Mike cites a poll on the day of the Election as the basis to disregard the view that Labour's stance on Brexit cost then last year's GE
Maybe
You could look at
(a) UKIP winning the 2014 Euro Elections (b) The Conservatives offering a referendum in 2015 and gertting a majority vs Labour and Lib Dems refusing one, with UKIP getting 13% on top of that (c) Leave winning the 2016 referendum (d) Labour depriving the Tories of a majority in 2017 when they accepted the that we had to Leave (e)The Brexit Party winning the 2019 Euro Elections when parliament was refusing to implement the result (f) The Tories wininng an 80 seat majority when they said they'd get Brexit done, vs Labour and Lib Dem 2nd Ref
and come to a different conclusion, and I do
I don't think that was the implication of Mike's post. I think Corbyn was more important than Brexit to many but it's undoubtedly the case Brexit was also the cause.
Sort out the housing crisis you've failed to resolve for 10 years, we can talk then. I'll be here waiting.
Failed? Define fail or success please.
Home ownership rates under Labour were going down.
Home ownership rates now under the Tories are going up.
The age at which people can buy their first home are going down.
That is a success to me not a failure. More of the same needed please.
I cannot afford a house (specifically the deposit), even though I earn a decent salary and I do not come from a poor background. When I can afford a house without needing money from my parents, or relatives, then we can re-visit the matter.
I am not alone.
Hopefully within the next decade you can. That is the most important issue for the government to deal with. Schemes like Help To Buy etc are a tremendous success for this across the North which is why the red wall turned blue I think. People like you being able to get their own home, hopefully you can soon too.
"Within the next decade" - why not next year? Why not in two years?
Wait ten years is not appealing to me whatsoever. You're doing badly here Philip, very badly.
You've had 10 years to sort this out and you have failed. Wait another decade, nah I'll stick with Labour thanks.
Good things come to those who wait.
Being able to save up thousands for the deposit is hard, but well worth doing. With schemes like the Lifetime ISA if you can save £5000 per annum [if you save £4000] and with schemes like Help To Buy you only need a 5% deposit.
Your saying why does it take time to save up for a deposit is like saying why does it take years to get a degree? Why not just get a degree at 18, why have to work hard for years to get it?
Sort out the housing crisis you've failed to resolve for 10 years, we can talk then. I'll be here waiting.
Failed? Define fail or success please.
Home ownership rates under Labour were going down.
Home ownership rates now under the Tories are going up.
The age at which people can buy their first home are going down.
That is a success to me not a failure. More of the same needed please.
I cannot afford a house (specifically the deposit), even though I earn a decent salary and I do not come from a poor background. When I can afford a house without needing money from my parents, or relatives, then we can re-visit the matter.
I am not alone.
Hopefully within the next decade you can. That is the most important issue for the government to deal with. Schemes like Help To Buy etc are a tremendous success for this across the North which is why the red wall turned blue I think. People like you being able to get their own home, hopefully you can soon too.
"Within the next decade" - why not next year? Why not in two years?
Wait ten years is not appealing to me whatsoever. You're doing badly here Philip, very badly.
You've had 10 years to sort this out and you have failed. Wait another decade, nah I'll stick with Labour thanks.
Good things come to those who wait.
Being able to save up thousands for the deposit is hard, but well worth doing. With schemes like the Lifetime ISA if you can save £5000 per annum [if you save £4000] and with schemes like Help To Buy you only need a 5% deposit.
Your saying why does it take time to save up for a deposit is like saying why does it take years to get a degree? Why not just get a degree at 18, why have to work hard for years to get it?
Finally, Tory MPs differ not only over potential solutions to the problem, but also over how big it is in the first place. A few are personally affected, with their own children sitting exams; more have schools and pupils in their seats which they complain have been penalised.
But others from a variety of seats report a low number of complaints to date.
So, crucially, backbench opinion has been divided. Or so WhatsApp group debate among MPs reportedly suggests.
“On the Richter Revolt scale, I’d put this at about six,” one experienced hand told ConHome. Some Tory MPs feel that the Government should resist a Scotland-style U-turn; others still are primarily concerned about any move that would allow more grade inflation.
Above all, perhaps, newish backbenchers have learned from the Dominic Cummings saga – their first experience of a real e-mail and social media pile-on. “I’m not planning to write any full replies for a fortnight,” one newcomer said. “I want to see how the appeals process starts to bed down.”
Furthermore, much of media moved on, after a day of intense coverage, from A-levels to French quarantine. There is less commentary than might have been expected in today’s papers. And fewer vituperative quotes about the Education Secretary, too.
None the less, Gavin Williamson and Nick Gibb are in very serious trouble. Yesterday’s Ofqual U-turn over appeals was a shambles, and will register on the Conservative backbenches. Even those who support the Government’s position complain that Ministers moved late over appeals and fees. Finally, those GCSE results will come later this week, affecting a larger number of pupils.
Above all, the Education Secretary’s capacity to help craft a return to school for England’s pupils may have been further damaged. He is pushing the cause today, amidst a very bad time for him. We will return to these matters tomorrow.
The Tories need to do a better job of appealing to the young then, as most of them are not voting Tory. But to be honest I didn't think it was a priority since they mostly don't vote anyway. It is news to me that they'd even be trying to get votes from the young age group.
The young grow up and realise why they should vote Tory.
The Tories need to help the young grow up into the mature adults of the future.
You're doing a piss poor job of appealing to them.
No we're not. Theresa May did a piss poor job, but the age at which people voted Tory went down massively in 2019.
That's a 50% increase in the proportion of people voting Tory between 18-24 and 30-39, that's quite considerable. And the crossover age is 39 after that people are more likely to vote Tory and that crossover age is considerably down on last time.
Again this comes down to housing. 39 is the crossover point from memory where people are more likely to own their home than be renting and that is coming down - the Tories are long term doing an excellent job at appealing to the young for the long term. The young don't need trinkets, they need to be able to buy their own home in the reasonably near future.
As soon as you make housing affordable, perhaps more than 25% of people under the age of 30 might vote for you. Until then, you're fucked.
Housing wont be affordable as long as we build less houses than the population increase. You favour population increase and argue for it. To catch up we would need need to build roughly 500,000 houses every year for the next 10 to 20 years then continue to build around 200k homes a year to keep pace
Are you going to apologise to me yet?
I don't have anything to apologise for you called me a racist I reacted. In the words of MalcolnG jog on
The Tories need to do a better job of appealing to the young then, as most of them are not voting Tory. But to be honest I didn't think it was a priority since they mostly don't vote anyway. It is news to me that they'd even be trying to get votes from the young age group.
The young grow up and realise why they should vote Tory.
The Tories need to help the young grow up into the mature adults of the future.
You're doing a piss poor job of appealing to them.
No we're not. Theresa May did a piss poor job, but the age at which people voted Tory went down massively in 2019.
That's a 50% increase in the proportion of people voting Tory between 18-24 and 30-39, that's quite considerable. And the crossover age is 39 after that people are more likely to vote Tory and that crossover age is considerably down on last time.
Again this comes down to housing. 39 is the crossover point from memory where people are more likely to own their home than be renting and that is coming down - the Tories are long term doing an excellent job at appealing to the young for the long term. The young don't need trinkets, they need to be able to buy their own home in the reasonably near future.
As soon as you make housing affordable, perhaps more than 25% of people under the age of 30 might vote for you. Until then, you're fucked.
Housing wont be affordable as long as we build less houses than the population increase. You favour population increase and argue for it. To catch up we would need need to build roughly 500,000 houses every year for the next 10 to 20 years then continue to build around 200k homes a year to keep pace
Are you going to apologise to me yet?
I don't have anything to apologise for you called me a racist I reacted. In the words of MalcolnG jog on
When did I call you a racist? Post and quote please.
