was an even bigger massacre carried out by British troops somewhere else in the Empire that year... > > Sunil we did a family trace back and 7 out of 8 members of my ancestors at their home in County Cork died in the Irish potato famine in the late 1840s - 7 out of 1.5 million plus? This was while the British government was exporting food from Ireland which could have fed them. > > It was hardly the fault of the British working class who in the 1840s who were mostly living in the gutter themselves - but the rich landowning aristocracy who ran the government. The vast majority of Brits or Americans never owned slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries either - the rich did though. > > In the end you have to move on - the ordinary working classes didn't do the exploiting or cause the damage but governments and aristocratic landowners did (across the world from the Ottoman empire to slavery in Africa which was only legally abolished in Mauritania barely a decade ago). The sort who would mostly pee their pants if asked to do the same thing as those working class kids sent to the front line were ordered to do. > > Some times you have to move on - and blame those who were really responsible (i.e. not the vast majority of poor working class Brits who had little or nothing either).
And, most of us live very well today because of the efforts of our much poorer ancestors.
> @HYUFD said: > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > > > 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. > > > > No Wales is not the poorest region in the UK, gdp per capita in Wales is £18,002 that is higher than the £17,381 it is in the North East of England. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Economy_by_region > > Wales and the NorthEast have had their politics dominated by the Labour Party for decades and not much good it has done them
The North East has had the same government as the rest of England.
> @DavidL said: > > @FrancisUrquhart said: > > Thanks for coming lads...but Jos Butler is just a bit out of your league...kiddie game down the street. > > > > But I still can't believe they have picked Woakes and Willey over Archer. > > This game doesn't matter but its a bowl off to see who is going to bowl with Archer. No problem with that. Buttler is indeed a god but bowling on this pitch is going to test any bowler to the limits.
Mr. Sandpit, one of the Mercedes. Bottas was unable to get close to his own time on his second run, it might be that he pulled out a stunning lap to exaggerate the gap.
Any thoughts on race pace?
I think the red cars will be closer on race pace, but wouldn’t rule out a quid on Verstappen at long odds (currently 20) for some unusual strategy around a safety car.
Thankfully clever bods have recently discovered ways of transmitting images and sounds across vast distances. While I don't think it'll catch on, it may be useful in this instance.
On topic, we Scots have been drinking deeply from the cup of democracy for a few years now. The Chukers are going to have to try a bit harder to pique our jaded appetites.
Mr. Sandpit, I'm a bit surprised his odds aren't a little bit shorter. At the moment I've got a tiny sum on (each way but only top 2) at 36, and I might set up a hedge but am otherwise ok with that.
No markets up yet on Ladbrokes.
My early thinking is Verstappen podium, Kvyat/Norris top 6, and Williams double classified, but we'll see how the odds stack up.
Haas have upgrades but we'll see if that's mended their unfortunate going backwards in the race tendency.
> @brendan16 said: > > @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 > > Data on homeownership is based on households - not numbers of people actually owning. Do we know how many over 35s are actually homeowners? > > Take two houses next to each other - one lived in by an elderly lady and one rented by 4 young people in their 20s. > > On the Government's data that implies that 50% of people own - because 50% of households do. But only 20% of people and voters actually own. > > Take two people still living at their parents home in their 30s in London - the data suggests 100% 'homeownership' but only the mum and dad own the place so 50% of people own there. Now the kids may or may not inherit in their 60s - but they don't own now in their 'child bearing' years. > > Its a bit like the average age of a first time buyer - it only measures those who buy but ignores those who never buy. > > The proportion of people who own property as opposed to the proportion of households (as per offical stats) where the home is owned is not the same thing. And I would suggest respectfully that true home ownership levels are actually well below the figures stated. > > Do we know how many over 35s own a home - as opposed to households? Do we know have many over 35s have their name on the deeds of at least one property - because I have never seen that data which is the true measure? > > So I expect true homeownership is well below the official figures stated - and that is a problem for the Tories as there is little social housing unless you are poor and have a large family and private renting can be a precarious existence. > More people are probably householders than in the past on that basis as more couples own as joint earners than just one male single earner so that does not change my point in the slightest.
Your point is also totally illogical as how on earth can 2 children living with their parents count as homeowners when on the very same statistics most 20 to 35 year olds are not home owners but most 35 to 44 year olds are?
No, I am afraid that is desperation and the fact a majority of over 35s are homeowners remains absolutely correct. On social housing of course we are seeing in my district more social homes being built than was the case for decades and the Tories have also expanded rights for private tenants so yet more whinging from the left without any factual basis
> @Sean_F said: > > @brendan16 said: > > > @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 > > > > Data on homeownership is based on households - not numbers of people actually owning. Do we know how many over 35s are actually homeowners? > > > > Take two houses next to each other - one lived in by an elderly lady and one rented by 4 young people in their 20s. > > > > On the Government's data that implies that 50% of people own - because 50% of households do. But only 20% of people and voters actually own. > > > > Take two people still living at their parents home in their 30s in London - the data suggests 100% 'homeownership' but only the mum and dad own the place so 50% of people own there. Now the kids may or may not inherit in their 60s - but they don't own now in their 'child bearing' years. > > > > Its a bit like the average age of a first time buyer - it only measures those who buy but ignores those who never buy. > > > > The proportion of people who own property as opposed to the proportion of households (as per offical stats) where the home is owned is not the same thing. And I would suggest respectfully that true home ownership levels are actually well below the figures stated. > > > > Do we know how many over 35s own a home - as opposed to households? Do we know have many over 35s have their name on the deeds of at least one property - because I have never seen that data which is the true measure? > > > > So I expect true homeownership is well below the official figures stated - and that is a problem for the Tories as there is little social housing unless you are poor and have a large family and private renting can be a precarious existence. > > > > You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014.
So even if you just take adults alone rather than households a majority are still property owners, thankyou
What we're really seeing is another example of the hideous nature of FPTP for new parties, even when loads of voters want a change. In any proportional system, ChUK could get 5-10% and keep all their seats, but in Britain you really have to work with people who you're not necessarily that keen on...or die.
> @brendan16 said: > > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014." > > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y? > > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there. > > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest > > Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments > > I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience.
Given in the past the property owner tended to be the salaried father only and not the mother nor the children in families and now both parents often tend to be earning and on the property deeds I would venture to suggest that arguably more individual adults are property owners than say 30 years ago even if household property ownership is slightly down from then (100 years ago most households rented of course)
> @dixiedean said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @YBarddCwsc said: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > No Wales is not the poorest region in the UK, gdp per capita in Wales is £18,002 that is higher than the £17,381 it is in the North East of England. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Economy_by_region > > > > Wales and the NorthEast have had their politics dominated by the Labour Party for decades and not much good it has done them > > The North East has had the same government as the rest of England.
The North East produced much of the Cabinet in the last Labour government and still produces much of Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet
What we're really seeing is another example of the hideous nature of FPTP for new parties, even when loads of voters want a change. In any proportional system, ChUK could get 5-10% and keep all their seats, but in Britain you really have to work with people who you're not necessarily that keen on...or die.
