Good morning everybody. Another sunny day in prospect.
O/t again, but maybe inspired by today's news and recollections how many males here can recall occasions from their schooldays where they did things which might be considered, in a different time, as 'abuse'?
Bullying was rife in my school in the 60's
As it was in mine, a highly self-regarding predominantly middle class Hampshire grammar school.
And in my London grammar in the 70's.
2 of my sons suffered some pretty bad bullying at times
On the positive side, youngest has Aspergers and he never really suffered at school from bullying from the other children.
Is it possible kids are more accepting of differences these days or perhaps he was just lucky.
His treatment by the teaching establishment on the other hand ......
In my Staffordshire Grammar school of the 70s (all boys), bullying was rife as well. I don't remember any sexual assault, though I do remember the homophobic attitude which permeated the games sessions. I don't remember any aggression or homophobic attitudes from the teachers mind. In fact the older you got the more working the attitudes and relationships became.
In the mid 80s, several years after I left my school, three former teachers were convicted of sexual abuse and imprisoned - after having been quietly asked to leave the school and going on to commit further abuse at the next one.
The argument that it's OK because it's no different than it was in my day cuts no ice with me.
I used to think Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. On reflection, it's clearly David Cameron. No PM has inflicted more long-term damage on the UK more casually. May was desperately poor, but she was dealing with Cameron's mess. Johnson is busily causing more harm, of course, but he is part of the Cameron legacy, too.
Nah. Cameron gave us Brexit which is rapidly proving to be the salvation of this country. Of course he couldn't know that would be the case but history will look very kindly on Cameron given the subsequent events.
May was an evil vindictive scumbag who should never have been allowed within a thousand miles of any office, high or low. Her treatment of immigrants and their descendants and her messages to people that they should 'go home' were comparable with the BNP. She was an authoritarian bigot totally unsuited to ministerial position.
A word in support of David Cameron. Yes he was a posh oik who acted in a cavalier fashion. At least he was competent. Shagger is the same inbreed of posh oik acting in a cavalier fashion, but is incompetent.
As for Gordon Brown, he absolutely was a poor leader. What he got right was the management of the global financial crash. When put on the spot the decisions made - refusing to sanction the takeover of Lehman by Barclays, bailing out RBS that October day in 2008, the need for immediate stimulus investments to keep cash flowing - were all critical for the future of the UK.
Ask any of the world leaders of the time about him, and they sing his praises. Yet in the UK he is hated because the Tory lie that he bankrupted the country stuck (helped by that cretin Byrne with his comedy note). Brown was useless at everything else, but in that time of crisis he was peerless.
I think Brown's tragedy was that he wanted to be PM all his life, yet when he reached the top he had no idea what to do next. He'd climbed his everest, but there was no vision for what to do next.
There might be a more subtle problem Brown faced, which was that Blair had centralised a lot of power to Number 10, which under Brown and at a time of global crisis became overwhelmed. Routine government was increasingly paralysed because Number 10 had more important concerns. Cameron handed decisions back (and arguably fell into the opposite trap of not knowing what his ministers were doing).
Boris (and Gove and Cummings) did not learn from Brown's failures and repeated them: centralising power and overwhelming the centre. Boris's recent success in fighting the pandemic are due to hiving off responsibility for PPE and vaccine procurement and for vaccination.
Well he got Brexit done, so 52% will be happy with him.
This isn't long term sustainable because nobody knows what Brexit was supposed to be once you get past the slogans.
The harsh light of day for most people will be a country that has a worse economy - fewer exports, balance of payments crisis - less choice at more cost, and fewer opportunities in the world having made ourselves irrelevant in global politics.
Most of this hasn't played out yet, but its there. We're already realising that its now not viable to maintain large chunks of our exports to the EU, with "just sell them elsewhere" already not viable. We've postponed the imposition of inbound checks due to wazzocks but they will eventually happen at which point we reduce what we can import and increase the costs.
Less stuff at more cost isn't what people expected. Less jobs and less rights - the inevitable Tory response - isn't what people expected. And our position in the world? Yes, we can join the Trans Pacific thing as a long-way detached addendum, but we're hardly relevant to it. Partnerships and alliances are the way that stuff gets done, not saying "we're exceptional, do what we want".
A Britain less relevant, less competitive, more expensive - isn't what people expected. The whole point was more prosperity not less. The honeymoon won't last as reality sets in. That the government and their parrots are so utterly blind to the real crises their idiocy has created won't serve them well - even if you disagree with my analysis of Britain cast adrift, their stupidity when it comes to the actual departure deal is something that business knows is shit and only Philip disagrees with.
That's a lot of words to say you didn't vote for and don't like Brexit.
My impression of the leave campaign was not that we would be more relevant, more competitive, and get cheaper goods. The message was that we would take back control and spend the money that went to EU on NHS. The more racist put up pictures of immigrants on borders.
It's easy to project now what a campaign was about and I am sure you can Google a quote or two but the reason I voted remain was precisely because leave had no explanation about how we would be better off or more competitive outside the EU.
The bad job is literally a list by how long ago they did the job.
So, in terms of the general public, people remember the good things you did and the bad things get forgotten. And a sizeable chunk really just don't know.
Even with May, 33 % are saying Don't Know. (In fact, Don't Know seems to be quite high throughout - may be worth a follow up).
A word in support of David Cameron. Yes he was a posh oik who acted in a cavalier fashion. At least he was competent. Shagger is the same inbreed of posh oik acting in a cavalier fashion, but is incompetent.
As for Gordon Brown, he absolutely was a poor leader. What he got right was the management of the global financial crash. When put on the spot the decisions made - refusing to sanction the takeover of Lehman by Barclays, bailing out RBS that October day in 2008, the need for immediate stimulus investments to keep cash flowing - were all critical for the future of the UK.
Ask any of the world leaders of the time about him, and they sing his praises. Yet in the UK he is hated because the Tory lie that he bankrupted the country stuck (helped by that cretin Byrne with his comedy note). Brown was useless at everything else, but in that time of crisis he was peerless.
I think Brown's tragedy was that he wanted to be PM all his life, yet when he reached the top he had no idea what to do next. He'd climbed his everest, but there was no vision for what to do next.
Good morning everybody. Another sunny day in prospect.
O/t again, but maybe inspired by today's news and recollections how many males here can recall occasions from their schooldays where they did things which might be considered, in a different time, as 'abuse'?
Bullying was rife in my school in the 60's
As it was in mine, a highly self-regarding predominantly middle class Hampshire grammar school.
And in my London grammar in the 70's.
2 of my sons suffered some pretty bad bullying at times
On the positive side, youngest has Aspergers and he never really suffered at school from bullying from the other children.
Is it possible kids are more accepting of differences these days or perhaps he was just lucky.
His treatment by the teaching establishment on the other hand ......
In my Staffordshire Grammar school of the 70s (all boys), bullying was rife as well. I don't remember any sexual assault, though I do remember the homophobic attitude which permeated the games sessions. I don't remember any aggression or homophobic attitudes from the teachers mind. In fact the older you got the more working the attitudes and relationships became.
I was at a bog standard comprehensive in the 70s and early 80s and again bullying - or in my case being bullied - was just a normal part of life. But only from the children, not the teachers. My son is at the local Grammar and does not appear to have the same issues I had in terms of being bullied. Indeed I have nothing but praise for the pastoral care the school delivers, particularly with regard to mental health issues.
There was no bullying at my school, though I was recently surprised to learn that a former classmate experienced much bullying at his. Lived experience and all that.
Good morning everybody. Another sunny day in prospect.
O/t again, but maybe inspired by today's news and recollections how many males here can recall occasions from their schooldays where they did things which might be considered, in a different time, as 'abuse'?
Bullying was rife in my school in the 60's
As it was in mine, a highly self-regarding predominantly middle class Hampshire grammar school.
And in my London grammar in the 70's.
2 of my sons suffered some pretty bad bullying at times
On the positive side, youngest has Aspergers and he never really suffered at school from bullying from the other children.
Is it possible kids are more accepting of differences these days or perhaps he was just lucky.
His treatment by the teaching establishment on the other hand ......