You called me a cum stained oik, I hardly think you are in a position to take the moral high ground. I also wonder why you respond to my posts if you find me so objectionable?
Finally, Tory MPs differ not only over potential solutions to the problem, but also over how big it is in the first place. A few are personally affected, with their own children sitting exams; more have schools and pupils in their seats which they complain have been penalised.
But others from a variety of seats report a low number of complaints to date.
So, crucially, backbench opinion has been divided. Or so WhatsApp group debate among MPs reportedly suggests.
“On the Richter Revolt scale, I’d put this at about six,” one experienced hand told ConHome. Some Tory MPs feel that the Government should resist a Scotland-style U-turn; others still are primarily concerned about any move that would allow more grade inflation.
Above all, perhaps, newish backbenchers have learned from the Dominic Cummings saga – their first experience of a real e-mail and social media pile-on. “I’m not planning to write any full replies for a fortnight,” one newcomer said. “I want to see how the appeals process starts to bed down.”
Furthermore, much of media moved on, after a day of intense coverage, from A-levels to French quarantine. There is less commentary than might have been expected in today’s papers. And fewer vituperative quotes about the Education Secretary, too.
None the less, Gavin Williamson and Nick Gibb are in very serious trouble. Yesterday’s Ofqual U-turn over appeals was a shambles, and will register on the Conservative backbenches. Even those who support the Government’s position complain that Ministers moved late over appeals and fees. Finally, those GCSE results will come later this week, affecting a larger number of pupils.
Above all, the Education Secretary’s capacity to help craft a return to school for England’s pupils may have been further damaged. He is pushing the cause today, amidst a very bad time for him. We will return to these matters tomorrow.
However, the story will be back Thursday and Friday with GCSE results. Followed by their impact and implications.
You called me a cum stained oik, I hardly think you are in a position to take the moral high ground. I also wonder why you respond to my posts if you find me so objectionable?
The difference being being branded a racist can affect your employment. Your insult to me was a far more serious thing than mine was to you.
I don't and won't forgive you for it ever. That doesn't mean I won't repsond why should it when your views should always be challenged lest people think they are sensible
Do think it's a bit funny watching Tories tell us the SNP will collapse any day now, the same way Labourites say the Tories will collapse any day now
I have never said the SNP will collapse, indeed they will win big in 2021
However, it does not follow Independence will happen by a long chalk
In Northern Ireland there's still a substantial body of opinion that's emotionally attached to the Union. In Scotland that cohort is mainly elderly and in the process of shuffling off. In Wales there's a devosceptic movement that's as strong or stronger than the body of opinion that's in favour of independence. In Scotland, no significant such thing exists.
They're going. It's merely a matter of time.
Tottaly agree. Scotland is going I wish them all the best.
Nice to know there are sensible , intelligent people who look at this like adults.
The Tories need to do a better job of appealing to the young then, as most of them are not voting Tory. But to be honest I didn't think it was a priority since they mostly don't vote anyway. It is news to me that they'd even be trying to get votes from the young age group.
The young grow up and realise why they should vote Tory.
The Tories need to help the young grow up into the mature adults of the future.
You're doing a piss poor job of appealing to them.
No we're not. Theresa May did a piss poor job, but the age at which people voted Tory went down massively in 2019.
That's a 50% increase in the proportion of people voting Tory between 18-24 and 30-39, that's quite considerable. And the crossover age is 39 after that people are more likely to vote Tory and that crossover age is considerably down on last time.
Again this comes down to housing. 39 is the crossover point from memory where people are more likely to own their home than be renting and that is coming down - the Tories are long term doing an excellent job at appealing to the young for the long term. The young don't need trinkets, they need to be able to buy their own home in the reasonably near future.
As soon as you make housing affordable, perhaps more than 25% of people under the age of 30 might vote for you. Until then, you're fucked.
But housing is becoming more affordable which is why more people are getting a mortgage at an earlier and earlier age so being able to be owner occupiers of the future. Hence why people are voting Tory at a younger age.
If people can own their own home by the age of 39 (and getting younger) then we're not fucked, that's a good thing.
As for this generations thirty-somethings (of which I am one myself), we will be the fourty-somethings of the relatively near future. Getting us onto the property ladder is the long-term most important thing the government should be helping to ensure is possible.
Just wait until you're 39 to buy a house is not changing my mind here Philip. Must try harder.
When you've made people in their 20s have affordable houses they can buy without parental assistance, please do come back to me.
As long as the Government can at least stabilise home ownership rates then it won't be too bothered if twenty-somethings keep having to rent, although obviously it would be a bonus for it if rates could be increased.
Fundamentally, Labour's problem is that, in England and Wales, its core vote consists of the 18-35s (of whom there are 14 million, but who are quite evenly spread) and the very poor and black and Muslim voters (who are mostly concentrated in existing Labour safe seats and offer little help elsewhere.) The rest of the country leans Tory and, as we all know, the older voters become the more Tory they become, and more the likely they are to turn out and vote.
The median age of the population has already passed 40, which means that of the electorate must now be around 50, and it's climbing all the time. Total fertility rates are in decline, the proportion of the population of working age and especially that of children is also in decline, and the proportion of over-65s continues to rise. And things will get vastly more difficult if and when Scotland departs permanently and takes its overwhelmingly centre-left bloc of MPs with it.
Labour is quite simply going to have to find a way to connect with a lot more over-50s in provincial England and Wales. Otherwise it might as well concentrate on the Welsh Parliament and local councils and mayoralties where it can still win, and abandon Westminster to the Tory Supremacy.
You called me a cum stained oik, I hardly think you are in a position to take the moral high ground. I also wonder why you respond to my posts if you find me so objectionable?
The difference being being branded a racist can affect your employment. Your insult to me was a far more serious thing than mine was to you.
I don't and won't forgive you for it ever. That doesn't mean I won't repsond why should it when your views should always be challenged lest people think they are sensible
When did I call you a racist? I genuinely don't recall it, you've made an accusation, I would like to see proof.
How is this going to impact your employment? You're an anonymous user on the Internet, I don't have a clue who you are.
If you are going to repeatedly imply I've done something I can't recall then you can at least cite your claim.
As for your ridiculous accusation that I shouldn't support population growth, yes of course I do. Do you support entirely shutting down the borders so we have no immigration at all? You see how ridiculous these points sound.
Putting words into somebody else's mouth is not only rude, it's also a completely pathetic way to debate someone.
The Tories need to do a better job of appealing to the young then, as most of them are not voting Tory. But to be honest I didn't think it was a priority since they mostly don't vote anyway. It is news to me that they'd even be trying to get votes from the young age group.
The young grow up and realise why they should vote Tory.
The Tories need to help the young grow up into the mature adults of the future.
You're doing a piss poor job of appealing to them.
No we're not. Theresa May did a piss poor job, but the age at which people voted Tory went down massively in 2019.
That's a 50% increase in the proportion of people voting Tory between 18-24 and 30-39, that's quite considerable. And the crossover age is 39 after that people are more likely to vote Tory and that crossover age is considerably down on last time.
Again this comes down to housing. 39 is the crossover point from memory where people are more likely to own their home than be renting and that is coming down - the Tories are long term doing an excellent job at appealing to the young for the long term. The young don't need trinkets, they need to be able to buy their own home in the reasonably near future.
As soon as you make housing affordable, perhaps more than 25% of people under the age of 30 might vote for you. Until then, you're fucked.
But housing is becoming more affordable which is why more people are getting a mortgage at an earlier and earlier age so being able to be owner occupiers of the future. Hence why people are voting Tory at a younger age.
If people can own their own home by the age of 39 (and getting younger) then we're not fucked, that's a good thing.
As for this generations thirty-somethings (of which I am one myself), we will be the fourty-somethings of the relatively near future. Getting us onto the property ladder is the long-term most important thing the government should be helping to ensure is possible.