Not been a problem for the Brexit Party though has it?
Take a morning Eurostar to Paris, get the afternoon train to Munich arriving late evening, then either overnight to Budapest, arriving morning day 2, or stay in Munich and travel to Budapest the next morning. The night train from Budapest day 2 to Bucharest day 3 lunchtime. Bucharest to Istanbul arrives day 4 lunchtime, or day 5 if you miss the connection. High speed train to Ankara arriving that evening, day 4/5. Sleeper train to eastern Turkey day 5/6, bus or minibus taxi across the border into Georgia the next morning, then train to Tbilisi. The overnight train from Tbilisi arrives Baku the next morning day 7/8.
> @Sean_F said: > > @brendan16 said: > > > > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014." > > > > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y? > > > > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there. > > > > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest > > > > Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments > > > > I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience. > > It's on the Resolution Foundation website https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/ Student owners would be included in the 52%, the 13% include students who live with their parents.
A fascinating chart which actually shows individual or couple homeownership (combining ownership outright or with a mortgage) is higher now than it was throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s even if below the late 1990s and 2000s peak.
52% of families (singles or couples) aged 35 to 44 own their own home, almost identical to the national average
Funnily enough about 20 minutes ago I walked past 3 people handing out CUK leaflets on Union Street in Aberdeen. It is the first presence I have seen of them anywhere outside of this forum and the TV.
Salford now 3-0 up in the National League play-off final; coupled with Yeovils relegation, this means that the makeup of the football league will be even more systemically based towards Labour next season. :-(
> @HYUFD said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > @brendan16 said: > > > > > > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014." > > > > > > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y? > > > > > > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there. > > > > > > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest > > > > > > Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments > > > > > > I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience. > > > > It's on the Resolution Foundation website https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/ Student owners would be included in the 52%, the 13% include students who live with their parents. > > A fascinating chart which actually shows individual or couple homeownership (combining ownership outright or with a mortgage) is higher now than it was throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s even if below the late 1990s and 2000s peak. > > > 52% of families (singles or couples) aged 35 to 44 own their own home, almost identical to the national average
Will that still be the case in a decade for current 25 to 34 years if house prices rises carry on spiralling upwards. What about the 48 per cent who don't - private renting and potentially 8 weeks away from being on the street even if they pay rent.
There is of course a big difference vs the 1960s and 1970s and much of the 1980s, Back then those who didn't own were able to get council housing - low rent, secure tenancy for life. That doesn't exist as an option for most now - so they face renting privately. And those who do buy are often taking on hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt - not a few grand like their parents or grandparents.
Now I accept the problem is bigger in London and the south east - but that should be an area of Tory strength. And that is the Tories' long term problem - homeowners are more likely to vote Tory to keep the status quo!
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > Funnily enough about 20 minutes ago I walked past 3 people handing out CUK leaflets on Union Street in Aberdeen. It is the first presence I have seen of them anywhere outside of this forum and the TV.
I've seen their logo painted on my local high street.
Mr. 1000, and yet XCOM allows for soldiers to be identified as from Scotland (but not England), and Stargate: Atlantis had the Scottish doctor with his Saltire rather than a Union Jack/Flag.
> @brendan16 said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > @brendan16 said: > > > > > > > > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014." > > > > > > > > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y? > > > > > > > > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there. > > > > > > > > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest > > > > > > > > Students can own homes - admittedly bought fo > > > > > > > > I belie > > > > > > It's on the Resolution Foundation website https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/ Student owners would be included in the 52%, the 13% include students who live with their parents. > > > > A fascinating chart which actually shows individual or couple homeownership (combining ownership outright or with a mortgage) is higher now than it was throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s even if below the late 1990s and 2000s peak. > > > > > > 52% of families (singles or couples) aged 35 to 44 own their own home, almost identical to the national average > > Will that still be the case in a decade for current 25 to 34 years if house prices rises carry on spiralling upwards. What about the 48 per cent who don't - private renting and potentially 8 weeks away from being on the street even if they pay rent. > > There is of course a big difference vs the 1960s and 1970s and much of the 1980s, Back then those who didn't own were able to get council housing - low rent, secure tenancy for life. That doesn't exist as an option for most now - so they face renting privately. And those who do buy are often taking on hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt - not a few grand like their parents or grandparents. > > Now I accept the problem is bigger in London and the south east - but that should be an area of Tory strength. And that is the Tories' long term problem - homeowners are more likely to vote Tory to keep the status quo! > >
We only got to a majority of singles or couples owning a property in 1990 and Thatcher won 2 landslides in the 1980s with only a minority of individuals or couples property owners.
Where Thatcher made the mistake was selling off council homes and expanding home ownership but not building new social homes to replace them with the sale funds, I am glad that May and local Tory councils like my own in Epping Forest are now starting to build new council and social homes again to redress that.
> @brendan16 said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > @brendan16 said: > > > > > > > > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014." > > > > > > > > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y? > > > > > > > > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there. > > > > > > > > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest > > > > > > > > Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments > > > > > > > > I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience. > > > > > > It's on the Resolution Foundation website https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/ Student owners would be included in the 52%, the 13% include students who live with their parents. > > > > A fascinating chart which actually shows individual or couple homeownership (combining ownership outright or with a mortgage) is higher now than it was throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s even if below the late 1990s and 2000s peak. > > > > > > 52% of families (singles or couples) aged 35 to 44 own their own home, almost identical to the national average > > Will that still be the case in a decade for current 25 to 34 years if house prices rises carry on spiralling upwards. What about the 48 per cent who don't - private renting and potentially 8 weeks away from being on the street even if they pay rent. > > There is of course a big difference vs the 1960s and 1970s and much of the 1980s, Back then those who didn't own were able to get council housing - low rent, secure tenancy for life. That doesn't exist as an option for most now - so they face renting privately. And those who do buy are often taking on hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt - not a few grand like their parents or grandparents. > > Now I accept the problem is bigger in London and the south east - but that should be an area of Tory strength. And that is the Tories' long term problem - homeowners are more likely to vote Tory to keep the status quo! > > IMHO, house prices will stagnate for a long while to come.
You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014.
So even if you just take adults alone rather than households a majority are still property owners, thankyou
Is it fair to describe 52% as a majority?
Surely more accurate to conclude that the country is split down the middle between those who own property and those who do not.
> @kinabalu said: > You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014. > > So even if you just take adults alone rather than households a majority are still property owners, thankyou > > Is it fair to describe 52% as a majority? > > Surely more accurate to conclude that the country is split down the middle between those who own property and those who do not.
Yes, because the word has a rather specific definition.
Since I don't share TSE's legendary modesty, I predicted this as soon as I heard the name CUK- that the post mortem for the party would focus on the individual tactical mistakes they made rather than conceding that their project fundamentally doesn't offer anything the electorate want
You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014.
So even if you just take adults alone rather than households a majority are still property owners, thankyou
Is it fair to describe 52% as a majority?
