Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A year on for Starmer and he has yet been able to shake the hands of a single voter – politicalbetti

1356712

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    Do we think this is right? I am surprised how willing the public is to have a covid tracking app introduced and so a Trojan horse for national ID/movement tracking/social credit app. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

    https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1377896085834829824
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,629

    felix said:

    Labour's real problem remains it's focus on identity politics

    No, Labour's problem is that the Tories have played identity politics better, by winning support from voters who identify as English and patriotic, and creating a sense of distrust of Labour's patriotic credentials. Johnson is all identity politics all the time - but he has a larger identity group supporting him.

    The vaccine success is also significant, as others have pointed out. I'm struggling to think of when a British government last did something as well. It's often said that the electorate doesn't do gratitude, but I wonder whether this might be an exception because the success is so unusually clear.
    If so many Labour supporters didn't hate their own country so much then they wouldn't be abandoning being English and patriotic to the Tories.

    In any other nation being of your own nation and patriotic is not newsworthy. In America it is "motherhood and apple pie" behaviour. Only the English left find the concept of actually liking your own country to be repellant.
    I don't think Labour supporters do hate their own country at all, but that argument is for another day.

    What is important is that the Tories have convinced the voters that they do. Labour's problem isn't so much that they've played identity politics, but that they've played identity politics badly, and the Tories have played identity politics with much more success.
    When the very presence of a flag sends some into an apoplectic rage, it doesn't take much to convince voters that those reacting with fury hate their own country.

    It's not even a new concept invented by the Tories, that notorious Tory errr George Orwell wrote about this over fifty years ago.
    "The left" should turn the Union Jack into a "woke" symbol for the primary reason that it would wind "the right" up something awful. Would be great craic.
    .. and that sentence encapsulates the problem nicely.

    I recall a Yasmin Alibhai-Brown column in the Guardian. The context was, during the Rugby World Cup, a black cab driver (who was black) had defied TfL and flown a England flag on his cab. With the avowed intention of cleaning it back from the EDL types. Which it did - to certain extent.

    Anyway, YAB wrote an anguished article which included her stating that this left her with the horrifying prospect of having to *like* this country. Or, at the least, give up on the idea that liking this country was immoral. Which, she said, would making living in this country virtually impossible for her....
    I mean in all seriousness people like YAB don't represent Labour or Labour voters. I don't even know who she is.

    Most moderate Labour voters in my experience are fairly comfortable being "British" but don't feel the need to virtue signal by waving flags around all the time (oh the irony). That doesn't mean they "hate" this country.

    As the "right" likes to say: Twitter isn't Britain, but Twitter also isn't "the left".
    Yes - the problem is that YAB doesn't represent a lot of Labour voters or potential Labour voters. But she represents alot of people (small group compared to the actual voting public) who think they own the Labour brand.

    It's a fairly instinctive thing - if you don't like the country in general, people won't vote for you to run it.

    Want to change stuff - fine.

    Hate the whole thing - here's nice job at the Guardian, sorry we won't give you the keys to No. 10....
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    My mum has never read the Daily Mail in her life, but she often channels it with almost unerring accuracy nonetheless. I think the Guardian occupies a similar place in the zeitgeist, only with a much smaller actual readership, and a much larger army of "hosts".
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,461

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    Andy_JS said:

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    Newspapers are apparently mainly read by older people these days.
    I read the Guardian. Sadly, I expect the newsprint paper version to be killed off in a couple of years.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    I didn't even consider printed newspapers in my comment, I meant the website!
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    'Take Back Control' is sounding pretty f*cking hollow this week, as Johnson's techno-authoritarian government pushes on with national tracking app.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,351

    felix said:

    Labour's real problem remains it's focus on identity politics

    No, Labour's problem is that the Tories have played identity politics better, by winning support from voters who identify as English and patriotic, and creating a sense of distrust of Labour's patriotic credentials. Johnson is all identity politics all the time - but he has a larger identity group supporting him.