Just wait until you're 39 to buy a house is not changing my mind here Philip. Must try harder.
When you've made people in their 20s have affordable houses they can buy without parental assistance, please do come back to me.
As long as the Government can at least stabilise home ownership rates then it won't be too bothered if twenty-somethings keep having to rent, although obviously it would be a bonus for it if rates could be increased.
Fundamentally, Labour's problem is that, in England and Wales, its core vote consists of the 18-35s (of whom there are 14 million, but who are quite evenly spread) and the very poor and black and Muslim voters (who are mostly concentrated in existing Labour safe seats and offer little help elsewhere.) The rest of the country leans Tory and, as we all know, the older voters become the more Tory they become, and more the likely they are to turn out and vote.
The median age of the population has already passed 40, which means that of the electorate must now be around 50, and it's climbing all the time. Total fertility rates are in decline, the proportion of the population of working age and especially that of children is also in decline, and the proportion of over-65s continues to rise. And things will get vastly more difficult if and when Scotland departs permanently and takes its overwhelmingly centre-left bloc of MPs with it.
Labour is quite simply going to have to find a way to connect with a lot more over-50s in provincial England and Wales. Otherwise it might as well concentrate on the Welsh Parliament and local councils and mayoralties where it can still win, and abandon Westminster to the Tory Supremacy.
The Tories need to do a better job of appealing to the young then, as most of them are not voting Tory. But to be honest I didn't think it was a priority since they mostly don't vote anyway. It is news to me that they'd even be trying to get votes from the young age group.
The young grow up and realise why they should vote Tory.
The Tories need to help the young grow up into the mature adults of the future.
You're doing a piss poor job of appealing to them.
No we're not. Theresa May did a piss poor job, but the age at which people voted Tory went down massively in 2019.
That's a 50% increase in the proportion of people voting Tory between 18-24 and 30-39, that's quite considerable. And the crossover age is 39 after that people are more likely to vote Tory and that crossover age is considerably down on last time.
Again this comes down to housing. 39 is the crossover point from memory where people are more likely to own their home than be renting and that is coming down - the Tories are long term doing an excellent job at appealing to the young for the long term. The young don't need trinkets, they need to be able to buy their own home in the reasonably near future.
As soon as you make housing affordable, perhaps more than 25% of people under the age of 30 might vote for you. Until then, you're fucked.
But housing is becoming more affordable which is why more people are getting a mortgage at an earlier and earlier age so being able to be owner occupiers of the future. Hence why people are voting Tory at a younger age.
If people can own their own home by the age of 39 (and getting younger) then we're not fucked, that's a good thing.
As for this generations thirty-somethings (of which I am one myself), we will be the fourty-somethings of the relatively near future. Getting us onto the property ladder is the long-term most important thing the government should be helping to ensure is possible.
Just wait until you're 39 to buy a house is not changing my mind here Philip. Must try harder.
When you've made people in their 20s have affordable houses they can buy without parental assistance, please do come back to me.
As long as the Government can at least stabilise home ownership rates then it won't be too bothered if twenty-somethings keep having to rent, although obviously it would be a bonus for it if rates could be increased.
Fundamentally, Labour's problem is that, in England and Wales, its core vote consists of the 18-35s (of whom there are 14 million, but who are quite evenly spread) and the very poor and black and Muslim voters (who are mostly concentrated in existing Labour safe seats and offer little help elsewhere.) The rest of the country leans Tory and, as we all know, the older voters become the more Tory they become, and more the likely they are to turn out and vote.
The median age of the population has already passed 40, which means that of the electorate must now be around 50, and it's climbing all the time. Total fertility rates are in decline, the proportion of the population of working age and especially that of children is also in decline, and the proportion of over-65s continues to rise. And things will get vastly more difficult if and when Scotland departs permanently and takes its overwhelmingly centre-left bloc of MPs with it.
Labour is quite simply going to have to find a way to connect with a lot more over-50s in provincial England and Wales. Otherwise it might as well concentrate on the Welsh Parliament and local councils and mayoralties where it can still win, and abandon Westminster to the Tory Supremacy.
Spot on, agree with every word.
Labour needs to find a way to recover some of its votes in Scotland and firmly stand up to Sturgeon and the SNP
Mike cites a poll on the day of the Election as the basis to disregard the view that Labour's stance on Brexit cost then last year's GE
Maybe
You could look at
(a) UKIP winning the 2014 Euro Elections (b) The Conservatives offering a referendum in 2015 and gertting a majority vs Labour and Lib Dems refusing one, with UKIP getting 13% on top of that (c) Leave winning the 2016 referendum (d) Labour depriving the Tories of a majority in 2017 when they accepted the that we had to Leave (e)The Brexit Party winning the 2019 Euro Elections when parliament was refusing to implement the result (f) The Tories wininng an 80 seat majority when they said they'd get Brexit done, vs Labour and Lib Dem 2nd Ref
and come to a different conclusion, and I do
I don't think that was the implication of Mike's post. I think Corbyn was more important than Brexit to many but it's undoubtedly the case Brexit was also the cause.
Maybe it was Corbyn's decision to renege on implementing the referendum vote that caused the switchers to switch. That would sit easily under voting for "someone else because of the leadership"
In any case, I prefer 6 years of actual results to one poll.
You called me a cum stained oik, I hardly think you are in a position to take the moral high ground. I also wonder why you respond to my posts if you find me so objectionable?
The difference being being branded a racist can affect your employment. Your insult to me was a far more serious thing than mine was to you.
I don't and won't forgive you for it ever. That doesn't mean I won't repsond why should it when your views should always be challenged lest people think they are sensible
When did I call you a racist? I genuinely don't recall it, you've made an accusation, I would like to see proof.
How is this going to impact your employment? You're an anonymous user on the Internet, I don't have a clue who you are.
You're sounding deranged.
cant find the original post as not an expert on pb However did find this
CorrectHorseBattery said: » show previous quotes Don't know if you've been around long but whilst I said I supported Corbyn and I did, I accept he failed and the Corbynite lot have made a big mess of the Labour Party. One of the reasons I voted for Starmer was to get that lot out.
You're right on most of those points, Labour is obsessed with issues that don't matter. I'm very supportive of a 2017-lite approach with a focus on law and order and other issues that do matter to voters. That includes putting Brexit to bed for good.
I have said many times I am happy to concede we got it wrong and in my view a Labour Party that can't win isn't good for anyone. So whilst I might be naturally quite liberal I accept that's not where most of the public are and we need to work with that.
You seem to have taken a big disliking to me, nice to have a fan You CorrectHorseBattery....that sort of post is worthy of respect. When you post like that I won't go out of my way to needle you and will try and respond, if indeed I feel I have something to add in a civil manner. Do the sweary stuff though for no real reason or call people vile and racist and we all descend into a maelstrom of vitriol
I tracked the date for that down by the fact I pmed someone because I was upset at being called a racist when I am not by any means
You called me a cum stained oik, I hardly think you are in a position to take the moral high ground. I also wonder why you respond to my posts if you find me so objectionable?
The difference being being branded a racist can affect your employment. Your insult to me was a far more serious thing than mine was to you.
I don't and won't forgive you for it ever. That doesn't mean I won't repsond why should it when your views should always be challenged lest people think they are sensible
When did I call you a racist? I genuinely don't recall it, you've made an accusation, I would like to see proof.
How is this going to impact your employment? You're an anonymous user on the Internet, I don't have a clue who you are.
You're sounding deranged.
cant find the original post as not an expert on pb However did find this
CorrectHorseBattery said: » show previous quotes Don't know if you've been around long but whilst I said I supported Corbyn and I did, I accept he failed and the Corbynite lot have made a big mess of the Labour Party. One of the reasons I voted for Starmer was to get that lot out.