Surely more accurate to conclude that the country is split down the middle between those who own property and those who do not.
Home ownership is the 'will of the people'. No need to worry about the silly feckers who choose to rent - they lost.
> @RobD said: > > @rcs1000 said: > > > @isam said: > > > > > > > That's ridiculous: Scotland hasn't been a country since the Act of Union in 1707. > > Quite correct. The title should clearly be "Countries and provinces". > > *runs away*
What we're really seeing is another example of the hideous nature of FPTP for new parties, even when loads of voters want a change. In any proportional system, ChUK could get 5-10% and keep all their seats, but in Britain you really have to work with people who you're not necessarily that keen on...or die.
Not been a problem for the Brexit Party though has it?
What we're really seeing is another example of the hideous nature of FPTP for new parties, even when loads of voters want a change. In any proportional system, ChUK could get 5-10% and keep all their seats, but in Britain you really have to work with people who you're not necessarily that keen on...or die.
Not been a problem for the Brexit Party though has it?
> @Sean_F said: > > @brendan16 said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @Sean_F said: > > > > > @brendan16 said: > > > > > > > > > > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014." > > > > > > > > > > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y? > > > > > > > > > > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there. > > > > > > > > > > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest > > > > > > > > > > Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! > > > > > > > > > > I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience. > > > > > > > > It's on the Resolution Foundation website https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/ Student owners would be included in the 52%, the 13% include students who live with their parents. > > > > > > A fascinating chart which actually shows individual or couple homeownership (combining ownership outright or with a mortgage) is higher now than it was throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s even if below the late 1990s and 2000s peak. > > > > > > > > > 52% of families (singles or couples) aged 35 to 44 own their own home, almost identical to the national average > > > > Will that still be the case in a decade for current 25 to 34 years if house prices rises carry on spiralling upwards. What about the 48 per cent who don't - private renting and potentially 8 weeks away from being on the street even if they pay rent. > > > > There is of course a big difference vs the 1960s and 1970s and much of the 1980s, Back then those who didn't own were able to get council housing - low rent, secure tenancy for life. That doesn't exist as an option for most now - so they face renting privately. And those who do buy are often taking on hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt - not a few grand like their parents or grandparents. > > > > Now I accept the problem is bigger in London and the south east - but that should be an area of Tory strength. And that is the Tories' long term problem - homeowners are more likely to vote Tory to keep the status quo! > > > > > IMHO, house prices will stagnate for a long while to come. >
Possibly and the Tories did better in the Midlands in the local elections than the South, London is majority rent now anyway and a Labour city
> 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.
Reducing NI contributions on the young would be a better idea.
Completely agree. Also equalise NI for the old. That's a huge injustice. Wealthy older workers are paying less tax but require a much larger share of healthcare resources that the young.
What about those (and I am one of them) with investment income that attracts no NI? We should roll NI into Income tax and have a level playing field for all income.
> @kinabalu said: > You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014. > > So even if you just take adults alone rather than households a majority are still property owners, thankyou > > Is it fair to describe 52% as a majority? > > Surely more accurate to conclude that the country is split down the middle between those who own property and those who do not.
Yes and a mathematical fact.
As I said more people now own property still in the UK than all the post war years up until 1990
Comments
> > @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?
I'm not referring to the people directly affected who will of course see things differently.
But to what will be the general response to the story.
And however much you (and I for that matter) disagree organisations will engage in cover-ups to protect themselves rather than root out wrong doing.
> > @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.
>
> 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.
We will know when Soldier F's trial happens. A pity that there are some who want to stop that trial happening.
> > @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 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.
Leavers have now had nearly three years to articulate what Brexit should be. They remain utterly clueless. The rest of humanity does not need to wait indefinitely for them to alight on a position. Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016 and if Leavers have lost the public’s support, they will need to suck it up and accept that they had their chance and flunked it.
> 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.
Reducing NI contributions on the young would be a better idea.
> > @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?
Not blinkers, just the fact that some leftwingers and liberals desperation on here to kill off the rightwing and conservative element of British politics is not going to happen
Instead, we subsidise the elderly and penalise the young.
I just note that the Tories no longer stand for aspiration.
> 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.
Its from the same mindset that thought replacing British factories with Chinese factories would be good for the environment.
> > 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.
>
> What’s your solution apart from grizzling about coffee drinkers?
Welsh independence. Which I hope follows shortly after Scottish independence.
Let the rest of England deal with London's controlling over-mighty, over-bearing ways.
>
> > 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.
>
No Wales is not the poorest region in the UK, gdp per capita in Wales is £18,002 that is higher than the £17,381 it is in the North East of England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Economy_by_region
Wales and the NorthEast have had their politics dominated by the Labour Party for decades and not much good it has done them
> > @Gardenwalker said:
> > > 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.
> >
> > What’s your solution apart from grizzling about coffee drinkers?
>
> Welsh independence. Which I hope follows shortly after Scottish independence.
>
> Let the rest of England deal with London's controlling over-mighty, over-bearing ways.
Wales will never be independent, it has not got North Sea oil unlike Scotland and Wales voted Leave just like England and unlike Remain voting Scotland. Plaid has also never come top in any Welsh election, Assembly, Westminster or European unlike the SNP.
In fact there is more chance of Remain voting wealthy London going independent than Wales
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Economy_by_region
>
> Wales and the NorthEast have had their politics dominated by the Labour Party for decades and not much good it has done them
I was using the figures produced by the EU.
https://twitter.com/euforwales
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @another_richard said:
> > > > @malcolmg said:
> > > > > @Theuniondivvie said:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Murder is never "dim and distant" to the relatives of those murdered.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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?
>
> I'm not referring to the people directly affected who will of course see things differently.
>
> But to what will be the general response to the story.
>
> And however much you (and I for that matter) disagree organisations will engage in cover-ups to protect themselves rather than root out wrong doing.
I'm well aware of your last point. I have spent a working lifetime trying to stop them doing just that. The fact that that is the initial reaction of pretty much every organisation is no reason for the rest of us to acquiesce.
We need to send out a strong signal to those who try to do the right thing that they are not being mugs by doing so. That they are doing the right thing by trying to do the right thing. The lessons we send out to the good guys are even more important, in my view, than the lessons we give to the bad guys. Any group only improves when there are more good people in it than bad ones and when the former feel that their behaviour is rewarded and considered worthwhile.
> > @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
Personally I am fortunate to be able to afford to live in London, but I would like:
a) other people to have a better quality of life whilst doing so, particularly those who put in the effort rather than those who inherit, and public sector workers who are needed to keep London a great city
b) the views of Londoners to be treated with respect, not discounted for happening to live in the same city as some people in Mayfair and both groups having socially liberal values
That this is so difficult for a conservative to understand is why they do so badly in London.
It is interesting to hear your pontifications on Wales from deepest Essex.
If Slovenia -- a country that has much less history as an independent stat than either Wales or Scotland -- can be independent, then so can Wales and Scotland.