    The vaccine success is also significant, as others have pointed out. I'm struggling to think of when a British government last did something as well. It's often said that the electorate doesn't do gratitude, but I wonder whether this might be an exception because the success is so unusually clear.
    If so many Labour supporters didn't hate their own country so much then they wouldn't be abandoning being English and patriotic to the Tories.

    In any other nation being of your own nation and patriotic is not newsworthy. In America it is "motherhood and apple pie" behaviour. Only the English left find the concept of actually liking your own country to be repellant.
    I don't think Labour supporters do hate their own country at all, but that argument is for another day.

    What is important is that the Tories have convinced the voters that they do. Labour's problem isn't so much that they've played identity politics, but that they've played identity politics badly, and the Tories have played identity politics with much more success.
    When the very presence of a flag sends some into an apoplectic rage, it doesn't take much to convince voters that those reacting with fury hate their own country.

    It's not even a new concept invented by the Tories, that notorious Tory errr George Orwell wrote about this over fifty years ago.
    "The left" should turn the Union Jack into a "woke" symbol for the primary reason that it would wind "the right" up something awful. Would be great craic.
    .. and that sentence encapsulates the problem nicely.

    I recall a Yasmin Alibhai-Brown column in the Guardian. The context was, during the Rugby World Cup, a black cab driver (who was black) had defied TfL and flown a England flag on his cab. With the avowed intention of cleaning it back from the EDL types. Which it did - to certain extent.

    Anyway, YAB wrote an anguished article which included her stating that this left her with the horrifying prospect of having to *like* this country. Or, at the least, give up on the idea that liking this country was immoral. Which, she said, would making living in this country virtually impossible for her....
    I mean in all seriousness people like YAB don't represent Labour or Labour voters. I don't even know who she is.

    Most moderate Labour voters in my experience are fairly comfortable being "British" but don't feel the need to virtue signal by waving flags around all the time (oh the irony). That doesn't mean they "hate" this country.

    As the "right" likes to say: Twitter isn't Britain, but Twitter also isn't "the left".
    The problem is that huge numbers of 'moderate Labour voters are comfortable' voting Tory. They may not fly flags, most people don't, but they still have views about it. Even Channel 4 News of all places couldn't avoid seeing this is a recent visit to Redcar.

  • https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    "Do people realise how high price they will be paying?"

    https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1377903658063564802
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,860

    kinabalu said:

    BJ still governing in campaign mode. SKS would look a bit of a berk doing this (as does BJ but that’s his natural habitat) but surely there’s some less berkish equivalent?

    https://twitter.com/mikegove12/status/1377900825641693187?s=21

    State of him. Oh please rescue us.
    Actually he was interviewed in B & Q, and those who mock Boris are missing the point that he is popular with ordinary voters, who most likely shop at B & Q , and this is precisely why he clicks with the electorate
    Yes I know he's popular. I've posted many times to that effect.
  • In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Mail on line is £9.99 a month and it is exactly as the hard copy
  • https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    There's definitely an element of it, it's not the whole story but it certainly motivates me to vote anti-Tory in any election that comes up.
  • In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Mail on line is £9.99 a month and it is exactly as the hard copy
    Total shite?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Mail on line is £9.99 a month and it is exactly as the hard copy
    Total shite?
    Even my Labour-supporting on the whole but fairly apolitical girlfriend reads the Daily Mail Online for the celebrity news and gossip.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    London is a world city now, competing with New York city and Paris and LA for highly skilled, wealthy individuals and families to buy property there.

    Hence most Londoner can no longer afford to buy in London and rent, much as they do in New York city, I doubt that will change anytime soon and as 2019 showed the Tories can even win a landslide majority UK wide despite losing London.