In my Staffordshire Grammar school of the 70s (all boys), bullying was rife as well. I don't remember any sexual assault, though I do remember the homophobic attitude which permeated the games sessions. I don't remember any aggression or homophobic attitudes from the teachers mind. In fact the older you got the more working the attitudes and relationships became.
In the mid 80s, several years after I left my school, three former teachers were convicted of sexual abuse and imprisoned - after having been quietly asked to leave the school and going on to commit further abuse at the next one.
The argument that it's OK because it's no different than it was in my day cuts no ice with me.
I DID vote for Brexit. To leave the European Union. What we have decided to do afterwards - leaving the EEA and CU - is the disaster. Yes, knowing what I now know about the rank stupidity of the Tories I would have voted to remain. But leaving the EU has not caused this disaster, just the political decisions made by the government afterwards.
Well he got Brexit done, so 52% will be happy with him.
This isn't long term sustainable because nobody knows what Brexit was supposed to be once you get past the slogans.
The harsh light of day for most people will be a country that has a worse economy - fewer exports, balance of payments crisis - less choice at more cost, and fewer opportunities in the world having made ourselves irrelevant in global politics.
Most of this hasn't played out yet, but its there. We're already realising that its now not viable to maintain large chunks of our exports to the EU, with "just sell them elsewhere" already not viable. We've postponed the imposition of inbound checks due to wazzocks but they will eventually happen at which point we reduce what we can import and increase the costs.
Less stuff at more cost isn't what people expected. Less jobs and less rights - the inevitable Tory response - isn't what people expected. And our position in the world? Yes, we can join the Trans Pacific thing as a long-way detached addendum, but we're hardly relevant to it. Partnerships and alliances are the way that stuff gets done, not saying "we're exceptional, do what we want".
A Britain less relevant, less competitive, more expensive - isn't what people expected. The whole point was more prosperity not less. The honeymoon won't last as reality sets in. That the government and their parrots are so utterly blind to the real crises their idiocy has created won't serve them well - even if you disagree with my analysis of Britain cast adrift, their stupidity when it comes to the actual departure deal is something that business knows is shit and only Philip disagrees with.
That's a lot of words to say you didn't vote for and don't like Brexit.
My impression of the leave campaign was not that we would be more relevant, more competitive, and get cheaper goods. The message was that we would take back control and spend the money that went to EU on NHS. The more racist put up pictures of immigrants on borders.
It's easy to project now what a campaign was about and I am sure you can Google a quote or two but the reason I voted remain was precisely because leave had no explanation about how we would be better off or more competitive outside the EU.
Yet 52% saw in the leave campaign their personal unicorn and voted for that unicorn.
I used to think Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. On reflection, it's clearly David Cameron. No PM has inflicted more long-term damage on the UK more casually. May was desperately poor, but she was dealing with Cameron's mess. Johnson is busily causing more harm, of course, but he is part of the Cameron legacy, too.
Nah. Cameron gave us Brexit which is rapidly proving to be the salvation of this country. Of course he couldn't know that would be the case but history will look very kindly on Cameron given the subsequent events.
May was an evil vindictive scumbag who should never have been allowed within a thousand miles of any office, high or low. Her treatment of immigrants and their descendants and her messages to people that they should 'go home' were comparable with the BNP. She was an authoritarian bigot totally unsuited to ministerial position.
The biggest black mark for me against Cameron and Osborne were that they were terrible appeasers of the Chinese communist party. The vogue thing to do among their ilk i great you. Johnson is proving only slightly better. Cameron has also shown his naivety and poor judgement in getting swept up with Greensill / Gupta.
But yes, three cheers to Dave for the referendum. Lancing the boil and having the debate was a nasty and messy process but it was long overdue. And happily the wisdom of the crowd led to what will undoubtedly prove to be the right choice. Don’t know how long it will take but one day it will feel peculiar to all but a few that we were ever members.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Going back to the header, it depends on when BoJo goes.
The shrewd thing for his personal reputation would be to leave this summer on a wave of triumph- some of it even deserved. He would be the Great Man Who Got Brexit Done And Conquered Covid, and some other poor sod can clean up the weevils which are set to wriggle out of both of those.
I doubt he will do that though. Nothing personal- it's just that very few top politicians leave the stage willingly. People who do leave the stage willingly don't get to become top politicians in the first place.
So BoJo stays on. In which case entropy will destroy his plans, because that's what happens to governments. (Dom C was right about this, just utterly wrong in his solution of trying to control everything from one office containing his brain.) And BoJo is more entropic than most, on top of being pretty tawdry and unwilling to have cabinet ministers with minds of their own around him.
So at some point, the Max Hastings(?) observation that everyone who interacts with BoJo ends up regretting it will eventually apply to the British electorate. It might take 10 years, it might take 10 minutes. But it will happen. And when it does, The Sun will revisit one of their greatest front pages;
I DID vote for Brexit. To leave the European Union. What we have decided to do afterwards - leaving the EEA and CU - is the disaster. Yes, knowing what I now know about the rank stupidity of the Tories I would have voted to remain. But leaving the EU has not caused this disaster, just the political decisions made by the government afterwards.
Likewise we were always separate from the EU so it made sense to leave and let the rest of the EU continue their integration without us holding them back.
Leaving the EEA to the extent the french can reject are exports for the LOLs wasn't however a good idea nor Boris's fix for a problem that May had left to EU to deal with.
I'd interpret that all as "Do big things, be remembered, and history will forgive you the small stuff"
Now, where do we have Boris - Mayor of London twice, delivered Brexit and will deliver the most successful vaccination programme in the West. Golly Gee Willikers, best to underestimate him again, right?
Ah, the old 'should have locked down sooner' trope again.
1) How much sooner? There was, perhaps, a week or two at the most when this was an option. Was public opinion onside at that point? I reckon it was no more than three days between the the first cries for lockdown - the first cries for it, mind, not wholesale public opinion - and lockdown happening. I accept in a pandemic every day counts, but it wasn't the interminable delay it's often painted as. What was the delay between the UK locking down and the sainted Jacinda Adern locking down New Zealand? It was roughly, as I recall, no time at all. 2) You can't, as a PM, be a slave to public opinion - but when SAGE are telling you there's no need you have to be pretty, er, brave to go against them. Look at the opprobrium being heaped on Macron as a result of defying his scientists. 3) What impact did lockdown have? It's never clear - we never have an exact control. But from the data we have it looks likely that the tide of infections was already turning when lockdown came in. The correlation between countries which took anything but the most basic of measures (stopping big sporting events etc) and death tolls is pretty weak. 4) This fairly credible fella from Cambridge: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/21/delaying-first-lockdown-may-have-inadvertently-saved-lives-cost/ - reckons that an earlier lockdown would have killed more people by resulting in a bigger second wave in the winter when the NHS was least able to cope with it. 5) Lockdowns kill people (i). The massive, massive economic cost will be borne by a whole generation, which as a whole will be considerably less rich - and therefore considerably less able to afford investment in health - and individually more impoverished, and, as we know, poverty is correlated with ill health. 6) Lockdowns kill people (ii). Cancer patients not treated, suicides, etc. 7) Counterfactuals are beguiling but devious mistresses. You can't change just one thing; hundreds of minor changes would have followed as a result. The alternative world would have been different but not necessarily better.
Now, I recognise the above contains bits which may be mutually contradictory (e.g. if lockdowns do nothing (3), then 4 is at best irrelevant). But my point is that I am far from convinced that there is a convincing case that we 'should have locked down sooner'. It's one of those tropes that is superficially attractive - "if only we'd done x, everything would have been ok; stands, to reason, doesn't it" - but doesn't really stand up to detailed scrutiny.
I'm certainly not saying every decision was correct. Personally - and with the ease of one who can make such a claim without having to face a consequence - I would have stopped Madrid fans coming to Liverpool and everyone going to Cheltenham, and I would have made our borders rather less porous. Would these have led to a better outcome? Who knows?
Going back to the header, it depends on when BoJo goes.
The shrewd thing for his personal reputation would be to leave this summer on a wave of triumph- some of it even deserved. He would be the Great Man Who Got Brexit Done And Conquered Covid, and some other poor sod can clean up the weevils which are set to wriggle out of both of those.