> > @IanB2 said:
>
> > > @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?
>
>
>
> Not blinkers, just the fact that some leftwingers desperation on here to kill off the rightwing element of British politics is not going to happen
>
> You were responding to be, but I am not a left winger.
>
> I just note that the Tories no longer stand for aspiration.
You are not a conservative either but a liberal Remainer.
It is also rubbish the Tories do not stand for aspiration, housebuilding is up over the last few years, taxes and unemployment are down on 2010 etc.
If you really want parties which do not stand for aspiration try the high tax, high welfare Corbyn Labour Party or the NIMBY anti development LDs
>
> Welsh independence. Which I hope follows shortly after Scottish independence.
>
> Let the rest of England deal with London's controlling over-mighty, over-bearing ways.
How about we dissolve the UK and all join the EU as individual member states and adopt the Euro?
> a) other people to have a better quality of life whilst doing so, particularly those who put in the effort rather than those who inherit, and public sector workers who are needed to keep London a great city
I don't see how you do that. Too many people want to live in London, and the lower quality of life comes from too may people chasing scarce resources like housing.
> b) the views of Londoners to be treated with respect, not discounted for happening to live in the same city as some people in Mayfair and both groups having socially liberal values
This thread provides a perfect illustration of how Londoners (like Gardenwalker) describe Wales, so maybe this is a two-way thing.
I think Londoners are more sinners, than sinned against, in this regard.
> > @YBarddCwsc said:
> >
> > Welsh independence. Which I hope follows shortly after Scottish independence.
> >
> > Let the rest of England deal with London's controlling over-mighty, over-bearing ways.
>
> How about we dissolve the UK and all join the EU as individual member states and adopt the Euro?
That would definitely dissolve the UK but because England would declare independence rather than be forced into the EU and Eurozone (in fact the English Democrats have in the past supported English independence, though they now just back an English Parliament and I could see the Brexit Party following suit if remaining in the EU and adding the Euro was the price of keeping the UK together)
>
> > Wales will never be independent, it has not got North Sea oil unlike Scotland and voted Leave just like England. Plaid has also never come top in any Welsh election unlike the SNP.
>
> It is interesting to hear your pontifications on Wales from deepest Essex.
>
> If Slovenia -- a country that has much less history as an independent stat than either Wales or Scotland -- can be independent, then so can Wales and Scotland.
>
Slovenia is richer per head than Wales, certainly in PPP terms and has a more highly educated population
> > @MaxPB said:
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> Reducing NI contributions on the young would be a better idea.
>
> Completely agree. Also equalise NI for the old. That's a huge injustice. Wealthy older workers are paying less tax but require a much larger share of healthcare resources that the young.
Damian Green's idea that over 50s should pay higher NI to fund extra money for social care and the NHS was a good one
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @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.
> > >
> > > I 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
>
> Personally I am fortunate to be able to afford to live in London, but I would like:
>
> a) other people to have a better quality of life whilst doing so, particularly those who put in the effort rather than those who inherit, and public sector workers who are needed to keep London a great city
>
> b) the views of Londoners to be treated with respect, not discounted for happening to live in the same city as some people in Mayfair and both groups having socially liberal values
>
> That this is so difficult for a conservative to understand is why they do so badly in London.
If the Tories did better in London ie by abandoning support for Brexit principally they would lose support in most of the rest of the country, particularly to the Brexit Party. Pre Brexit as Boris showed in 2008 and 2012 and Cameron did to some extent in 2010 and 2015 the Tories could occasionally win in London
> > @YBarddCwsc said:
> >
> > > Wales will never be independent, it has not got North Sea oil unlike Scotland and voted Leave just like England. Plaid has also never come top in any Welsh election unlike the SNP.
> >
> > It is interesting to hear your pontifications on Wales from deepest Essex.
> >
> > If Slovenia -- a country that has much less history as an independent stat than either Wales or Scotland -- can be independent, then so can Wales and Scotland.
> >
>
> Slovenia is richer per head than Wales, certainly in PPP terms and has a more highly educated population
When Ireland became independent, what was is its GDP per head? No doubt there were HYUFDs in 1920 saying Ireland will never prosper, it will always be poor, it can't survive separated from the rest of the UK.
What is Ireland's GDP per head now? It is better than the UKs.
The point is it is alway better for a country to control its own destiny, and to take responsibility for its own decisions. And such a country will prosper.
> I am not unsympathetic, but
>
> > a) other people to have a better quality of life whilst doing so, particularly those who put in the effort rather than those who inherit, and public sector workers who are needed to keep London a great city
>
> I don't see how you do that. Too many people want to live in London, and the lower quality of life comes from too may people chasing scarce resources like housing.
>
> > b) the views of Londoners to be treated with respect, not discounted for happening to live in the same city as some people in Mayfair and both groups having socially liberal values
>
> This thread provides a perfect illustration of how Londoners (like Gardenwalker) describe Wales, so maybe this is a two-way thing.
>
> I think Londoners are more sinners, than sinned against, in this regard.
>
In person I have challenged many a Londoner who insults the Leave voters so agree it is a two way thing, it is still bad for the country either way.
On housing, a couple of simple things that can help, taking away the govt props that push up prices such as help to buy, free stamp duty, introduce a big (10%) surcharge on foreign ownership, higher taxes on empty properties (some councils still have reduced council tax for empty properties fgs), take out some of the inheritance tax loopholes that favour the "truly" elite.
As a bigger change a land value tax system would make a difference.
> I am not unsympathetic, but
>
> > a) other people to have a better quality of life whilst doing so, particularly those who put in the effort rather than those who inherit, and public sector workers who are needed to keep London a great city
>
> I don't see how you do that. Too many people want to live in London, and the lower quality of life comes from too may people chasing scarce resources like housing.
>
> > b) the views of Londoners to be treated with respect, not discounted for happening to live in the same city as some people in Mayfair and both groups having socially liberal values
>
> This thread provide a perfect illustration of how Londoners (like Gardenwalker) describe Wales, so maybe this is a two-way thing.
>
> I think Londoners are more sinners, than sinned against, in this regard.
>
We talk about people as if they are the same because of the region they live in or the ethnicity or nationality they are.
Some Londoners own homes worth millions they paid barely thousands for - some live 10 to a house or in cramped poor quality rental flats for which they are charged crazy rents. Their house prices and wages may be lower - but are people in other parts of England and Wales all less happy?
Many inherited such wealth - some worked for it, some have no chance of ever achieving it. Would Cameron and Osborne and Johnson and Rees Mogg have got where they are if they had grown up on a council estate in Wigan instead of being born to well off parents who sent them to good public schools?
Measuring wealth in terms of GDP or wages relatively doesn't tell the whole story - and when you travel on the central line every day packed in like cattle and look at the depressed miserable faces in said cattle class they don't exactly look 'happy'. The crowds, rudeness - even basics like letting people off trains first, noise and more - because people just don't care. And then you go to somewhere like Singapore which is equally as crowded and yet there is an attempt made for people to be civil on the metro and even guides on platform to explain where you stand to allow people off the train first...