    The Tories need to focus on ensuring those in the rest of the country can still afford to buy
  • In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Mail on line is £9.99 a month and it is exactly as the hard copy
    Total shite?
    Pardon - that is the price

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    <

    I mean in all seriousness people like YAB don't represent Labour or Labour voters. I don't even know who she is.

    Most moderate Labour voters in my experience are fairly comfortable being "British" but don't feel the need to virtue signal by waving flags around all the time (oh the irony). That doesn't mean they "hate" this country.

    As the "right" likes to say: Twitter isn't Britain, but Twitter also isn't "the left".

    That's right. I think that people who worry/fear/dislike "the other side" in politics go out of their way to find someone to be outraged about, and of course the media on both sides do it too.

    I understand that a local Tory councillor used an offensive word (woodpile context) the other day He's an amiable old buffer normally and clearly he just lapsed into an old phrase that most of us would never use. Have I denounced him to the Guardian? Tweeted furiously about him? Demanded that Boris Johnson takes a view? Nah - it's wrong but one local councillor saying something yucky isn't really a big deal. In the same way, I decline to be defensive if some Labour councillor somewhere says something out of line.

    By and large, this stuff is rare and not worth obsessing about - the important issue is when prejudice becomes part of everyday experience, which is why the recent report denying systematic racism is so unhelpful.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Fernando said:

    Aren’t you missing the obvious. He was doing quite well in 2020. However, since then Johnson has been shown to have made the correct decisions on vaccines. Starmer can’t escape from the popular judgement that he would have left us in the same position as the EU.
    One leader was right. The other was wrong. We rarely have such a clear division.

    Good spot. Starmer was leading in the ratings and Labour led the polls - but, now more people know who he is, his ratings have fallen off a cliff.

    Look at these YouGovs - since he took over he hasn’t got any more positives, and all the don’t knows have gone negative, it is almost strangely ridiculously clear




    Excellent charts. Remember when we used to be told that Starmer's high initial Don't Knows were a good thing, because they would inevitably turn into positives once people got to know him? That, er, hasn't happened at all. Quite the reverse, in fact.
    Yes I remember it well.

    I am not a fan of Sir Keir, but what I don’t get is how people who are fans of his think these ratings, and all the others, are good. They find solace in the fact Corbyn’s were worse, but ignore the fact that Milibands were the same.
    You are something of a one-trick pony. Most of your posts solely focus on anti-Starmer statistics. Are you perchance, Richard Burgon?
    So he's writing about Starmer in a thread header about Starmer?

    Oh the horrors!

    The issue with Starmer is not that the public don't know him, but the more they've seen of him the less they're impressed.
    You know that below every thread header, irrespective of subject therein contains a "Starmer is crap" post from Isam.
    Perhaps, but there are others on here who have their own hobby horses!

    It is not so much that Starmer is crap, it is more that he is a vacuum. I follow politics fairly closely, and am by nature centre-left, but even I cannot summon any enthusiasm.

    I suspect the sorting out of the Labour machine and de-lousing of the back office is essential work, but I don't see the makings of a PM.
    If Starmer gets in it won't be because of a Blair or Boris wave of enthusiasm for him, it will be because he is not Boris if Boris is unpopular by 2024.

    Much as Biden got in in 2020 not with an Obama 2008 wave of enthusiasm but because he was not Trump or Hollande got in in 2012 not with a Macron 2017 style wave of enthusiasm but because he was not Sarkozy.

    And that's what remains to be seen.

    The success of the British Vaccine Rollout- both absolute and relative to Europe- has given the government a huge boost. But it's not that long ago that Johnson's government was slightly behind in the polls and shedding votes with each mess-up.