I doubt he will do that though. Nothing personal- it's just that very few top politicians leave the stage willingly. People who do leave the stage willingly don't get to become top politicians in the first place.
The Johnson Project only ends in one of two ways: loses a GE or the tories sling him out because they think he's going to a lose a GE.
NutNut is a key factor in all this. There is no way she has had a sufficiency of being FLOTUK yet.
OT we were always very lukewarm on the whole concept of a european arrest warrant but eventually fell in line. I was very sceptical of the concept of been deported to another nation for something that wasnt a crime in this one. But i do remember speaking to a DCI involved with interpol, he said it had its problems (like some countries entering every single crime onto their international database as a matter of routine) but it was useful at picking people up coming into the country (though they hardly ever did).
It seems now that with its expiration and failure to put anything in its place we wont be getting criminals extradited.
Not sure if anyone has seen the news item this morning about the animal welfare catastrophe that has developed in the Suez canal. They are saying that up to 200,000 animals which have been waiting for days on ships without suitable care are in the process of dying. Most of these animals are being exported from the EU to the Middle East.
One benefit of leaving the EU is that the UK has announced that all live animal exports will be banned by the end of this year. The EU should be following suit.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
It was certainly a massive problem in Spain in the 80's and 90's- at that point their housing system still included Franco-era rent controls which were massively biased in favour of the old.
Good morning everybody. Another sunny day in prospect.
O/t again, but maybe inspired by today's news and recollections how many males here can recall occasions from their schooldays where they did things which might be considered, in a different time, as 'abuse'?
Bullying was rife in my school in the 60's
As it was in mine, a highly self-regarding predominantly middle class Hampshire grammar school.
And in my London grammar in the 70's.
2 of my sons suffered some pretty bad bullying at times
On the positive side, youngest has Aspergers and he never really suffered at school from bullying from the other children.
Is it possible kids are more accepting of differences these days or perhaps he was just lucky.
His treatment by the teaching establishment on the other hand ......
In my Staffordshire Grammar school of the 70s (all boys), bullying was rife as well. I don't remember any sexual assault, though I do remember the homophobic attitude which permeated the games sessions. I don't remember any aggression or homophobic attitudes from the teachers mind. In fact the older you got the more working the attitudes and relationships became.
In the mid 80s, several years after I left my school, three former teachers were convicted of sexual abuse and imprisoned - after having been quietly asked to leave the school and going on to commit further abuse at the next one.
The argument that it's OK because it's no different than it was in my day cuts no ice with me.
One of the teachers at my old school was a known "wrong un" - I was warned by my older brothers to stay away from him.
He even had an expose run on him in one of the Sunday papers.
The school defended him and said he was innocent
Years later I was not surprised to see that he had been convicted and sentenced to time inside
So in that case at least the Sunday tabloids had the story but the school ignored it because it was a tabloid....
One of the pupils in my year became the school bursar after not quite getting into Uni as the bursar had been let go the previous day due to similar "circumstances" that made him staying impossible. It gave him something to do and gave the school a year to recruit someone.
I used to think Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. On reflection, it's clearly David Cameron. No PM has inflicted more long-term damage on the UK more casually. May was desperately poor, but she was dealing with Cameron's mess. Johnson is busily causing more harm, of course, but he is part of the Cameron legacy, too.
Cameron did manage to achieve some things though -> .7%, gay marriage, rise in minimum wage... Theresa May's govt was a couple of years wasted?
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Teenagers never think they’ll be grownups. Then one day they realise they actually prefer pubs with seats to bars with none, enjoy going to diy and gardening centres on the weekend and have started voting Tory.
I’ve written quite a bit about how QE and uk fiscal policy is stacked up against the young in favour of the old. And it does make me angry. But lads like the one quoted here do need to get a grip of their own destiny.
There is probably quite a lot of truth in the claim that today’s young prefer their creature comforts over independence from their parents. No mouldy wallpaper, eating lentils because the mice ate the good stuff and domestic road trips in a banger for them, paid for by whatever job gets them out of home quickest. It’s all Nespresso pods, smartphones, “growing themselves” through travel, and pursuing self actualisation in a worthy career.
Going back to the header, it depends on when BoJo goes.
The shrewd thing for his personal reputation would be to leave this summer on a wave of triumph- some of it even deserved. He would be the Great Man Who Got Brexit Done And Conquered Covid, and some other poor sod can clean up the weevils which are set to wriggle out of both of those.
I doubt he will do that though. Nothing personal- it's just that very few top politicians leave the stage willingly. People who do leave the stage willingly don't get to become top politicians in the first place.
The Johnson Project only ends in one of two ways: loses a GE or the tories sling him out because they think he's going to a lose a GE.
NutNut is a key factor in all this. There is no way she has had a sufficiency of being FLOTUK yet.
I can actually see him walking with a massive mic drop - done this, done that, done that
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
I DID vote for Brexit. To leave the European Union. What we have decided to do afterwards - leaving the EEA and CU - is the disaster. Yes, knowing what I now know about the rank stupidity of the Tories I would have voted to remain. But leaving the EU has not caused this disaster, just the political decisions made by the government afterwards.
Likewise we were always separate from the EU so it made sense to leave and let the rest of the EU continue their integration without us holding them back.
Leaving the EEA to the extent the french can reject are exports for the LOLs wasn't however a good idea nor Boris's fix for a problem that May had left to EU to deal with.
The EU are going in a direction that the UK was not willing to accept. There had already been talk of a twin speed / two track EU, with the UK increasingly being propelled to the slower outer edge. Better to step off the political direction - and remain part of the trading area which we were instrumental in creating.
The problem of course is that we have convinced ourselves that free trade is not free trade, and that the only way to have free trade is to create the ludicrous expensive bureaucratic barriers we claimed we were leaving to remove.
I DID vote for Brexit. To leave the European Union. What we have decided to do afterwards - leaving the EEA and CU - is the disaster. Yes, knowing what I now know about the rank stupidity of the Tories I would have voted to remain. But leaving the EU has not caused this disaster, just the political decisions made by the government afterwards.
Oh cut the crap.
Johnson literally said during the referendum he would leave the Single Market and leave the Customs Union. That was the entire point of Brexit, to take back control. Just what did you think you were voting to take back control over if we remained in both the Single Market and Customs Union? Just what did you think we were leaving? And don't say the EU, practically what did you think was meant to change when you voted?
You've swapped over to the Lib Dems and whether by coincidence or not have swapped away from supporting Brexit and you react now with the zeal of the convert. I probably do the same, the other direction, though I at least converted before I voted.
I used to think Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. On reflection, it's clearly David Cameron. No PM has inflicted more long-term damage on the UK more casually. May was desperately poor, but she was dealing with Cameron's mess. Johnson is busily causing more harm, of course, but he is part of the Cameron legacy, too.
Nah. Cameron gave us Brexit which is rapidly proving to be the salvation of this country. Of course he couldn't know that would be the case but history will look very kindly on Cameron given the subsequent events.
May was an evil vindictive scumbag who should never have been allowed within a thousand miles of any office, high or low. Her treatment of immigrants and their descendants and her messages to people that they should 'go home' were comparable with the BNP. She was an authoritarian bigot totally unsuited to ministerial position.
I wonder if May is more authoritarian than the current Home Sec, another controlling bigot?
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
I used to think Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. On reflection, it's clearly David Cameron. No PM has inflicted more long-term damage on the UK more casually. May was desperately poor, but she was dealing with Cameron's mess. Johnson is busily causing more harm, of course, but he is part of the Cameron legacy, too.
Cameron did manage to achieve some things though -> .7%, gay marriage, rise in minimum wage... Theresa May's govt was a couple of years wasted?
The idea that Cameron was a terrible PM astounds me. People forget the situation he took over from in 2010. He managed to create an incentive for people to work from the years of ludicrous state handouts from New Labour which gave a perverse incentive to not work and he kept a lid on unemployment when all the "experts" thought it would run out of control.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
They'll sell up quickly enough if we build enough houses so that prices stagnate or fall.
Good morning everybody. Another sunny day in prospect.