Social liberal, live and let live etc etc - or no respect, lack of civility, anti social behaviour and I don't really care about anyone else?
Wales is a beautiful places - and yes it has its problems - but how do you measure quality of life vs GDP and house prices. GDP and high wages don't bring happiness if you can't afford basics like shelter.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @YBarddCwsc said:
> > >
> > > > Wales will never be independent, it has not got North Sea oil unlike Scotland and voted Leave just like England. Plaid has also never come top in any Welsh election unlike the SNP.
> > >
> > > It is interesting to hear your pontifications on Wales from deepest Essex.
> > >
> > > If Slovenia -- a country that has much less history as an independent stat than either Wales or Scotland -- can be independent, then so can Wales and Scotland.
> > >
> >
> > Slovenia is richer per head than Wales, certainly in PPP terms and has a more highly educated population
>
> When Ireland became independent, what was is its GDP per head? No doubt there were HYUFDs in 1920 saying Ireland will never prosper, it will always be poor, it can't survive separated from the rest of the UK.
>
> What is Ireland's GDP per head now? It is better than the UKs.
>
> The point is it is alway better for a country to control its own destiny, and to take responsibility for its own decisions. And such a country will prosper.
>
Ireland has become rich in recent years by slashing taxes, particularly for global companies like Apple and Amazon to attract investment and by a construction boom (at least pre 2008) and by EU investment.
Ireland currently has a centre right PM in Varadkar from Fine Gael.
Wales has elected centre left tax and spend Labour governments at the Assembly ever since it was founded and has always elected mainly Labour MPs. Wales also voted to Leave the EU.
> > @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
Data on homeownership is based on households - not numbers of people actually owning. Do we know how many over 35s are actually homeowners?
Take two houses next to each other - one lived in by an elderly lady and one rented by 4 young people in their 20s.
On the Government's data that implies that 50% of people own - because 50% of households do. But only 20% of people and voters actually own.
Take two people still living at their parents home in their 30s in London - the data suggests 100% 'homeownership' but only the mum and dad own the place so 50% of people own there. Now the kids may or may not inherit in their 60s - but they don't own now in their 'child bearing' years.
Its a bit like the average age of a first time buyer - it only measures those who buy but ignores those who never buy.
The proportion of people who own property as opposed to the proportion of households (as per offical stats) where the home is owned is not the same thing. And I would suggest respectfully that true home ownership levels are actually well below the figures stated.
Do we know how many over 35s own a home - as opposed to households? Do we know have many over 35s have their name on the deeds of at least one property - because I have never seen that data which is the true measure?
So I expect true homeownership is well below the official figures stated - and that is a problem for the Tories as there is little social housing unless you are poor and have a large family and private renting can be a precarious existence.
> I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge.
I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF.
There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it.
Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes?
If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote?
> > @Recidivist said:
>
> > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge.
>
> I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF.
>
> There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it.
>
> Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes?
>
> If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote?
I would have thought the answer to that question is Yes.
> I would have thought the answer to that question is Yes.
Right. So that's a wrap.
Off topic, Jos Buttler is a god.
But I still can't believe they have picked Woakes and Willey over Archer.
https://twitter.com/PizzaPunksUK/status/1126154944078336000
> Thanks for coming lads...but Jos Butler is just a bit out of your league...kiddie game down the street.
>
> But I still can't believe they have picked Woakes and Willey over Archer.
This game doesn't matter but its a bowl off to see who is going to bowl with Archer. No problem with that. Buttler is indeed a god but bowling on this pitch is going to test any bowler to the limits.
> I spit on your effete, metropolitan liberal Hawaian pizzas.
>
> https://twitter.com/PizzaPunksUK/status/1126154944078336000
>
>
Where's the pineapple?
> > @kinabalu said:
>
> > > @Recidivist said:
>
> >
>
> > > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge.
>
>
>
> > I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF.
>
>
> > There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it
>
> > Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes?
>
> >
>
> > If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote?
>
>
> I would have thought the answer to that question is Yes.
>
> Is the whole point not that, having agreed the historic agreement for peace on Good Friday 1998, the past should now be left in the past and we shouldn’t be dragging up old misdeeds from any side in the conflict?
I think so, I'd imagine I would feel differently if it was my relative that had been killed but for the greater good it is better to move on. Achieving peace in NI is something we should celebrate, sometimes it is necessary for justice to take a back seat to move on.
However if the conflict was ongoing I would support justice being served, I get the impression that Mercer thinks trials of soldiers are rarely if ever appropriate.
> I spit on your effete, metropolitan liberal Hawaian pizzas.
>
> https://twitter.com/PizzaPunksUK/status/1126154944078336000
>
>
The broccoli needs to go. It's just virtue signalling.
> > @Recidivist said:
>
> > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge.
>
> I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF.
>
> There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it.
>
> Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes?
>
> If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote?
How can he now stand given that he has just given up the Whip?
> > @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
>
> Data on homeownership is based on households - not numbers of people actually owning. Do we know how many over 35s are actually homeowners?
>
> Take two houses next to each other - one lived in by an elderly lady and one rented by 4 young people in their 20s.
>
> On the Government's data that implies that 50% of people own - because 50% of households do. But only 20% of people and voters actually own.
>
> Take two people still living at their parents home in their 30s in London - the data suggests 100% 'homeownership' but only the mum and dad own the place so 50% of people own there. Now the kids may or may not inherit in their 60s - but they don't own now in their 'child bearing' years.
>
> Its a bit like the average age of a first time buyer - it only measures those who buy but ignores those who never buy.
>
> The proportion of people who own property as opposed to the proportion of households (as per offical stats) where the home is owned is not the same thing. And I would suggest respectfully that true home ownership levels are actually well below the figures stated.
>
> Do we know how many over 35s own a home - as opposed to households? Do we know have many over 35s have their name on the deeds of at least one property - because I have never seen that data which is the true measure?
>
> So I expect true homeownership is well below the official figures stated - and that is a problem for the Tories as there is little social housing unless you are poor and have a large family and private renting can be a precarious existence.
>
You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014.
> > @kinabalu said:
>
> > > @Recidivist said:
>
> >
>
> > > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge.
>
>
>
> > I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF.
>
>
> > There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it
>
> > Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes?
>
> >
>
> > If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote?
>
>
> I would have thought the answer to that question is Yes.
>
> Is the whole point not that, having agreed the historic agreement for peace on Good Friday 1998, the past should now be left in the past and we shouldn’t be dragging up old misdeeds from any side in the conflict?
But we have been chasing SS officers decades after the end of World War 2 - rightly so in my opinion.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/05/10/english-clubs-fan-groups-come-together-condemn-disgraceful-uefa/
> > @Sandpit said:
> > > @kinabalu said:
> >
> > > > @Recidivist said:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > I wonder if it did go down well? I'd have regarded it as a bit too blatant and marked it against him. But I'm not the target market. I don't know enough card carrying Tories to judge.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I don't either so, yes, I am wallowing around in a trough of ignorance as regards this TBF.