You're right on most of those points, Labour is obsessed with issues that don't matter. I'm very supportive of a 2017-lite approach with a focus on law and order and other issues that do matter to voters. That includes putting Brexit to bed for good.
I have said many times I am happy to concede we got it wrong and in my view a Labour Party that can't win isn't good for anyone. So whilst I might be naturally quite liberal I accept that's not where most of the public are and we need to work with that.
You seem to have taken a big disliking to me, nice to have a fan You CorrectHorseBattery....that sort of post is worthy of respect. When you post like that I won't go out of my way to needle you and will try and respond, if indeed I feel I have something to add in a civil manner. Do the sweary stuff though for no real reason or call people vile and racist and we all descend into a maelstrom of vitriol
I tracked the date for that down by the fact I pmed someone because I was upset at being called a racist when I am not by any means
All this proves is you at the time accused me of calling you racist. That's not proof I said what you are accusing me of.
Please find the actual post or withdraw the claim.
If you're going to come onto this site and accuse me of calling you a racist, you need firm proof. We can tackle it then, in which case I am happy to offer an apology if proof is provided. Otherwise withdraw it and apologise to me.
You have so far refused to apologise for being objectionable to me for no reason, despite previous apologies to you from me.
And you continue to put words into my mouth, which I find incredibly rude.
Mike cites a poll on the day of the Election as the basis to disregard the view that Labour's stance on Brexit cost then last year's GE
Maybe
You could look at
(a) UKIP winning the 2014 Euro Elections (b) The Conservatives offering a referendum in 2015 and gertting a majority vs Labour and Lib Dems refusing one, with UKIP getting 13% on top of that (c) Leave winning the 2016 referendum (d) Labour depriving the Tories of a majority in 2017 when they accepted the that we had to Leave (e)The Brexit Party winning the 2019 Euro Elections when parliament was refusing to implement the result (f) The Tories wininng an 80 seat majority when they said they'd get Brexit done, vs Labour and Lib Dem 2nd Ref
and come to a different conclusion, and I do
I don't think that was the implication of Mike's post. I think Corbyn was more important than Brexit to many but it's undoubtedly the case Brexit was also the cause.
Maybe it was Corbyn's decision to renege on implementing the referendum vote that caused the switchers to switch. That would sit easily under voting for "someone else because of the leadership"
In any case, I prefer 6 years of actual results to one poll.
Undoubtedly that contributed but that comes under leadership.
I don't think I'm really disagreeing with you to be honest. I think we should have supported EEA.
Sort out the housing crisis you've failed to resolve for 10 years, we can talk then. I'll be here waiting.
Failed? Define fail or success please.
Home ownership rates under Labour were going down.
Home ownership rates now under the Tories are going up.
The age at which people can buy their first home are going down.
That is a success to me not a failure. More of the same needed please.
I cannot afford a house (specifically the deposit), even though I earn a decent salary and I do not come from a poor background. When I can afford a house without needing money from my parents, or relatives, then we can re-visit the matter.
I am not alone.
Hopefully within the next decade you can. That is the most important issue for the government to deal with. Schemes like Help To Buy etc are a tremendous success for this across the North which is why the red wall turned blue I think. People like you being able to get their own home, hopefully you can soon too.
"Within the next decade" - why not next year? Why not in two years?
Wait ten years is not appealing to me whatsoever. You're doing badly here Philip, very badly.
You've had 10 years to sort this out and you have failed. Wait another decade, nah I'll stick with Labour thanks.
Good things come to those who wait.
Being able to save up thousands for the deposit is hard, but well worth doing. With schemes like the Lifetime ISA if you can save £5000 per annum [if you save £4000] and with schemes like Help To Buy you only need a 5% deposit.
Your saying why does it take time to save up for a deposit is like saying why does it take years to get a degree? Why not just get a degree at 18, why have to work hard for years to get it?
No need to condescend me Philip. No need at all.
I wasn't being condescending, you asked a question I gave you an honest answer. What is the issue there? A deposit is something valuable, it may take time to do it (and ideally that time should come down) but the most important thing is that it is doable, not that it is doable instantaneously with no delay. Whether it takes one, two or five years to save for a deposit doesn't matter much - if its impossible to save for one, that is terribly concerning.
A decade ago people were finding it impossible to save for one, which is why ownership rates were falling fast. Now they are going up, that is movement in the right direction.
Do you accept that even if things aren't perfect that ownership rates going up not down is a good thing?
You called me a cum stained oik, I hardly think you are in a position to take the moral high ground. I also wonder why you respond to my posts if you find me so objectionable?
The difference being being branded a racist can affect your employment. Your insult to me was a far more serious thing than mine was to you.
I don't and won't forgive you for it ever. That doesn't mean I won't repsond why should it when your views should always be challenged lest people think they are sensible
When did I call you a racist? I genuinely don't recall it, you've made an accusation, I would like to see proof.
How is this going to impact your employment? You're an anonymous user on the Internet, I don't have a clue who you are.
You're sounding deranged.
cant find the original post as not an expert on pb However did find this
CorrectHorseBattery said: » show previous quotes Don't know if you've been around long but whilst I said I supported Corbyn and I did, I accept he failed and the Corbynite lot have made a big mess of the Labour Party. One of the reasons I voted for Starmer was to get that lot out.
You're right on most of those points, Labour is obsessed with issues that don't matter. I'm very supportive of a 2017-lite approach with a focus on law and order and other issues that do matter to voters. That includes putting Brexit to bed for good.
I have said many times I am happy to concede we got it wrong and in my view a Labour Party that can't win isn't good for anyone. So whilst I might be naturally quite liberal I accept that's not where most of the public are and we need to work with that.
You seem to have taken a big disliking to me, nice to have a fan You CorrectHorseBattery....that sort of post is worthy of respect. When you post like that I won't go out of my way to needle you and will try and respond, if indeed I feel I have something to add in a civil manner. Do the sweary stuff though for no real reason or call people vile and racist and we all descend into a maelstrom of vitriol
I tracked the date for that down by the fact I pmed someone because I was upset at being called a racist when I am not by any means
All this proves is you at the time accused me of calling you racist. That's not proof I said what you are accusing me of.
Please find the actual post or withdraw the claim.
You didnt withdraw your accusation so why should I
Sort out the housing crisis you've failed to resolve for 10 years, we can talk then. I'll be here waiting.
Failed? Define fail or success please.
Home ownership rates under Labour were going down.
Home ownership rates now under the Tories are going up.
The age at which people can buy their first home are going down.
That is a success to me not a failure. More of the same needed please.
I cannot afford a house (specifically the deposit), even though I earn a decent salary and I do not come from a poor background. When I can afford a house without needing money from my parents, or relatives, then we can re-visit the matter.
I am not alone.
Hopefully within the next decade you can. That is the most important issue for the government to deal with. Schemes like Help To Buy etc are a tremendous success for this across the North which is why the red wall turned blue I think. People like you being able to get their own home, hopefully you can soon too.
"Within the next decade" - why not next year? Why not in two years?
Wait ten years is not appealing to me whatsoever. You're doing badly here Philip, very badly.
You've had 10 years to sort this out and you have failed. Wait another decade, nah I'll stick with Labour thanks.
Good things come to those who wait.
Being able to save up thousands for the deposit is hard, but well worth doing. With schemes like the Lifetime ISA if you can save £5000 per annum [if you save £4000] and with schemes like Help To Buy you only need a 5% deposit.
Your saying why does it take time to save up for a deposit is like saying why does it take years to get a degree? Why not just get a degree at 18, why have to work hard for years to get it?
No need to condescend me Philip. No need at all.
I wasn't being condescending, you asked a question I gave you an honest answer. What is the issue there? A deposit is something valuable, it may take time to do it (and ideally that time should come down) but the most important thing is that it is doable, not that it is doable instantaneously with no delay. Whether it takes one, two or five years to save for a deposit doesn't matter much - if its impossible to save for one, that is terribly concerning.