O/t again, but maybe inspired by today's news and recollections how many males here can recall occasions from their schooldays where they did things which might be considered, in a different time, as 'abuse'?
Picking up here , it is dry and does not look like it will rain.
On topic - the recency bias in this poll is off the scale. Alec Douglas-Home? Other than I think he is the only PM to have played First Class Cricket and that he was a Tory I would struggle to tell you anything about him.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
Teenagers never think they’ll be grownups. Then one day they realise they actually prefer pubs with seats to bars with none, enjoy going to diy and gardening centres on the weekend and have started voting Tory.
I’ve written quite a bit about how QE and uk fiscal policy is stacked up against the young in favour of the old. And it does make me angry. But lads like the one quoted here do need to get a grip of their own destiny.
There is probably quite a lot of truth in the claim that today’s young prefer their creature comforts over independence from their parents. No mouldy wallpaper, eating lentils because the mice ate the good stuff and domestic road trips in a banger for them, paid for by whatever job gets them out of home quickest. It’s all Nespresso pods, smartphones, “growing themselves” through travel, and pursuing self actualisation in a worthy career.
True. For us older ones (and I'm only 40!), I expect a lot of us couldn't wait to get out and away from parents even if it meant we were poorer. But it meant freedom, to go out, meet new people, and have our own place
I guess it all comes down to opportunities, in terms of both career and life.
Or maybe young people have forgotten how to have fun? Can't smoke, can't drink without health warning plastereds all over the place, can't make a fool of yourself as you know it'll be all over social media, or chat groups. Can't step out of line either when everything you say will be common knowledge.
Life seems much more conformist in many ways, even though there is more freedom than ever before.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
Ah, the old 'should have locked down sooner' trope again.
1) How much sooner? There was, perhaps, a week or two at the most when this was an option. Was public opinion onside at that point? I reckon it was no more than three days between the the first cries for lockdown - the first cries for it, mind, not wholesale public opinion - and lockdown happening. I accept in a pandemic every day counts, but it wasn't the interminable delay it's often painted as. What was the delay between the UK locking down and the sainted Jacinda Adern locking down New Zealand? It was roughly, as I recall, no time at all. 2) You can't, as a PM, be a slave to public opinion - but when SAGE are telling you there's no need you have to be pretty, er, brave to go against them. Look at the opprobrium being heaped on Macron as a result of defying his scientists. 3) What impact did lockdown have? It's never clear - we never have an exact control. But from the data we have it looks likely that the tide of infections was already turning when lockdown came in. The correlation between countries which took anything but the most basic of measures (stopping big sporting events etc) and death tolls is pretty weak. 4) This fairly credible fella from Cambridge: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/21/delaying-first-lockdown-may-have-inadvertently-saved-lives-cost/ - reckons that an earlier lockdown would have killed more people by resulting in a bigger second wave in the winter when the NHS was least able to cope with it. 5) Lockdowns kill people (i). The massive, massive economic cost will be borne by a whole generation, which as a whole will be considerably less rich - and therefore considerably less able to afford investment in health - and individually more impoverished, and, as we know, poverty is correlated with ill health. 6) Lockdowns kill people (ii). Cancer patients not treated, suicides, etc. 7) Counterfactuals are beguiling but devious mistresses. You can't change just one thing; hundreds of minor changes would have followed as a result. The alternative world would have been different but not necessarily better.
Now, I recognise the above contains bits which may be mutually contradictory (e.g. if lockdowns do nothing (3), then 4 is at best irrelevant). But my point is that I am far from convinced that there is a convincing case that we 'should have locked down sooner'. It's one of those tropes that is superficially attractive - "if only we'd done x, everything would have been ok; stands, to reason, doesn't it" - but doesn't really stand up to detailed scrutiny.
I'm certainly not saying every decision was correct. Personally - and with the ease of one who can make such a claim without having to face a consequence - I would have stopped Madrid fans coming to Liverpool and everyone going to Cheltenham, and I would have made our borders rather less porous. Would these have led to a better outcome? Who knows?
Arguments about how to chop up England are micro level debates - we need strategic level planning first. What kind of UK is sustainable in the 21st Century? With Scotland, Norniron, Wales and now chunks of England increasingly restless, its obvious that we need to rethink the monolith that is this "united" kingdom.
LibDem policy is federalism. A position I have believed in for decades. Devolve to the nations as much power as possible, leaving state-wide competence only in things like national defence and federal infrastructure.
You solve the issue of "England will be too big and dominate the others" by devolving most powers away from the federal level. What England chooses to do with its own affairs won't affect the other nations that much if enough power is devolved to them.
Frankly I would much much rather have no union than a divided england. That is the problem you have with the region plans and I doubt I am the only one that thinks that way.
On topic - the recency bias in this poll is off the scale. Alec Douglas-Home? Other than I think he is the only PM to have played First Class Cricket and that he was a Tory I would struggle to tell you anything about him.
Known to Private Eye readers as the Baillie Vass. But the joke is lost in the mists of time.
I DID vote for Brexit. To leave the European Union. What we have decided to do afterwards - leaving the EEA and CU - is the disaster. Yes, knowing what I now know about the rank stupidity of the Tories I would have voted to remain. But leaving the EU has not caused this disaster, just the political decisions made by the government afterwards.
Oh cut the crap.
Johnson literally said during the referendum he would leave the Single Market and leave the Customs Union. That was the entire point of Brexit, to take back control. Just what did you think you were voting to take back control over if we remained in both the Single Market and Customs Union? Just what did you think we were leaving? And don't say the EU, practically what did you think was meant to change when you voted?
You've swapped over to the Lib Dems and whether by coincidence or not have swapped away from supporting Brexit and you react now with the zeal of the convert. I probably do the same, the other direction, though I at least converted before I voted.
You're rewriting history as usual. There was no "clear" Brexit manifesto that everybody voted for. That has always been known.
But it doesn't matter. We've left now. It's over. We can criticise or praise the current settlement on its own merits. The 2016 referendum was nearly 5 years ago and is largely irrelevant.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
The point is that prices really ought to have fallen considerably off the back of 2008. They haven't.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
It started during the Major government.
Housing policy in this country is a bipartisan fuckup.
FPT: Arguments about how to chop up England are micro level debates - we need strategic level planning first. What kind of UK is sustainable in the 21st Century? With Scotland, Norniron, Wales and now chunks of England increasingly restless, its obvious that we need to rethink the monolith that is this "united" kingdom.
LibDem policy is federalism. A position I have believed in for decades. Devolve to the nations as much power as possible, leaving state-wide competence only in things like national defence and federal infrastructure.
You solve the issue of "England will be too big and dominate the others" by devolving most powers away from the federal level. What England chooses to do with its own affairs won't affect the other nations that much if enough power is devolved to them.
On topic, the Tories and especially Boris won't tackle these issues. He/they like the me me me approach where never mind debates about governance its all about me and mine. Does it matter that we can't realistically have a full service hospital in every town? No - we want it HERE and not THERE.
That was quite the overnight discussion on the last thread.
Any solution has to involve the creation of an English Parliament, and for the devolved Parliaments to be responsible for raising the majority of their own taxes, through borrowing if necessary, without reliance on a block grant from the U.K. government as they do now.
The discussion then becomes what to do with the slimmed-down federal U.K. government, responsible for foreign policy, defence, federal law and the existing national debt? You’d want many fewer MPs, perhaps two from each county, and a very much reduced Lords.
Maybe appointments to the Lords could be for a single 10 year term, and made by each of the First Ministers? You’d want them to replicate the existing setup with regard to keep the elected Parliament and executive honest while not being hyper-partisan, as they would be if elected directly.
But what are you going to do about the English FM versus U.K. PM problem.
We need a name for this. The England-as-Prussia conundrum.
Unfortunately Westminster( aka England ) will never give up its powers , as we see with devolution they keep all the meaningful powers and will fight tooth and nail before giving them up. Union will break up long before that ever happens, too many fat and happy on the trappings and money they get.
The NIPs will have a strong ground (and meme) game as all the Corbynistas will flock to the whippet banner so they will carve off a decent amount of Labour votes.