> >
> >
> > > There are hundreds of seasoned Tory members on here, though, so one can defer to them on it
> >
> > > Does Johnny Mercer saying that he is sickened to his stomach by the spectacle of old veterans being dragged through the courts decades after whatever event in the heat of battle they are accused of committing, does this increase his stock in their eyes?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > If he stands, does he now have a better chance of getting their vote?
> >
> >
> > I would have thought the answer to that question is Yes.
> >
> > Is the whole point not that, having agreed the historic agreement for peace on Good Friday 1998, the past should now be left in the past and we shouldn’t be dragging up old misdeeds from any side in the conflict?
>
> But we have been chasing SS officers decades after the end of World War 2 - rightly so in my opinion.
There was never any equivalent to the GFA with Germany.
> Possibly a big row brewing over ticket allocations and travel arrangements for both European finals.
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/05/10/english-clubs-fan-groups-come-together-condemn-disgraceful-uefa/
And here was me really fancying a 10 day road trip to Baku for 90 mins of footy...
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @YBarddCwsc said:
> > >
> > > > Wales will never be independent, it has not got North Sea oil unlike Scotland and voted Leave just like England. Plaid has also never come top in any Welsh election unlike the SNP.
> > >
> > > It is interesting to hear your pontifications on Wales from deepest Essex.
> > >
> > > If Slovenia -- a country that has much less history as an independent stat than either Wales or Scotland -- can be independent, then so can Wales and Scotland.
> > >
> >
> > Slovenia is richer per head than Wales, certainly in PPP terms and has a more highly educated population
>
> When Ireland became independent, what was is its GDP per head? No doubt there were HYUFDs in 1920 saying Ireland will never prosper, it will always be poor, it can't survive separated from the rest of the UK.
>
> What is Ireland's GDP per head now? It is better than the UKs.
>
> The point is it is alway better for a country to control its own destiny, and to take responsibility for its own decisions. And such a country will prosper.
>
Like Venezuela?
Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y?
All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there.
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest
Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments
I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience.
Sadly, UEFA’s behaviour isn’t going to change if the fans will still move heaven and earth to go and watch their team in a final.
Mr. Sandpit, quite. The news had a spot on Azerbaijan (no direct flights, a long way off, and less than half the seating for actual fans). Football fans might whine but they'll pay up, so why will the suits change their minds? They've got a mindlessly obedient and enormous fanbase who'll fork out a fortune.
It's not unlike S&M. Sure, the sub will yelp. But they'll still come back for more.
Edited extra bit: slight shame Verstappen couldn't get third on the grid, but fourth is still reasonable. Be interesting to see if his odds (34 pre-qualifying) for the win have shortened. I think he's in with a good podium shot.
> Paras murdered people on Bloody Sunday, did they not? And then there was the original Bloody Sunday in 1920, during the War of Independence. And the previous year, 1919, I could have sworn there was an even bigger massacre carried out by British troops somewhere else in the Empire that year...
Sunil we did a family trace back and 7 out of 8 members of my ancestors at their home in County Cork died in the Irish potato famine in the late 1840s - 7 out of 1.5 million plus? This was while the British government was exporting food from Ireland which could have fed them.
It was hardly the fault of the British working class who in the 1840s who were mostly living in the gutter themselves - but the rich landowning aristocracy who ran the government. The vast majority of Brits or Americans never owned slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries either - the rich did though.
In the end you have to move on - the ordinary working classes didn't do the exploiting or cause the damage but governments and aristocratic landowners did (across the world from the Ottoman empire to slavery in Africa which was only legally abolished in Mauritania barely a decade ago). The sort who would mostly pee their pants if asked to do the same thing as those working class kids sent to the front line were ordered to do.
Some times you have to move on - and blame those who were really responsible (i.e. not the vast majority of poor working class Brits who had little or nothing either).
>
> "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014."
>
> Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y?
>
> All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there.
>
> https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest
>
> Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments
>
> I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience.
It's on the Resolution Foundation website https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/ Student owners would be included in the 52%, the 13% include students who live with their parents.
Any thoughts on race pace?
> > @Sunil_Prasannan
> > Paras murdered people on Bloody Sunday, did they not? And then there was the original Bloody Sunday in 1920, during the War of Independence. And the previous year, 1919, I could have sworn there was an even bigger massacre carried out by British troops somewhere else in the Empire that year...
>
> Sunil we did a family trace back and 7 out of 8 members of my ancestors at their home in County Cork died in the Irish potato famine in the late 1840s - 7 out of 1.5 million plus? This was while the British government was exporting food from Ireland which could have fed them.
>
> It was hardly the fault of the British working class who in the 1840s who were mostly living in the gutter themselves - but the rich landowning aristocracy who ran the government. The vast majority of Brits or Americans never owned slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries either - the rich did though.
>
> In the end you have to move on - the ordinary working classes didn't do the exploiting or cause the damage but governments and aristocratic landowners did (across the world from the Ottoman empire to slavery in Africa which was only legally abolished in Mauritania barely a decade ago). The sort who would mostly pee their pants if asked to do the same thing as those working class kids sent to the front line were ordered to do.
>
> Some times you have to move on - and blame those who were really responsible (i.e. not the vast majority of poor working class Brits who had little or nothing either).
And, most of us live very well today because of the efforts of our much poorer ancestors.
> > @YBarddCwsc said:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
>
> No Wales is not the poorest region in the UK, gdp per capita in Wales is £18,002 that is higher than the £17,381 it is in the North East of England.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Economy_by_region
>
> Wales and the NorthEast have had their politics dominated by the Labour Party for decades and not much good it has done them
The North East has had the same government as the rest of England.
Lithuanian Britons may lose Lithuanian citizenship.
> > @FrancisUrquhart said:
> > Thanks for coming lads...but Jos Butler is just a bit out of your league...kiddie game down the street.
> >
> > But I still can't believe they have picked Woakes and Willey over Archer.
>
> This game doesn't matter but its a bowl off to see who is going to bowl with Archer. No problem with that. Buttler is indeed a god but bowling on this pitch is going to test any bowler to the limits.
A much better England vs Pakistan ODI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XgoUwFq0RA
https://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1127226902467551233?s=21
> https://twitter.com/lizardbill/status/1127005323636686848
Another LD bar chart....
> > @Sandpit said:
> > Possibly a big row brewing over ticket allocations and travel arrangements for both European finals.
> > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/05/10/english-clubs-fan-groups-come-together-condemn-disgraceful-uefa/
>
> And here was me really fancying a 10 day road trip to Baku for 90 mins of footy...
Thankfully clever bods have recently discovered ways of transmitting images and sounds across vast distances. While I don't think it'll catch on, it may be useful in this instance.
> The Sun endorsement, surely terrible news for Farage & Co
>
> https://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1127226902467551233
Lib Dems - "Bollocks to Democracy"
https://twitter.com/MammothWhale/status/1127157862499848192
No markets up yet on Ladbrokes.