A decade ago people were finding it impossible to save for one, which is why ownership rates were falling fast. Now they are going up, that is movement in the right direction.
Do you accept that even if things aren't perfect that ownership rates going up not down is a good thing?
You were incredibly condescending. That's how it came across to me, starting with your point to try and explain how home ownership works, like I was born yesterday. Yes it was very condescending.
You called me a cum stained oik, I hardly think you are in a position to take the moral high ground. I also wonder why you respond to my posts if you find me so objectionable?
The difference being being branded a racist can affect your employment. Your insult to me was a far more serious thing than mine was to you.
I don't and won't forgive you for it ever. That doesn't mean I won't repsond why should it when your views should always be challenged lest people think they are sensible
When did I call you a racist? I genuinely don't recall it, you've made an accusation, I would like to see proof.
How is this going to impact your employment? You're an anonymous user on the Internet, I don't have a clue who you are.
You're sounding deranged.
cant find the original post as not an expert on pb However did find this
CorrectHorseBattery said: » show previous quotes Don't know if you've been around long but whilst I said I supported Corbyn and I did, I accept he failed and the Corbynite lot have made a big mess of the Labour Party. One of the reasons I voted for Starmer was to get that lot out.
You're right on most of those points, Labour is obsessed with issues that don't matter. I'm very supportive of a 2017-lite approach with a focus on law and order and other issues that do matter to voters. That includes putting Brexit to bed for good.
I have said many times I am happy to concede we got it wrong and in my view a Labour Party that can't win isn't good for anyone. So whilst I might be naturally quite liberal I accept that's not where most of the public are and we need to work with that.
You seem to have taken a big disliking to me, nice to have a fan You CorrectHorseBattery....that sort of post is worthy of respect. When you post like that I won't go out of my way to needle you and will try and respond, if indeed I feel I have something to add in a civil manner. Do the sweary stuff though for no real reason or call people vile and racist and we all descend into a maelstrom of vitriol
I tracked the date for that down by the fact I pmed someone because I was upset at being called a racist when I am not by any means
All this proves is you at the time accused me of calling you racist. That's not proof I said what you are accusing me of.
Please find the actual post or withdraw the claim.
You didnt withdraw your accusation so why should I
I can't withdraw an accusation I never made. Please provide proof.
The Tories need to do a better job of appealing to the young then, as most of them are not voting Tory. But to be honest I didn't think it was a priority since they mostly don't vote anyway. It is news to me that they'd even be trying to get votes from the young age group.
The young grow up and realise why they should vote Tory.
The Tories need to help the young grow up into the mature adults of the future.
You're doing a piss poor job of appealing to them.
No we're not. Theresa May did a piss poor job, but the age at which people voted Tory went down massively in 2019.
That's a 50% increase in the proportion of people voting Tory between 18-24 and 30-39, that's quite considerable. And the crossover age is 39 after that people are more likely to vote Tory and that crossover age is considerably down on last time.
Again this comes down to housing. 39 is the crossover point from memory where people are more likely to own their home than be renting and that is coming down - the Tories are long term doing an excellent job at appealing to the young for the long term. The young don't need trinkets, they need to be able to buy their own home in the reasonably near future.
As soon as you make housing affordable, perhaps more than 25% of people under the age of 30 might vote for you. Until then, you're fucked.
But housing is becoming more affordable which is why more people are getting a mortgage at an earlier and earlier age so being able to be owner occupiers of the future. Hence why people are voting Tory at a younger age.
If people can own their own home by the age of 39 (and getting younger) then we're not fucked, that's a good thing.
As for this generations thirty-somethings (of which I am one myself), we will be the fourty-somethings of the relatively near future. Getting us onto the property ladder is the long-term most important thing the government should be helping to ensure is possible.
Just wait until you're 39 to buy a house is not changing my mind here Philip. Must try harder.
When you've made people in their 20s have affordable houses they can buy without parental assistance, please do come back to me.
As long as the Government can at least stabilise home ownership rates then it won't be too bothered if twenty-somethings keep having to rent, although obviously it would be a bonus for it if rates could be increased.
Fundamentally, Labour's problem is that, in England and Wales, its core vote consists of the 18-35s (of whom there are 14 million, but who are quite evenly spread) and the very poor and black and Muslim voters (who are mostly concentrated in existing Labour safe seats and offer little help elsewhere.) The rest of the country leans Tory and, as we all know, the older voters become the more Tory they become, and more the likely they are to turn out and vote.
The median age of the population has already passed 40, which means that of the electorate must now be around 50, and it's climbing all the time. Total fertility rates are in decline, the proportion of the population of working age and especially that of children is also in decline, and the proportion of over-65s continues to rise. And things will get vastly more difficult if and when Scotland departs permanently and takes its overwhelmingly centre-left bloc of MPs with it.
Labour is quite simply going to have to find a way to connect with a lot more over-50s in provincial England and Wales. Otherwise it might as well concentrate on the Welsh Parliament and local councils and mayoralties where it can still win, and abandon Westminster to the Tory Supremacy.
Home ownership rates were stabilised in 2016. They've been going up since then.
This recession likely won't help, but hopefully the government's "build build build" schemes will help. Come 2024 if ownership rates are higher than they were in 2019 despite COVID19 then the government will have done a very good job and deserve re-election.
what does a Scottish MSP, who hardly turns up either , have anything to do with English education.
Preparing for her imminent translation to the House of Lords, where sticking her oar into all things English will be her new hobby. It's exactly the same as with the Scottish MPs in the Commons - the profoundly fucked-up nature of the British Constitution means that most of the stuff they end up debating and voting on has nothing to do with where they actually come from at all.
This, of course, is not actually the fault of the various Scots involved. It's mainly down to that prize fool Blair, with the active connivance of every Government that has followed his and failed to correct his mistakes.
I notice Philip never actually answered why he supports Eton existing, he just went onto deflect.
Why do you support Waitrose or M & S or the Ritz hotel or Mercedes Benz or Rolls Royce or Oxford and Cambridge existing either? Because the produce high quality services and products.
Same as an outstanding academy or comprehensive or grammar school compared to an inadequate or requires improvement state school
And if you have money you can avoid all of this and go to a school which will give you connections and a better chance of getting into a good Uni.
The solution to use your analogy, is to ensure that Tesco has products that are as good as those offered at Waitrose, not to ban Waitrose from selling better quality products.
If Tesco produced as good or better products than Waitrose, Waitrose customers would go to Tesco and prices would rise their accordingly and Tesco customers would then go to Waitrose whose prices would fall accordingly.
Basic market economics
If you believe in private education you dont believe in equality of opportunity.
Indisputably a true statement. The supporters of private education who I tip my hat to are those who man up and face this. Who say that, yes, it violates the principle of equal opportunities and, yes, it hampers social mobility, but that in their opinion this is a price worth paying for the things it delivers.
But such people are in my experience few and far between. Far more common is the disingenuous, issue-avoiding platitude: "I'm not a fan of private schools but they only exist because of the failures of the state system. Fix that and the problem goes away." Grrr to this. It's a shallow and/or bad faith argument.
While on the other hand private schools are loved by many on the left.
It gives them a nice target to focus resentments on and an explanation for the failures of state education.
What people most purport to hate is so often what they are secretly dependent upon.
Oh for heaven's sake. You sound like some miserablist reactionary yogi.
A yogi ?
Wow I've never been promoted to that level
I'll point out that this mindset includes people across all levels of society and all varieties of political thought.
Everything I glean from your politics suggests that you must agree with me about private schools. Hatred of class inequality is your thing. You agree with me. Don't fight it.
If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.
My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.
I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.
The Tories need to do a better job of appealing to the young then, as most of them are not voting Tory. But to be honest I didn't think it was a priority since they mostly don't vote anyway. It is news to me that they'd even be trying to get votes from the young age group.