The voters of Hartlepool are unpredictable and have little party loyalty due to their predilections for glue sniffing and incest fuelled inbreeding.
That's probably what we'd expect if the vaccines are doing their job and there's also a significant subset who've got antibodies from previous infection. Hopefully we're now up at about 60%. Great news that they're doing what they're supposed to.
No chance housing is ever resolved under a Tory Government, would hit their voters too much.
It was the 2000s when the wages/house price ratio got out of hand. Who was in power then?
Who was in power during the 1980s (before house prices crashed after Black Wednesday)? Who is in office now?
Ironically, Cummings' plan to revitalise the north might have been the best bet on offer, rather than have all demand centred in a tiny corner of the country.
Arguments about how to chop up England are micro level debates - we need strategic level planning first. What kind of UK is sustainable in the 21st Century? With Scotland, Norniron, Wales and now chunks of England increasingly restless, its obvious that we need to rethink the monolith that is this "united" kingdom.
LibDem policy is federalism. A position I have believed in for decades. Devolve to the nations as much power as possible, leaving state-wide competence only in things like national defence and federal infrastructure.
You solve the issue of "England will be too big and dominate the others" by devolving most powers away from the federal level. What England chooses to do with its own affairs won't affect the other nations that much if enough power is devolved to them.
Frankly I would much much rather have no union than a divided england. That is the problem you have with the region plans and I doubt I am the only one that thinks that way.
The main issue about federalism is one of money and accountability. To have differing policies long term, you would need differing tax rates/fiscal plans.
We already have fiscal transfers from 'high earning' areas to low earning areas, but the price of that, is that spending decisions are taken (largely) at a national level. Changing it would mean a loss of that democratic input.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
The point is that prices really ought to have fallen considerably off the back of 2008. They haven't.
Prices did fall after the global financial crisis but have since resumed their climb.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
The point is that prices really ought to have fallen considerably off the back of 2008. They haven't.
Prices did fall after the global financial crisis but have since resumed their climb.
No chance housing is ever resolved under a Tory Government, would hit their voters too much.
It was the 2000s when the wages/house price ratio got out of hand. Who was in power then?
Who was in power during the 1980s (before house prices crashed after Black Wednesday)? Who is in office now?
Ironically, Cummings' plan to revitalise the north might have been the best bet on offer, rather than have all demand centred in a tiny corner of the country.
They've made a decent fist of stabilising house prices since 2010. Look at the numbers,
No chance housing is ever resolved under a Tory Government, would hit their voters too much.
It was the 2000s when the wages/house price ratio got out of hand. Who was in power then?
Who was in power during the 1980s (before house prices crashed after Black Wednesday)? Who is in office now?
Ironically, Cummings' plan to revitalise the north might have been the best bet on offer, rather than have all demand centred in a tiny corner of the country.
They've made a decent fist of stabilising house prices since 2010. Look at the numbers,
Aye. Inflation adjusted house prices in E+W are pretty stable since the late 2000s and in regions such as the NE they are actually down since then.
Max, do you know anything about potential crunches for the UK in the 'ingredients for vaccines' supply chain?
(Thinking of the ones that are allegedly slowing things down for the SII.)
Yes, there are some issues with raw ingredients for Novavax which we import (though not from the EU).
Are there risks the EU could if things escalate block ingredients to AZN or others? Or is it not a major concern?
Not a major concern. Any block that prevents UK vaccine deliveries of manufacturing will result in a pretty devastating retaliation that Pfizer have told the EU would halt production at the Puurs factory within "days".
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
They'll sell up quickly enough if we build enough houses so that prices stagnate or fall.
Anyway, some rental is desirable.
More housing is not the totality of the solution, but it’s sure as hell a prerequisite.
A large amount of the asset price inflation of the last decade and half, is the direct result of interest rates being on the floor.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
The point is that prices really ought to have fallen considerably off the back of 2008. They haven't.
Prices did fall after the global financial crisis but have since resumed their climb.
Arguments about how to chop up England are micro level debates - we need strategic level planning first. What kind of UK is sustainable in the 21st Century? With Scotland, Norniron, Wales and now chunks of England increasingly restless, its obvious that we need to rethink the monolith that is this "united" kingdom.
LibDem policy is federalism. A position I have believed in for decades. Devolve to the nations as much power as possible, leaving state-wide competence only in things like national defence and federal infrastructure.
You solve the issue of "England will be too big and dominate the others" by devolving most powers away from the federal level. What England chooses to do with its own affairs won't affect the other nations that much if enough power is devolved to them.
Frankly I would much much rather have no union than a divided england. That is the problem you have with the region plans and I doubt I am the only one that thinks that way.
The main issue about federalism is one of money and accountability. To have differing policies long term, you would need differing tax rates/fiscal plans.
We already have fiscal transfers from 'high earning' areas to low earning areas, but the price of that, is that spending decisions are taken (largely) at a national level. Changing it would mean a loss of that democratic input.
Exactly and Scotland being just a region will never be acceptable and England as a whole is too big to make any federation viable so it is either status quo or bye bye union.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
The point is that prices really ought to have fallen considerably off the back of 2008. They haven't.
Prices did fall after the global financial crisis but have since resumed their climb.
They didn't fall around Woking!
The SE is over saturated with demand. It would take something seismic to really knock house prices here.
If that were the result, it would be really tight as to whether the Union and Greens would have a majority. It certainly would be very large if they did. Perhaps a traffic light (Green - FDP - SPD) coalition would be favourite in that scenario.
I DID vote for Brexit. To leave the European Union. What we have decided to do afterwards - leaving the EEA and CU - is the disaster. Yes, knowing what I now know about the rank stupidity of the Tories I would have voted to remain. But leaving the EU has not caused this disaster, just the political decisions made by the government afterwards.
Oh cut the crap.
Johnson literally said during the referendum he would leave the Single Market and leave the Customs Union. That was the entire point of Brexit, to take back control. Just what did you think you were voting to take back control over if we remained in both the Single Market and Customs Union? Just what did you think we were leaving? And don't say the EU, practically what did you think was meant to change when you voted?
You've swapped over to the Lib Dems and whether by coincidence or not have swapped away from supporting Brexit and you react now with the zeal of the convert. I probably do the same, the other direction, though I at least converted before I voted.
We could have easily ended up in the EEA. (I think that was my preferred solution back in 2016, though on reflection I don't think that's where I'd now choose to end up). There was a political majority for it in the 2017-2019 parliament. But any form of soft Brexit was repeatedly scuppered by hardcore Remainers. They had countless opportunities to honour the referendum result while ending up with various shades of soft Brexit from BRINO to EEA. Where we are now is down to an alliance of hard-remainers trying to overturn the result of a referendum and hard-Brexiters trying to put in place the most extreme interpretation of the referendum. There were, it must be noted, far more of the former. Only one of these groups has got what they wanted out of this alliance.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
The point is that prices really ought to have fallen considerably off the back of 2008. They haven't.
Prices did fall after the global financial crisis but have since resumed their climb.
They didn't fall around Woking!
The SE is over saturated with demand. It would take something seismic to really knock house prices here.
Something seismic, like huge numbers of white-collar employees no longer commuting daily to central London?
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
The point is that prices really ought to have fallen considerably off the back of 2008. They haven't.
Prices did fall after the global financial crisis but have since resumed their climb.
They didn't fall around Woking!
There was a flight to quality, with new build city centre flat blocks unsellable in northern ghettoes while charming detached houses in nice London suburbs didn't drop much, if at all.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
The point is that prices really ought to have fallen considerably off the back of 2008. They haven't.
Prices did fall after the global financial crisis but have since resumed their climb.
They didn't fall around Woking!
The SE is over saturated with demand. It would take something seismic to really knock house prices here.
Something seismic, like huge numbers of white-collar employees no longer commuting daily to central London?
Except realistically a majority will still be required to commute to central London some of the time and therefore will still need to live within commuting range.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
The point is that prices really ought to have fallen considerably off the back of 2008. They haven't.
Prices did fall after the global financial crisis but have since resumed their climb.
They didn't fall around Woking!
The SE is over saturated with demand. It would take something seismic to really knock house prices here.