My early thinking is Verstappen podium, Kvyat/Norris top 6, and Williams double classified, but we'll see how the odds stack up.
Haas have upgrades but we'll see if that's mended their unfortunate going backwards in the race tendency.
> > @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
>
> Data on homeownership is based on households - not numbers of people actually owning. Do we know how many over 35s are actually homeowners?
>
> Take two houses next to each other - one lived in by an elderly lady and one rented by 4 young people in their 20s.
>
> On the Government's data that implies that 50% of people own - because 50% of households do. But only 20% of people and voters actually own.
>
> Take two people still living at their parents home in their 30s in London - the data suggests 100% 'homeownership' but only the mum and dad own the place so 50% of people own there. Now the kids may or may not inherit in their 60s - but they don't own now in their 'child bearing' years.
>
> Its a bit like the average age of a first time buyer - it only measures those who buy but ignores those who never buy.
>
> The proportion of people who own property as opposed to the proportion of households (as per offical stats) where the home is owned is not the same thing. And I would suggest respectfully that true home ownership levels are actually well below the figures stated.
>
> Do we know how many over 35s own a home - as opposed to households? Do we know have many over 35s have their name on the deeds of at least one property - because I have never seen that data which is the true measure?
>
> So I expect true homeownership is well below the official figures stated - and that is a problem for the Tories as there is little social housing unless you are poor and have a large family and private renting can be a precarious existence.
>
More people are probably householders than in the past on that basis as more couples own as joint earners than just one male single earner so that does not change my point in the slightest.
Your point is also totally illogical as how on earth can 2 children living with their parents count as homeowners when on the very same statistics most 20 to 35 year olds are not home owners but most 35 to 44 year olds are?
No, I am afraid that is desperation and the fact a majority of over 35s are homeowners remains absolutely correct. On social housing of course we are seeing in my district more social homes being built than was the case for decades
and the Tories have also expanded rights for private tenants so yet more whinging from the left without any factual basis
> On topic, we Scots have been drinking deeply from the cup of democracy for a few years now. The Chukers are going to have to try a bit harder to pique our jaded appetites.
>
> https://twitter.com/MammothWhale/status/1127157862499848192
Remember the spirit of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce chukkers!
Perhaps everyone has gone to the Bannockburn museum or the Wallace monument - except for the Chukkers who don't believe in independence in any form!
> > @brendan16 said:
> > > @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
> >
> > Data on homeownership is based on households - not numbers of people actually owning. Do we know how many over 35s are actually homeowners?
> >
> > Take two houses next to each other - one lived in by an elderly lady and one rented by 4 young people in their 20s.
> >
> > On the Government's data that implies that 50% of people own - because 50% of households do. But only 20% of people and voters actually own.
> >
> > Take two people still living at their parents home in their 30s in London - the data suggests 100% 'homeownership' but only the mum and dad own the place so 50% of people own there. Now the kids may or may not inherit in their 60s - but they don't own now in their 'child bearing' years.
> >
> > Its a bit like the average age of a first time buyer - it only measures those who buy but ignores those who never buy.
> >
> > The proportion of people who own property as opposed to the proportion of households (as per offical stats) where the home is owned is not the same thing. And I would suggest respectfully that true home ownership levels are actually well below the figures stated.
> >
> > Do we know how many over 35s own a home - as opposed to households? Do we know have many over 35s have their name on the deeds of at least one property - because I have never seen that data which is the true measure?
> >
> > So I expect true homeownership is well below the official figures stated - and that is a problem for the Tories as there is little social housing unless you are poor and have a large family and private renting can be a precarious existence.
> >
>
> You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014.
So even if you just take adults alone rather than households a majority are still property owners, thankyou
>
> "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014."
>
> Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y?
>
> All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there.
>
> https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest
>
> Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments
>
> I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience.
Given in the past the property owner tended to be the salaried father only and not the mother nor the children in families and now both parents often tend to be earning and on the property deeds I would venture to suggest that arguably more individual adults are property owners than say 30 years ago even if household property ownership is slightly down from then (100 years ago most households rented of course)
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @YBarddCwsc said:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > No Wales is not the poorest region in the UK, gdp per capita in Wales is £18,002 that is higher than the £17,381 it is in the North East of England.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Economy_by_region
> >
> > Wales and the NorthEast have had their politics dominated by the Labour Party for decades and not much good it has done them
>
> The North East has had the same government as the rest of England.
The North East produced much of the Cabinet in the last Labour government and still produces much of Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet
> > @Sandpit said:
> > Possibly a big row brewing over ticket allocations and travel arrangements for both European finals.
> > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/05/10/english-clubs-fan-groups-come-together-condemn-disgraceful-uefa/
>
> And here was me really fancying a 10 day road trip to Baku for 90 mins of footy...
Take a morning Eurostar to Paris, get the afternoon train to Munich arriving late evening, then either overnight to Budapest, arriving morning day 2, or stay in Munich and travel to Budapest the next morning. The night train from Budapest day 2 to Bucharest day 3 lunchtime. Bucharest to Istanbul arrives day 4 lunchtime, or day 5 if you miss the connection. High speed train to Ankara arriving that evening, day 4/5. Sleeper train to eastern Turkey day 5/6, bus or minibus taxi across the border into Georgia the next morning, then train to Tbilisi. The overnight train from Tbilisi arrives Baku the next morning day 7/8.
> > @brendan16 said:
> >
> > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014."
> >
> > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y?
> >
> > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there.
> >
> > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest
> >
> > Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments
> >
> > I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience.
>
> It's on the Resolution Foundation website https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/ Student owners would be included in the 52%, the 13% include students who live with their parents.
A fascinating chart which actually shows individual or couple homeownership (combining ownership outright or with a mortgage) is higher now than it was throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s even if below the late 1990s and 2000s peak.
52% of families (singles or couples) aged 35 to 44 own their own home, almost identical to the national average
> https://twitter.com/lizardbill/status/1127005323636686848
That's ridiculous: Scotland hasn't been a country since the Act of Union in 1707.
> > @Sean_F said:
> > > @brendan16 said:
> > >
> > > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014."
> > >
> > > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y?
> > >
> > > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there.
> > >
> > > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest
> > >
> > > Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments
> > >
> > > I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience.
> >
> > It's on the Resolution Foundation website https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/ Student owners would be included in the 52%, the 13% include students who live with their parents.
>
> A fascinating chart which actually shows individual or couple homeownership (combining ownership outright or with a mortgage) is higher now than it was throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s even if below the late 1990s and 2000s peak.
>
>
> 52% of families (singles or couples) aged 35 to 44 own their own home, almost identical to the national average
Will that still be the case in a decade for current 25 to 34 years if house prices rises carry on spiralling upwards. What about the 48 per cent who don't - private renting and potentially 8 weeks away from being on the street even if they pay rent.
There is of course a big difference vs the 1960s and 1970s and much of the 1980s, Back then those who didn't own were able to get council housing - low rent, secure tenancy for life. That doesn't exist as an option for most now - so they face renting privately. And those who do buy are often taking on hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt - not a few grand like their parents or grandparents.