The young grow up and realise why they should vote Tory.
The Tories need to help the young grow up into the mature adults of the future.
You're doing a piss poor job of appealing to them.
No we're not. Theresa May did a piss poor job, but the age at which people voted Tory went down massively in 2019.
That's a 50% increase in the proportion of people voting Tory between 18-24 and 30-39, that's quite considerable. And the crossover age is 39 after that people are more likely to vote Tory and that crossover age is considerably down on last time.
Again this comes down to housing. 39 is the crossover point from memory where people are more likely to own their home than be renting and that is coming down - the Tories are long term doing an excellent job at appealing to the young for the long term. The young don't need trinkets, they need to be able to buy their own home in the reasonably near future.
As soon as you make housing affordable, perhaps more than 25% of people under the age of 30 might vote for you. Until then, you're fucked.
But housing is becoming more affordable which is why more people are getting a mortgage at an earlier and earlier age so being able to be owner occupiers of the future. Hence why people are voting Tory at a younger age.
If people can own their own home by the age of 39 (and getting younger) then we're not fucked, that's a good thing.
As for this generations thirty-somethings (of which I am one myself), we will be the fourty-somethings of the relatively near future. Getting us onto the property ladder is the long-term most important thing the government should be helping to ensure is possible.
Just wait until you're 39 to buy a house is not changing my mind here Philip. Must try harder.
When you've made people in their 20s have affordable houses they can buy without parental assistance, please do come back to me.
As long as the Government can at least stabilise home ownership rates then it won't be too bothered if twenty-somethings keep having to rent, although obviously it would be a bonus for it if rates could be increased.
Fundamentally, Labour's problem is that, in England and Wales, its core vote consists of the 18-35s (of whom there are 14 million, but who are quite evenly spread) and the very poor and black and Muslim voters (who are mostly concentrated in existing Labour safe seats and offer little help elsewhere.) The rest of the country leans Tory and, as we all know, the older voters become the more Tory they become, and more the likely they are to turn out and vote.
The median age of the population has already passed 40, which means that of the electorate must now be around 50, and it's climbing all the time. Total fertility rates are in decline, the proportion of the population of working age and especially that of children is also in decline, and the proportion of over-65s continues to rise. And things will get vastly more difficult if and when Scotland departs permanently and takes its overwhelmingly centre-left bloc of MPs with it.
Labour is quite simply going to have to find a way to connect with a lot more over-50s in provincial England and Wales. Otherwise it might as well concentrate on the Welsh Parliament and local councils and mayoralties where it can still win, and abandon Westminster to the Tory Supremacy.
Rather sweeping generalisations. There are many over 50s, like me, who are Labour voters, and many of us haven't "swung to the right" as we've aged. Don't forget all the public sector workers over 50 - NHS, teachers, civil servants etc., both working and retired, who would not, and never have, voted Tory.
The Tories need to do a better job of appealing to the young then, as most of them are not voting Tory. But to be honest I didn't think it was a priority since they mostly don't vote anyway. It is news to me that they'd even be trying to get votes from the young age group.
The young grow up and realise why they should vote Tory.
The Tories need to help the young grow up into the mature adults of the future.
You're doing a piss poor job of appealing to them.
No we're not. Theresa May did a piss poor job, but the age at which people voted Tory went down massively in 2019.
That's a 50% increase in the proportion of people voting Tory between 18-24 and 30-39, that's quite considerable. And the crossover age is 39 after that people are more likely to vote Tory and that crossover age is considerably down on last time.
Again this comes down to housing. 39 is the crossover point from memory where people are more likely to own their home than be renting and that is coming down - the Tories are long term doing an excellent job at appealing to the young for the long term. The young don't need trinkets, they need to be able to buy their own home in the reasonably near future.
As soon as you make housing affordable, perhaps more than 25% of people under the age of 30 might vote for you. Until then, you're fucked.
But housing is becoming more affordable which is why more people are getting a mortgage at an earlier and earlier age so being able to be owner occupiers of the future. Hence why people are voting Tory at a younger age.
If people can own their own home by the age of 39 (and getting younger) then we're not fucked, that's a good thing.
As for this generations thirty-somethings (of which I am one myself), we will be the fourty-somethings of the relatively near future. Getting us onto the property ladder is the long-term most important thing the government should be helping to ensure is possible.
Just wait until you're 39 to buy a house is not changing my mind here Philip. Must try harder.
When you've made people in their 20s have affordable houses they can buy without parental assistance, please do come back to me.
As long as the Government can at least stabilise home ownership rates then it won't be too bothered if twenty-somethings keep having to rent, although obviously it would be a bonus for it if rates could be increased.
Fundamentally, Labour's problem is that, in England and Wales, its core vote consists of the 18-35s (of whom there are 14 million, but who are quite evenly spread) and the very poor and black and Muslim voters (who are mostly concentrated in existing Labour safe seats and offer little help elsewhere.) The rest of the country leans Tory and, as we all know, the older voters become the more Tory they become, and more the likely they are to turn out and vote.
The median age of the population has already passed 40, which means that of the electorate must now be around 50, and it's climbing all the time. Total fertility rates are in decline, the proportion of the population of working age and especially that of children is also in decline, and the proportion of over-65s continues to rise. And things will get vastly more difficult if and when Scotland departs permanently and takes its overwhelmingly centre-left bloc of MPs with it.
Labour is quite simply going to have to find a way to connect with a lot more over-50s in provincial England and Wales. Otherwise it might as well concentrate on the Welsh Parliament and local councils and mayoralties where it can still win, and abandon Westminster to the Tory Supremacy.
Spot on, agree with every word.
Labour needs to find a way to recover some of its votes in Scotland and firmly stand up to Sturgeon and the SNP
And replace Leonard
The SNP has already thoroughly wrecked Scottish Labour, and 40% of its remaining voters are pro-independence.
The only way that Labour might be able to shore up its position and rescue the Union (and with it, all those centre-left Scots MPs that it needs) is to propose DevoMax, independence-lite, or whatever you choose to call it. Pretty much hand everything bar the crown, the pound and the armed forces over to Holyrood *and* keep on chucking transfer payments at Scotland (albeit that radical tax devolution would finally mean the end of Barnett and a logical system that could mean Scotland gets a bit less, it being better off than every region of the UK outside of the south-east corner of England.)
Of course, that won't fly with Red Wall voters (or most others in England) without an English Parliament with parallel powers that finally resolves the WLQ. Starmer won't want to do that because he would then have to choose whether to be First Minister of England or Prime Minister of the UK, what I've previously referred to as the Big Train Set problem. Nobody who becomes leader of Labour or the Tories wants to have to choose between one half of the set (schools, hospitals) and the other half (giving orders to the army and prancing about the world stage.) They want to keep on playing with both.
That's why I suspect that Labour won't propose anything that puts right Blair's gross vandalism of the structure of the Union, and that consequently there's no realistic chance of saving it. We'll eventually reach the point when either an actual generation will have passed since 2014, or the Tories are displaced at Westminster by Labour propped up by SNP votes, and then indyref2 will happen with inevitable consequences.
The Tories need to do a better job of appealing to the young then, as most of them are not voting Tory. But to be honest I didn't think it was a priority since they mostly don't vote anyway. It is news to me that they'd even be trying to get votes from the young age group.
The young grow up and realise why they should vote Tory.
The Tories need to help the young grow up into the mature adults of the future.
You're doing a piss poor job of appealing to them.
No we're not. Theresa May did a piss poor job, but the age at which people voted Tory went down massively in 2019.
That's a 50% increase in the proportion of people voting Tory between 18-24 and 30-39, that's quite considerable. And the crossover age is 39 after that people are more likely to vote Tory and that crossover age is considerably down on last time.