Something seismic, like huge numbers of white-collar employees no longer commuting daily to central London?
They still live in the south-east region.
The reason housing is so unaffordable is because the population of the country has increased by 10 million over the last 20 years. In the 70s, 80s and early 90s it hardly increased at all.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
They'll sell up quickly enough if we build enough houses so that prices stagnate or fall.
Anyway, some rental is desirable.
More housing is not the totality of the solution, but it’s sure as hell a prerequisite.
A large amount of the asset price inflation of the last decade and half, is the direct result of interest rates being on the floor.
Yes, there were three causes which came together:
- constrained supply - growing population - very low interest rates.
None of them were fatal by themselves, but together they have destroyed the prospects of a whole generation of young people.
OT we were always very lukewarm on the whole concept of a european arrest warrant but eventually fell in line. I was very sceptical of the concept of been deported to another nation for something that wasnt a crime in this one. But i do remember speaking to a DCI involved with interpol, he said it had its problems (like some countries entering every single crime onto their international database as a matter of routine) but it was useful at picking people up coming into the country (though they hardly ever did).
It seems now that with its expiration and failure to put anything in its place we wont be getting criminals extradited.
Friends of mine used to attend meetings about the operation of the EAW representing Crown Office here. On their account these meetings were almost entirely taken up with the Germans shouting at the Poles who seemed to make the maximum use of the system for pretty trivial stuff including non payment of taxes and other matters that would not even be a criminal offence in most countries.
In Scotland too the Poles were a disproportionate number of cases and some of them seemed quite bizarre. So, for example, you would have someone who was released on licence but with a condition that they remain in a particular town. They had come to Scotland and got work here and the Poles wanted to have them returned so they could go back to jail. For some crimes, eg sex crimes, this may be fair enough but some cases seemed to involve people who had originally been jailed for not paying maintenance to a former spouse. Furthermore the outstanding sentence was often very short.
So the system was far from perfect but on balance I still think it was a good thing. My understanding is that we offered to remain a part of it but the offer was declined.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
They'll sell up quickly enough if we build enough houses so that prices stagnate or fall.
Anyway, some rental is desirable.
More housing is not the totality of the solution, but it’s sure as hell a prerequisite.
A large amount of the asset price inflation of the last decade and half, is the direct result of interest rates being on the floor.
Yes, there were three causes which came together:
- constrained supply - growing population - very low interest rates.
None of them were fatal by themselves, but together they have destroyed the prospects of a whole generation of young people.
Don't forget below-inflation wage rises.
If wages had kept up with inflation it would be less of a problem.
I DID vote for Brexit. To leave the European Union. What we have decided to do afterwards - leaving the EEA and CU - is the disaster. Yes, knowing what I now know about the rank stupidity of the Tories I would have voted to remain. But leaving the EU has not caused this disaster, just the political decisions made by the government afterwards.
Oh cut the crap.
Johnson literally said during the referendum he would leave the Single Market and leave the Customs Union. That was the entire point of Brexit, to take back control. Just what did you think you were voting to take back control over if we remained in both the Single Market and Customs Union? Just what did you think we were leaving? And don't say the EU, practically what did you think was meant to change when you voted?
You've swapped over to the Lib Dems and whether by coincidence or not have swapped away from supporting Brexit and you react now with the zeal of the convert. I probably do the same, the other direction, though I at least converted before I voted.
You're rewriting history as usual. There was no "clear" Brexit manifesto that everybody voted for. That has always been known.
But it doesn't matter. We've left now. It's over. We can criticise or praise the current settlement on its own merits. The 2016 referendum was nearly 5 years ago and is largely irrelevant.
Actually there were promises made during the referendum: leaving the Single Market, taking back control of laws, money, borders, courts.
That's been done now. Yes it was nearly five years ago, though the 2019 Tory manifesto promises for what Brexit meant were largely the same ones that were made in 2016.
Which makes Rochdale's sudden Lib Dem Europhilia ring hollow. Nothing major has happened in the end that wasn't promised during the referendum at the end of which he voted Leave.
@RochdalePioneers adoption of Europhilia and turning against Brexit seems to have coincided more with him abandoning Labour and joining the Liberal Democrats than it does anything to do with Brexit itself.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
They'll sell up quickly enough if we build enough houses so that prices stagnate or fall.
Anyway, some rental is desirable.
More housing is not the totality of the solution, but it’s sure as hell a prerequisite.
A large amount of the asset price inflation of the last decade and half, is the direct result of interest rates being on the floor.
Yes, there were three causes which came together:
- constrained supply - growing population - very low interest rates.
None of them were fatal by themselves, but together they have destroyed the prospects of a whole generation of young people.
Don't forget below-inflation wage rises.
If wages had kept up with inflation it would be less of a problem.
I don't think so - given constrained supply, house prices are set over the long run by incomes divided by interest rates, so prices would just have risen more.
Personal experience anecdote. Where my relatives live - nice(ish) suburb of Birmingham, there has been a big influx of people moving up from London, over the last few years. Seem to buy the huge houses in not so great state and do them up.
I DID vote for Brexit. To leave the European Union. What we have decided to do afterwards - leaving the EEA and CU - is the disaster. Yes, knowing what I now know about the rank stupidity of the Tories I would have voted to remain. But leaving the EU has not caused this disaster, just the political decisions made by the government afterwards.
Oh cut the crap.
Johnson literally said during the referendum he would leave the Single Market and leave the Customs Union. That was the entire point of Brexit, to take back control. Just what did you think you were voting to take back control over if we remained in both the Single Market and Customs Union? Just what did you think we were leaving? And don't say the EU, practically what did you think was meant to change when you voted?
You've swapped over to the Lib Dems and whether by coincidence or not have swapped away from supporting Brexit and you react now with the zeal of the convert. I probably do the same, the other direction, though I at least converted before I voted.
You're rewriting history as usual. There was no "clear" Brexit manifesto that everybody voted for. That has always been known.
But it doesn't matter. We've left now. It's over. We can criticise or praise the current settlement on its own merits. The 2016 referendum was nearly 5 years ago and is largely irrelevant.
Actually there were promises made during the referendum: leaving the Single Market, taking back control of laws, money, borders, courts.
That's been done now. Yes it was nearly five years ago, though the 2019 Tory manifesto promises for what Brexit meant were largely the same ones that were made in 2016.
Which makes Rochdale's sudden Lib Dem Europhilia ring hollow. Nothing major has happened in the end that wasn't promised during the referendum at the end of which he voted Leave.
@RochdalePioneers adoption of Europhilia and turning against Brexit seems to have coincided more with him abandoning Labour and joining the Liberal Democrats than it does anything to do with Brexit itself.
I reckon he voted leave because he thought it would shaft the Tories. It did for Cameron and Osborne, and very nearly did for the party.
One of my dad's friends voted leave simply to get rid of Cameron.
It is an argument against direct democracy, but we all have one vote and it's up to each of us how we use it.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
Oh dear, I suspect I've started that argument again!
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
The house price rise happened before not since though. It happened on Brown's tenure.
The point is that prices really ought to have fallen considerably off the back of 2008. They haven't.
Prices did fall after the global financial crisis but have since resumed their climb.
They didn't fall around Woking!
The SE is over saturated with demand. It would take something seismic to really knock house prices here.
Something seismic, like huge numbers of white-collar employees no longer commuting daily to central London?
Except realistically a majority will still be required to commute to central London some of the time and therefore will still need to live within commuting range.
Yes, that’s the big unknown. Will companies allow enough time away from the office that a daily commute isn’t required.
If I had to work two days a week in London, for example, I could live two hours away by train (that’s as far as Manchester, Leeds or Bath), buy one return train ticket and spend one night a week in a cheap London hotel.
Expect plenty of office space to be repurposed as cheap no-frills hotels in the City of London, that’s a great business model for someone.
If I need to be in the office three days a week, that’s the worst of all worlds as I’m still buying a full season ticket so need to live much closer to London.
If it’s one week a month, I can live pretty much anywhere.
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
They'll sell up quickly enough if we build enough houses so that prices stagnate or fall.
Anyway, some rental is desirable.
More housing is not the totality of the solution, but it’s sure as hell a prerequisite.