Now I accept the problem is bigger in London and the south east - but that should be an area of Tory strength. And that is the Tories' long term problem - homeowners are more likely to vote Tory to keep the status quo!
> Funnily enough about 20 minutes ago I walked past 3 people handing out CUK leaflets on Union Street in Aberdeen. It is the first presence I have seen of them anywhere outside of this forum and the TV.
I've seen their logo painted on my local high street.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > @brendan16 said:
> > > >
> > > > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014."
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y?
> > > >
> > > > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest
> > > >
> > > > Students can own homes - admittedly bought fo
> > > >
> > > > I belie
> > >
> > > It's on the Resolution Foundation website https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/ Student owners would be included in the 52%, the 13% include students who live with their parents.
> >
> > A fascinating chart which actually shows individual or couple homeownership (combining ownership outright or with a mortgage) is higher now than it was throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s even if below the late 1990s and 2000s peak.
> >
> >
> > 52% of families (singles or couples) aged 35 to 44 own their own home, almost identical to the national average
>
> Will that still be the case in a decade for current 25 to 34 years if house prices rises carry on spiralling upwards. What about the 48 per cent who don't - private renting and potentially 8 weeks away from being on the street even if they pay rent.
>
> There is of course a big difference vs the 1960s and 1970s and much of the 1980s, Back then those who didn't own were able to get council housing - low rent, secure tenancy for life. That doesn't exist as an option for most now - so they face renting privately. And those who do buy are often taking on hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt - not a few grand like their parents or grandparents.
>
> Now I accept the problem is bigger in London and the south east - but that should be an area of Tory strength. And that is the Tories' long term problem - homeowners are more likely to vote Tory to keep the status quo!
>
>
We only got to a majority of singles or couples owning a property in 1990 and Thatcher won 2 landslides in the 1980s with only a minority of individuals or couples property owners.
Where Thatcher made the mistake was selling off council homes and expanding home ownership but not building new social homes to replace them with the sale funds, I am glad that May and local Tory councils like my own in Epping Forest are now starting to build new council and social homes again to redress that.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > @brendan16 said:
> > > >
> > > > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014."
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y?
> > > >
> > > > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest
> > > >
> > > > Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually! How is shared ownership counted i.e. owning 25% of a home - as that is becoming more common in London where you need 4 times average salary just to get the mortgage for the 25% in many zone 1-2 even 3 developments
> > > >
> > > > I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience.
> > >
> > > It's on the Resolution Foundation website https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/ Student owners would be included in the 52%, the 13% include students who live with their parents.
> >
> > A fascinating chart which actually shows individual or couple homeownership (combining ownership outright or with a mortgage) is higher now than it was throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s even if below the late 1990s and 2000s peak.
> >
> >
> > 52% of families (singles or couples) aged 35 to 44 own their own home, almost identical to the national average
>
> Will that still be the case in a decade for current 25 to 34 years if house prices rises carry on spiralling upwards. What about the 48 per cent who don't - private renting and potentially 8 weeks away from being on the street even if they pay rent.
>
> There is of course a big difference vs the 1960s and 1970s and much of the 1980s, Back then those who didn't own were able to get council housing - low rent, secure tenancy for life. That doesn't exist as an option for most now - so they face renting privately. And those who do buy are often taking on hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt - not a few grand like their parents or grandparents.
>
> Now I accept the problem is bigger in London and the south east - but that should be an area of Tory strength. And that is the Tories' long term problem - homeowners are more likely to vote Tory to keep the status quo!
>
>
IMHO, house prices will stagnate for a long while to come.
Surely more accurate to conclude that the country is split down the middle between those who own property and those who do not.
> You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014.
>
> So even if you just take adults alone rather than households a majority are still property owners, thankyou
>
> Is it fair to describe 52% as a majority?
>
> Surely more accurate to conclude that the country is split down the middle between those who own property and those who do not.
Yes, because the word has a rather specific definition.
Just outside the Theatre, I saw a piece of paper with the Change UK name and logo on it, trodden into the pavement with mud on it.
Rather apt given the header.
> > @isam said:
> >
>
> That's ridiculous: Scotland hasn't been a country since the Act of Union in 1707.
Quite correct. The title should clearly be "Countries and provinces".
*runs away*
> > @rcs1000 said:
> > > @isam said:
> > >
> >
> > That's ridiculous: Scotland hasn't been a country since the Act of Union in 1707.
>
> Quite correct. The title should clearly be "Countries and provinces".
>
> *runs away*
MalcG and UnionDivvie explosion alert!
> > @brendan16 said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @Sean_F said:
> > > > > @brendan16 said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014."
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry - do you have a source for the 52% figure. Is there data issued which states x million people have their name on the deeds of a UK property vs the total adult population of y?
> > > > >
> > > > > All I see is data on households which for the reasons I gave isn't the same as people as a household could have one owner or 10 renters living there.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest
> > > > >
> > > > > Students can own homes - admittedly bought for them by their parents usually!
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the true 'homeownership' levels are well below those stated - particularly in London and other expensive areas where large numbers of people rent privately and the 'data' isn't very accurate due to high mobility and transience.
> > > >
> > > > It's on the Resolution Foundation website https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/ Student owners would be included in the 52%, the 13% include students who live with their parents.
> > >
> > > A fascinating chart which actually shows individual or couple homeownership (combining ownership outright or with a mortgage) is higher now than it was throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s even if below the late 1990s and 2000s peak.
> > >
> > >
> > > 52% of families (singles or couples) aged 35 to 44 own their own home, almost identical to the national average
> >
> > Will that still be the case in a decade for current 25 to 34 years if house prices rises carry on spiralling upwards. What about the 48 per cent who don't - private renting and potentially 8 weeks away from being on the street even if they pay rent.
> >
> > There is of course a big difference vs the 1960s and 1970s and much of the 1980s, Back then those who didn't own were able to get council housing - low rent, secure tenancy for life. That doesn't exist as an option for most now - so they face renting privately. And those who do buy are often taking on hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt - not a few grand like their parents or grandparents.
> >
> > Now I accept the problem is bigger in London and the south east - but that should be an area of Tory strength. And that is the Tories' long term problem - homeowners are more likely to vote Tory to keep the status quo!
> >
> >
> IMHO, house prices will stagnate for a long while to come.
>
Possibly and the Tories did better in the Midlands in the local elections than the South, London is majority rent now anyway and a Labour city
> You're correct. 52% of adults are homeowners. This figure peaked at 58% in 2003. A further 13% are either students, or adults living with their parents. However, the decline ended in about 2014.
>
> So even if you just take adults alone rather than households a majority are still property owners, thankyou
>
> Is it fair to describe 52% as a majority?
>
> Surely more accurate to conclude that the country is split down the middle between those who own property and those who do not.
Yes and a mathematical fact.
As I said more people now own property still in the UK than all the post war years up until 1990