Again this comes down to housing. 39 is the crossover point from memory where people are more likely to own their home than be renting and that is coming down - the Tories are long term doing an excellent job at appealing to the young for the long term. The young don't need trinkets, they need to be able to buy their own home in the reasonably near future.
As soon as you make housing affordable, perhaps more than 25% of people under the age of 30 might vote for you. Until then, you're fucked.
But housing is becoming more affordable which is why more people are getting a mortgage at an earlier and earlier age so being able to be owner occupiers of the future. Hence why people are voting Tory at a younger age.
If people can own their own home by the age of 39 (and getting younger) then we're not fucked, that's a good thing.
As for this generations thirty-somethings (of which I am one myself), we will be the fourty-somethings of the relatively near future. Getting us onto the property ladder is the long-term most important thing the government should be helping to ensure is possible.
Just wait until you're 39 to buy a house is not changing my mind here Philip. Must try harder.
When you've made people in their 20s have affordable houses they can buy without parental assistance, please do come back to me.
As long as the Government can at least stabilise home ownership rates then it won't be too bothered if twenty-somethings keep having to rent, although obviously it would be a bonus for it if rates could be increased.
Fundamentally, Labour's problem is that, in England and Wales, its core vote consists of the 18-35s (of whom there are 14 million, but who are quite evenly spread) and the very poor and black and Muslim voters (who are mostly concentrated in existing Labour safe seats and offer little help elsewhere.) The rest of the country leans Tory and, as we all know, the older voters become the more Tory they become, and more the likely they are to turn out and vote.
The median age of the population has already passed 40, which means that of the electorate must now be around 50, and it's climbing all the time. Total fertility rates are in decline, the proportion of the population of working age and especially that of children is also in decline, and the proportion of over-65s continues to rise. And things will get vastly more difficult if and when Scotland departs permanently and takes its overwhelmingly centre-left bloc of MPs with it.
Labour is quite simply going to have to find a way to connect with a lot more over-50s in provincial England and Wales. Otherwise it might as well concentrate on the Welsh Parliament and local councils and mayoralties where it can still win, and abandon Westminster to the Tory Supremacy.
Rather sweeping generalisations. There are many over 50s, like me, who are Labour voters, and many of us haven't "swung to the right" as we've aged. Don't forget all the public sector workers over 50 - NHS, teachers, civil servants etc., both working and retired, who would not, and never have, voted Tory.
Oh absolutely, just as a substantial minority of young people vote Conservative. There just aren't enough of you at the moment to get Labour back into office, that's all.
If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.
My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.
I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.
It’s kind of sobering that I bought a house at pretty much the average age. I thought I’d left it incredibly late at the time!
My parents bought their first house when my father was 27. It’s this disparity that really rankles for many I think - being lectured by an older generation who got to buy in their twenties that you should "just wait and save, like we did" when for the current generation this means twenty years of scrimping and saving is just feels condescending, if not insulting to many.
Help to buy et al were always more about bailing out the housing industry (oh and creating good headlines of course) than about actually helping young people buy houses. If they were actually designed to help people then help to buy loans would be available regardless of whether you were buying a new-build property.
Economics circumstances that are mostly out of the government’s control are partially why it is increasingly difficult for young people to buy houses - low interest rates drive up the cost of fixed assets, and banks require the security of a deposit in order to make mortgages financially viable. As the cost of the asset goes up, so does the size of deposit required. It’s hard to see what any government can do about this directly - mass house building is about the only thing that will make any difference but UK governments have been averse to this for decades, perhaps seeing it is against the interests of their older property-owning voters.
Young people deserve sympathy & understanding of their difficult circumstances, which their parents did not experience. Not patronising stories about pulling themselves up by their own-bootstraps.
I notice Philip never actually answered why he supports Eton existing, he just went onto deflect.
Why do you support Waitrose or M & S or the Ritz hotel or Mercedes Benz or Rolls Royce or Oxford and Cambridge existing either? Because the produce high quality services and products.
Same as an outstanding academy or comprehensive or grammar school compared to an inadequate or requires improvement state school
And if you have money you can avoid all of this and go to a school which will give you connections and a better chance of getting into a good Uni.
The solution to use your analogy, is to ensure that Tesco has products that are as good as those offered at Waitrose, not to ban Waitrose from selling better quality products.
If Tesco produced as good or better products than Waitrose, Waitrose customers would go to Tesco and prices would rise their accordingly and Tesco customers would then go to Waitrose whose prices would fall accordingly.
Basic market economics
If you believe in private education you dont believe in equality of opportunity.
That doesn’t follow.
Private education is a mode of delivery. Liberty demands that people should have the right to educate their kids how they like.
Believing in equality of opportunity means that I want state funded schools to be so good that no one chooses to educate their children privately
I do not want to ban private schools, I want to make state schools a lot better, give them tonnes more funding. That is the right way to solve this problem.
If I earn a decent salary and I pay my taxes, to me it seems illogical I have to wait until I'm 39 to buy a house. It seems reasonable in my 20s I should be able to afford one but I cannot, without parental help. That is not in any way a fair or reasonable situation to be in.
My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.
I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.
It’s kind of sobering that I bought a house at pretty much the average age. I thought I’d left it incredibly late at the time!
My parents bought their first house when my father was 27. It’s this disparity that really rankles for many I think - being lectured by an older generation who got to buy in their twenties that you should "just wait and save, like we did" when for the current generation this means twenty years of scrimping and saving is just feels condescending, if not insulting to many.
Help to buy et al were always more about bailing out the housing industry (oh and creating good headlines of course) than about actually helping young people buy houses. If they were actually designed to help people then help to buy loans would be available regardless of whether you were buying a new-build property.
Economics circumstances that are mostly out of the government’s control are partially why it is increasingly difficult for young people to buy houses - low interest rates drive up the cost of fixed assets, and banks require the security of a deposit in order to make mortgages financially viable. As the cost of the asset goes up, so does the size of deposit required. It’s hard to see what any government can do about this directly - mass house building is about the only thing that will make any difference but UK governments have been averse to this for decades, perhaps seeing it is against the interests of their older property-owning voters.
Young people deserve sympathy & understanding of their difficult circumstances, which their parents did not experience. Not patronising stories about pulling themselves up by their own-bootstraps.
You've nailed the issue Phil, and it's the same fundamental issue that affects countries like Italy (and their Euro membership):
The biggest fault line is intergenerational. And oldies vote. Doing something that disadvantages them is not politically appealing, and so politicians avoid it. But this worsens the problem.
Let me tell you the really bad news.
House prices are going to fall because the UK's population pyramid is inverting (and realistically, Brexit will probably worsen this), and this means lots of oldies with big properties will be trading down or dying off and there will be fewer young people to buy them.
This (unfortunately) means those who scrimped and saved in their late 20s and early 30s to get on the housing ladder are going to be doubly screwed.
Comments
(c) she's interfering in a purely English matter.
Where are the outcries from PBTories?
Being able to save up thousands for the deposit is hard, but well worth doing. With schemes like the Lifetime ISA if you can save £5000 per annum [if you save £4000] and with schemes like Help To Buy you only need a 5% deposit.
Your saying why does it take time to save up for a deposit is like saying why does it take years to get a degree? Why not just get a degree at 18, why have to work hard for years to get it?
Also - what does Dame-to-be Davidson think Mr Williamson should do, does anyone know? The SNP or the not-SNP solution?
Finally, Tory MPs differ not only over potential solutions to the problem, but also over how big it is in the first place. A few are personally affected, with their own children sitting exams; more have schools and pupils in their seats which they complain have been penalised.
But others from a variety of seats report a low number of complaints to date.
So, crucially, backbench opinion has been divided. Or so WhatsApp group debate among MPs reportedly suggests.
“On the Richter Revolt scale, I’d put this at about six,” one experienced hand told ConHome. Some Tory MPs feel that the Government should resist a Scotland-style U-turn; others still are primarily concerned about any move that would allow more grade inflation.