A large amount of the asset price inflation of the last decade and half, is the direct result of interest rates being on the floor.
Yes, there were three causes which came together:
- constrained supply - growing population - very low interest rates.
None of them were fatal by themselves, but together they have destroyed the prospects of a whole generation of young people.
Don't forget below-inflation wage rises.
If wages had kept up with inflation it would be less of a problem.
I don't think so - given constrained supply, house prices are set over the long run by incomes divided by interest rates, so prices would just have risen more.
I used to think Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime. On reflection, it's clearly David Cameron. No PM has inflicted more long-term damage on the UK more casually. May was desperately poor, but she was dealing with Cameron's mess. Johnson is busily causing more harm, of course, but he is part of the Cameron legacy, too.
Nah. Cameron gave us Brexit which is rapidly proving to be the salvation of this country. Of course he couldn't know that would be the case but history will look very kindly on Cameron given the subsequent events.
May was an evil vindictive scumbag who should never have been allowed within a thousand miles of any office, high or low. Her treatment of immigrants and their descendants and her messages to people that they should 'go home' were comparable with the BNP. She was an authoritarian bigot totally unsuited to ministerial position.
I wonder if May is more authoritarian than the current Home Sec, another controlling bigot?
Not sure.
They are certainly of a type. Both lacking in empathy which has to be a prerequisite for high office, particularly Home Secretary
Perhaps abandon moronic policies like the stamp duty cut
And how exactly does taxing buyers more with a tax they need to pay up front in full help buyers?
No good reducing house prices if instead of the seller the buyer needs to spend just as much but it goes to the Exchequer instead. At least if it goes to the seller the buyer will find more supply available. 🙄
It's all a bit Bonfire of the Vanities. Safe to attack 'perpetuators', with no one willing to back them up for transgressions that are orders of magnitude lower than in other areas with more 'complicated' issues.
In totally unrelated news:
“It’s too soon to say what exactly the long-term impact of the current debate is going to have, but it’s likely to contribute to the huge changes in young male sexuality that have been happening for over a decade - without most people paying them much attention.
If the joy of sex is disappearing for young men, so too for a lot of them, is the point of sex. Russell, 18, says bleakly: “In my Dad’s day, you probably pursued sex if you’re straight to find a serious girlfriend you eventually might marry and have kids with. We can’t think like that. We don’t have the means to move out, let alone start a grown-up life. It makes it all – dating, sex, finding The One – all seem a bit pointless.”
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
... or maybe we'll finally build enough houses for the young as well as the old, which would be my preference.
Or make the landlords sell up so that young people are having their lives leeched away by the parasites.
They'll sell up quickly enough if we build enough houses so that prices stagnate or fall.
Anyway, some rental is desirable.
More housing is not the totality of the solution, but it’s sure as hell a prerequisite.
A large amount of the asset price inflation of the last decade and half, is the direct result of interest rates being on the floor.
Yes, there were three causes which came together:
- constrained supply - growing population - very low interest rates.
None of them were fatal by themselves, but together they have destroyed the prospects of a whole generation of young people.
Don't forget below-inflation wage rises.
If wages had kept up with inflation it would be less of a problem.
I don't think so - given constrained supply, house prices are set over the long run by incomes divided by interest rates, so prices would just have risen more.
But they haven't risen in real terms since 2010.
What haven't? House prices? Incomes? Or interest rates?
Comments
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Teacher+in+porn+shame;+COURT+TOLD+OF+'BROKEN+MAN'+WHO+WAS+HOUNDED...-a060237811
May was an evil vindictive scumbag who should never have been allowed within a thousand miles of any office, high or low. Her treatment of immigrants and their descendants and her messages to people that they should 'go home' were comparable with the BNP. She was an authoritarian bigot totally unsuited to ministerial position.
Boris (and Gove and Cummings) did not learn from Brown's failures and repeated them: centralising power and overwhelming the centre. Boris's recent success in fighting the pandemic are due to hiving off responsibility for PPE and vaccine procurement and for vaccination.
My impression of the leave campaign was not that we would be more relevant, more competitive, and get cheaper goods. The message was that we would take back control and spend the money that went to EU on NHS. The more racist put up pictures of immigrants on borders.
It's easy to project now what a campaign was about and I am sure you can Google a quote or two but the reason I voted remain was precisely because leave had no explanation about how we would be better off or more competitive outside the EU.
It really isn't.
The bad job is literally a list by how long ago they did the job.
So, in terms of the general public, people remember the good things you did and the bad things get forgotten. And a sizeable chunk really just don't know.
Even with May, 33 % are saying Don't Know. (In fact, Don't Know seems to be quite high throughout - may be worth a follow up).
He even had an expose run on him in one of the Sunday papers.
The school defended him and said he was innocent
Years later I was not surprised to see that he had been convicted and sentenced to time inside
So in that case at least the Sunday tabloids had the story but the school ignored it because it was a tabloid....
But yes, three cheers to Dave for the referendum. Lancing the boil and having the debate was a nasty and messy process but it was long overdue. And happily the wisdom of the crowd led to what will undoubtedly prove to be the right choice. Don’t know how long it will take but one day it will feel peculiar to all but a few that we were ever members.
It will be interesting to see if this eventually feeds through into marriage and births stats.
The shrewd thing for his personal reputation would be to leave this summer on a wave of triumph- some of it even deserved. He would be the Great Man Who Got Brexit Done And Conquered Covid, and some other poor sod can clean up the weevils which are set to wriggle out of both of those.
I doubt he will do that though. Nothing personal- it's just that very few top politicians leave the stage willingly. People who do leave the stage willingly don't get to become top politicians in the first place.
So BoJo stays on. In which case entropy will destroy his plans, because that's what happens to governments. (Dom C was right about this, just utterly wrong in his solution of trying to control everything from one office containing his brain.) And BoJo is more entropic than most, on top of being pretty tawdry and unwilling to have cabinet ministers with minds of their own around him.
So at some point, the Max Hastings(?) observation that everyone who interacts with BoJo ends up regretting it will eventually apply to the British electorate. It might take 10 years, it might take 10 minutes. But it will happen. And when it does, The Sun will revisit one of their greatest front pages;
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/1992-Sept-17-e1573638666506.jpg?w=620
Leaving the EEA to the extent the french can reject are exports for the LOLs wasn't however a good idea nor Boris's fix for a problem that May had left to EU to deal with.
I'd interpret that all as "Do big things, be remembered, and history will forgive you the small stuff"
Now, where do we have Boris - Mayor of London twice, delivered Brexit and will deliver the most successful vaccination programme in the West. Golly Gee Willikers, best to underestimate him again, right?
1) How much sooner? There was, perhaps, a week or two at the most when this was an option. Was public opinion onside at that point? I reckon it was no more than three days between the the first cries for lockdown - the first cries for it, mind, not wholesale public opinion - and lockdown happening. I accept in a pandemic every day counts, but it wasn't the interminable delay it's often painted as. What was the delay between the UK locking down and the sainted Jacinda Adern locking down New Zealand? It was roughly, as I recall, no time at all.
2) You can't, as a PM, be a slave to public opinion - but when SAGE are telling you there's no need you have to be pretty, er, brave to go against them. Look at the opprobrium being heaped on Macron as a result of defying his scientists.
3) What impact did lockdown have? It's never clear - we never have an exact control. But from the data we have it looks likely that the tide of infections was already turning when lockdown came in. The correlation between countries which took anything but the most basic of measures (stopping big sporting events etc) and death tolls is pretty weak.
4) This fairly credible fella from Cambridge: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/21/delaying-first-lockdown-may-have-inadvertently-saved-lives-cost/ - reckons that an earlier lockdown would have killed more people by resulting in a bigger second wave in the winter when the NHS was least able to cope with it.
5) Lockdowns kill people (i). The massive, massive economic cost will be borne by a whole generation, which as a whole will be considerably less rich - and therefore considerably less able to afford investment in health - and individually more impoverished, and, as we know, poverty is correlated with ill health.
6) Lockdowns kill people (ii). Cancer patients not treated, suicides, etc.
7) Counterfactuals are beguiling but devious mistresses. You can't change just one thing; hundreds of minor changes would have followed as a result. The alternative world would have been different but not necessarily better.
Now, I recognise the above contains bits which may be mutually contradictory (e.g. if lockdowns do nothing (3), then 4 is at best irrelevant). But my point is that I am far from convinced that there is a convincing case that we 'should have locked down sooner'. It's one of those tropes that is superficially attractive - "if only we'd done x, everything would have been ok; stands, to reason, doesn't it" - but doesn't really stand up to detailed scrutiny.
I'm certainly not saying every decision was correct. Personally - and with the ease of one who can make such a claim without having to face a consequence - I would have stopped Madrid fans coming to Liverpool and everyone going to Cheltenham, and I would have made our borders rather less porous. Would these have led to a better outcome? Who knows?
NutNut is a key factor in all this. There is no way she has had a sufficiency of being FLOTUK yet.
Labour to hold
IIRC there are instances where UK Govts deliberately put measures through that way.
Personally, I am glad that it has gone.
Not sure if anyone has seen the news item this morning about the animal welfare catastrophe that has developed in the Suez canal. They are saying that up to 200,000 animals which have been waiting for days on ships without suitable care are in the process of dying. Most of these animals are being exported from the EU to the Middle East.
One benefit of leaving the EU is that the UK has announced that all live animal exports will be banned by the end of this year. The EU should be following suit.
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1376809560246267905
Theresa May's govt was a couple of years wasted?
I’ve written quite a bit about how QE and uk fiscal policy is stacked up against the young in favour of the old. And it does make me angry. But lads like the one quoted here do need to get a grip of their own destiny.
There is probably quite a lot of truth in the claim that today’s young prefer their creature comforts over independence from their parents. No mouldy wallpaper, eating lentils because the mice ate the good stuff and domestic road trips in a banger for them, paid for by whatever job gets them out of home quickest. It’s all Nespresso pods, smartphones, “growing themselves” through travel, and pursuing self actualisation in a worthy career.
- and I have many kids to tell long tales to.
Max, do you know anything about potential crunches for the UK in the 'ingredients for vaccines' supply chain?
(Thinking of the ones that are allegedly slowing things down for the SII.)
The problem of course is that we have convinced ourselves that free trade is not free trade, and that the only way to have free trade is to create the ludicrous expensive bureaucratic barriers we claimed we were leaving to remove.
Johnson literally said during the referendum he would leave the Single Market and leave the Customs Union. That was the entire point of Brexit, to take back control. Just what did you think you were voting to take back control over if we remained in both the Single Market and Customs Union? Just what did you think we were leaving? And don't say the EU, practically what did you think was meant to change when you voted?
You've swapped over to the Lib Dems and whether by coincidence or not have swapped away from supporting Brexit and you react now with the zeal of the convert. I probably do the same, the other direction, though I at least converted before I voted.
Not sure.
Compare him to Callaghan in 76-79.
I tend to agree with Max on this. Perhaps it is about supply of housing, but I honestly can't see it being fixed if it might lead to a fall in house prices.
To all of those on here praising Brown for "saving the world", fine. But what's happened since has been an unmitigated disaster and all politicians from all political parties as well as the media have contributed to it.
Anyway, some rental is desirable.
It was under Labour that the housing crisis began. Under the Tories it is improving. Slowly, but improving.
It will get worse if Labour get in like it did last time.
I guess it all comes down to opportunities, in terms of both career and life.
Or maybe young people have forgotten how to have fun? Can't smoke, can't drink without health warning plastereds all over the place, can't make a fool of yourself as you know it'll be all over social media, or chat groups. Can't step out of line either when everything you say will be common knowledge.
Life seems much more conformist in many ways, even though there is more freedom than ever before.
That's certainly happened in Eastern Europe.
The Czech Republic was quick to enforce a lockdown and has managed to avoid the worst of the pandemic.
There have been fewer than 12,000 infections in the Czech Republic, a country of 10 million. About 350 people have died.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53244688
There are now over 26k covid deaths in Czechia.
But it doesn't matter. We've left now. It's over. We can criticise or praise the current settlement on its own merits. The 2016 referendum was nearly 5 years ago and is largely irrelevant.
Housing policy in this country is a bipartisan fuckup.
The voters of Hartlepool are unpredictable and have little party loyalty due to their predilections for glue sniffing and incest fuelled inbreeding.
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1376818789434687490
NZ 173-5 in 17.5
Rain
Bangladesh told target is 148 in 16 ovs
Which is clearly wrong as it is based on NZ batting the full 20 ovs
Play stopped after 9 balls to clarify (break lasted 5 mins)
i reckon target should be 171 according to my DLS calculations
Confusion reigns
That's probably what we'd expect if the vaccines are doing their job and there's also a significant subset who've got antibodies from previous infection. Hopefully we're now up at about 60%.
Great news that they're doing what they're supposed to.
Ironically, Cummings' plan to revitalise the north might have been the best bet on offer, rather than have all demand centred in a tiny corner of the country.
We already have fiscal transfers from 'high earning' areas to low earning areas, but the price of that, is that spending decisions are taken (largely) at a national level. Changing it would mean a loss of that democratic input.
Source: https://www.plumplot.co.uk/North-East-house-prices.html
China again claims Korean dish, this time Samgyetang
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/culture/2021/03/703_306354.html
That's why this is all a completely phoney war.
A large amount of the asset price inflation of the last decade and half, is the direct result of interest rates being on the floor.
Time for Labour to get to work on that economy number
They had countless opportunities to honour the referendum result while ending up with various shades of soft Brexit from BRINO to EEA. Where we are now is down to an alliance of hard-remainers trying to overturn the result of a referendum and hard-Brexiters trying to put in place the most extreme interpretation of the referendum. There were, it must be noted, far more of the former. Only one of these groups has got what they wanted out of this alliance.
The reason housing is so unaffordable is because the population of the country has increased by 10 million over the last 20 years. In the 70s, 80s and early 90s it hardly increased at all.
Just seems bizarre we ended up where we did given how pro-EU the Commons was.
- constrained supply
- growing population
- very low interest rates.
None of them were fatal by themselves, but together they have destroyed the prospects of a whole generation of young people.
In Scotland too the Poles were a disproportionate number of cases and some of them seemed quite bizarre. So, for example, you would have someone who was released on licence but with a condition that they remain in a particular town. They had come to Scotland and got work here and the Poles wanted to have them returned so they could go back to jail. For some crimes, eg sex crimes, this may be fair enough but some cases seemed to involve people who had originally been jailed for not paying maintenance to a former spouse. Furthermore the outstanding sentence was often very short.
So the system was far from perfect but on balance I still think it was a good thing. My understanding is that we offered to remain a part of it but the offer was declined.
If wages had kept up with inflation it would be less of a problem.
That's been done now. Yes it was nearly five years ago, though the 2019 Tory manifesto promises for what Brexit meant were largely the same ones that were made in 2016.
Which makes Rochdale's sudden Lib Dem Europhilia ring hollow. Nothing major has happened in the end that wasn't promised during the referendum at the end of which he voted Leave.
@RochdalePioneers adoption of Europhilia and turning against Brexit seems to have coincided more with him abandoning Labour and joining the Liberal Democrats than it does anything to do with Brexit itself.
https://www.buyassociation.co.uk/2020/11/09/birmingham-house-prices-rising-faster-than-anywhere-else-in-uk/
One of my dad's friends voted leave simply to get rid of Cameron.
It is an argument against direct democracy, but we all have one vote and it's up to each of us how we use it.
If I had to work two days a week in London, for example, I could live two hours away by train (that’s as far as Manchester, Leeds or Bath), buy one return train ticket and spend one night a week in a cheap London hotel.
Expect plenty of office space to be repurposed as cheap no-frills hotels in the City of London, that’s a great business model for someone.
If I need to be in the office three days a week, that’s the worst of all worlds as I’m still buying a full season ticket so need to live much closer to London.
If it’s one week a month, I can live pretty much anywhere.
No good reducing house prices if instead of the seller the buyer needs to spend just as much but it goes to the Exchequer instead. At least if it goes to the seller the buyer will find more supply available. 🙄