Above all, perhaps, newish backbenchers have learned from the Dominic Cummings saga – their first experience of a real e-mail and social media pile-on. “I’m not planning to write any full replies for a fortnight,” one newcomer said. “I want to see how the appeals process starts to bed down.”
Furthermore, much of media moved on, after a day of intense coverage, from A-levels to French quarantine. There is less commentary than might have been expected in today’s papers. And fewer vituperative quotes about the Education Secretary, too.
None the less, Gavin Williamson and Nick Gibb are in very serious trouble. Yesterday’s Ofqual U-turn over appeals was a shambles, and will register on the Conservative backbenches. Even those who support the Government’s position complain that Ministers moved late over appeals and fees. Finally, those GCSE results will come later this week, affecting a larger number of pupils.
Above all, the Education Secretary’s capacity to help craft a return to school for England’s pupils may have been further damaged. He is pushing the cause today, amidst a very bad time for him. We will return to these matters tomorrow.
I don't and won't forgive you for it ever. That doesn't mean I won't repsond why should it when your views should always be challenged lest people think they are sensible
Fundamentally, Labour's problem is that, in England and Wales, its core vote consists of the 18-35s (of whom there are 14 million, but who are quite evenly spread) and the very poor and black and Muslim voters (who are mostly concentrated in existing Labour safe seats and offer little help elsewhere.) The rest of the country leans Tory and, as we all know, the older voters become the more Tory they become, and more the likely they are to turn out and vote.
The median age of the population has already passed 40, which means that of the electorate must now be around 50, and it's climbing all the time. Total fertility rates are in decline, the proportion of the population of working age and especially that of children is also in decline, and the proportion of over-65s continues to rise. And things will get vastly more difficult if and when Scotland departs permanently and takes its overwhelmingly centre-left bloc of MPs with it.
Labour is quite simply going to have to find a way to connect with a lot more over-50s in provincial England and Wales. Otherwise it might as well concentrate on the Welsh Parliament and local councils and mayoralties where it can still win, and abandon Westminster to the Tory Supremacy.
How is this going to impact your employment? You're an anonymous user on the Internet, I don't have a clue who you are.
You're sounding deranged.
As for your ridiculous accusation that I shouldn't support population growth, yes of course I do. Do you support entirely shutting down the borders so we have no immigration at all? You see how ridiculous these points sound.
Putting words into somebody else's mouth is not only rude, it's also a completely pathetic way to debate someone.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1295052907386228737?s=20
And replace Leonard
Good.
In any case, I prefer 6 years of actual results to one poll.
Shouldn’t that be @ONAN ?
However did find this
CorrectHorseBattery said:
» show previous quotes
Don't know if you've been around long but whilst I said I supported Corbyn and I did, I accept he failed and the Corbynite lot have made a big mess of the Labour Party. One of the reasons I voted for Starmer was to get that lot out.
You're right on most of those points, Labour is obsessed with issues that don't matter. I'm very supportive of a 2017-lite approach with a focus on law and order and other issues that do matter to voters. That includes putting Brexit to bed for good.
I have said many times I am happy to concede we got it wrong and in my view a Labour Party that can't win isn't good for anyone. So whilst I might be naturally quite liberal I accept that's not where most of the public are and we need to work with that.
You seem to have taken a big disliking to me, nice to have a fan
You CorrectHorseBattery....that sort of post is worthy of respect. When you post like that I won't go out of my way to needle you and will try and respond, if indeed I feel I have something to add in a civil manner. Do the sweary stuff though for no real reason or call people vile and racist and we all descend into a maelstrom of vitriol
I tracked the date for that down by the fact I pmed someone because I was upset at being called a racist when I am not by any means
Please find the actual post or withdraw the claim.
You have so far refused to apologise for being objectionable to me for no reason, despite previous apologies to you from me.
And you continue to put words into my mouth, which I find incredibly rude.
I don't think I'm really disagreeing with you to be honest. I think we should have supported EEA.
A decade ago people were finding it impossible to save for one, which is why ownership rates were falling fast. Now they are going up, that is movement in the right direction.
Do you accept that even if things aren't perfect that ownership rates going up not down is a good thing?
Here is @Pagan2 calling me a cum stained oik, no apology was provided.
This recession likely won't help, but hopefully the government's "build build build" schemes will help. Come 2024 if ownership rates are higher than they were in 2019 despite COVID19 then the government will have done a very good job and deserve re-election.
This, of course, is not actually the fault of the various Scots involved. It's mainly down to that prize fool Blair, with the active connivance of every Government that has followed his and failed to correct his mistakes.
My point about 10 years was that the Tories have been in power since 2010 and have not resolved this issue. Saying it's dropped down to 39 isn't at all helpful to people who are in my position and stuck renting (literally throwing money down the drain) and can't afford to buy. That's indefensible.
I was simply explaining why we don't vote Tory. And no amount of condescending, or saying "just wait a bit longer" is going to change that fact. You've had 10 years, you haven't resolved it.
The only way that Labour might be able to shore up its position and rescue the Union (and with it, all those centre-left Scots MPs that it needs) is to propose DevoMax, independence-lite, or whatever you choose to call it. Pretty much hand everything bar the crown, the pound and the armed forces over to Holyrood *and* keep on chucking transfer payments at Scotland (albeit that radical tax devolution would finally mean the end of Barnett and a logical system that could mean Scotland gets a bit less, it being better off than every region of the UK outside of the south-east corner of England.)
Of course, that won't fly with Red Wall voters (or most others in England) without an English Parliament with parallel powers that finally resolves the WLQ. Starmer won't want to do that because he would then have to choose whether to be First Minister of England or Prime Minister of the UK, what I've previously referred to as the Big Train Set problem. Nobody who becomes leader of Labour or the Tories wants to have to choose between one half of the set (schools, hospitals) and the other half (giving orders to the army and prancing about the world stage.) They want to keep on playing with both.
That's why I suspect that Labour won't propose anything that puts right Blair's gross vandalism of the structure of the Union, and that consequently there's no realistic chance of saving it. We'll eventually reach the point when either an actual generation will have passed since 2014, or the Tories are displaced at Westminster by Labour propped up by SNP votes, and then indyref2 will happen with inevitable consequences.
My parents bought their first house when my father was 27. It’s this disparity that really rankles for many I think - being lectured by an older generation who got to buy in their twenties that you should "just wait and save, like we did" when for the current generation this means twenty years of scrimping and saving is just feels condescending, if not insulting to many.
Help to buy et al were always more about bailing out the housing industry (oh and creating good headlines of course) than about actually helping young people buy houses. If they were actually designed to help people then help to buy loans would be available regardless of whether you were buying a new-build property.
Economics circumstances that are mostly out of the government’s control are partially why it is increasingly difficult for young people to buy houses - low interest rates drive up the cost of fixed assets, and banks require the security of a deposit in order to make mortgages financially viable. As the cost of the asset goes up, so does the size of deposit required. It’s hard to see what any government can do about this directly - mass house building is about the only thing that will make any difference but UK governments have been averse to this for decades, perhaps seeing it is against the interests of their older property-owning voters.
Young people deserve sympathy & understanding of their difficult circumstances, which their parents did not experience. Not patronising stories about pulling themselves up by their own-bootstraps.
The biggest fault line is intergenerational. And oldies vote. Doing something that disadvantages them is not politically appealing, and so politicians avoid it. But this worsens the problem.
Let me tell you the really bad news.
House prices are going to fall because the UK's population pyramid is inverting (and realistically, Brexit will probably worsen this), and this means lots of oldies with big properties will be trading down or dying off and there will be fewer young people to buy them.
This (unfortunately) means those who scrimped and saved in their late 20s and early 30s to get on the housing ladder are going to be doubly screwed.
Sorry.