    Will the vaccine wave carry BoJo all the way to 2024 and beyond? Or will it fade away as the fundamentals reassert themselves? Nobody knows for sure, but voters tend to be ungrateful so-and-sos, remembering the bad stuff and not the good.
    Plus it is only by 2024 the economic impact of the lockdown and furlough and the trade deal done with the EU will be felt, now it is too early to tell
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Mail on line is £9.99 a month and it is exactly as the hard copy
    The Mailonline I use seems identical and is free. No way in the world would I pay £9.99 a month for any newspaper.
  • In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Mail on line is £9.99 a month and it is exactly as the hard copy
    Total shite?
    Even my Labour-supporting on the whole but fairly apolitical girlfriend reads the Daily Mail Online for the celebrity news and gossip.
    I rest my case, lol
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631

    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    Anecdata: just out of curiosity I thought I would check my local mass vaccine centre availability. You can walk in in an hour's time and have the jab if over 50 or otherwise eligible.

    I have received an email reply from the Scottish vaccination service. They have never heard of me. Not on their system apparently. This is a little surprising since I have been at my current address for more than 30 years, with the same GP practice for 45 years and they have heard of my wife.

    My details have been passed to the local NHS Board, apparently, who may contact me in a week failing which I have a telephone number I can call. What I would give for a system like you have locally. This is pathetic.
    People can drop through the cracks. Many years ago, as a young woman, I applied for some post that required my GP to provide a medical certificate. I'd been in that place for some years and had had no problems accessing GP services when needed (they even did home visits in those days).

    Yet when I asked for this certificate, they found that I wasn't registered with them, even though I'd arranged for transfer of records from the former place within a few weeks of moving.

    Good morning, everyone.
    Sure, I get that, bureaucracies are imperfect things. Which is why systems should allow those using them to take the initiative to get things done. If I had been able to make an appointment online myself I would have been vaccinated weeks ago. But in Scotland the bureaucracy always knows best. So I can't.
    Yes, that's true, there should always be a failsafe way to fall back on. Any idea why the Scottish government didn't set up a parallel facility to England's? After all, it's the bureaucracy that's handling the alternative book your own system.
    Two explanations come to mind.

    Incompetence, in that they did not realise that the data could be bad (see also the debacle over percentage of care home residents vaccinated).

    Malfeasance, in that there was a political instruction to associate vaccinations strongly with the Scottish Government by sending appointments in blue envelopes.
    It should also be noted that whenever id cards and databases are mooted that politicians exempt themselves from being on them for common consumption and I suspect senior civil servants also get an exemption. If its not good enough for them then its not good enough for us.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,463
    edited April 2021

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Sadly, you're out of date: The Guardian in print (without a subscription) is £2.20 and £3.20 on a Saturday. I buy it every day as I still like spreading a newspaper out on the table while I have lunch.

    Just goes to show I must be old, woke, and broke.
  • Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    If only they had a pan-European medicines agency that could advise on such matters. Utterly bonkers.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    edited April 2021

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Mail on line is £9.99 a month and it is exactly as the hard copy
    Total shite?
    Pardon - that is the price

    You heard me, the Mail is shite. Along with the Independent, Guardian, Telegraph, pretty much our entire media is shite.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    You've undoubtedly read their content though.
  • RobD said:

    Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    You've undoubtedly read their content though.
    Never paid for it, it's my silent form of protest.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    edited April 2021

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884

    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    Anecdata: just out of curiosity I thought I would check my local mass vaccine centre availability. You can walk in in an hour's time and have the jab if over 50 or otherwise eligible.

    I have received an email reply from the Scottish vaccination service. They have never heard of me. Not on their system apparently. This is a little surprising since I have been at my current address for more than 30 years, with the same GP practice for 45 years and they have heard of my wife.

    My details have been passed to the local NHS Board, apparently, who may contact me in a week failing which I have a telephone number I can call. What I would give for a system like you have locally. This is pathetic.
    People can drop through the cracks. Many years ago, as a young woman, I applied for some post that required my GP to provide a medical certificate. I'd been in that place for some years and had had no problems accessing GP services when needed (they even did home visits in those days).

    Yet when I asked for this certificate, they found that I wasn't registered with them, even though I'd arranged for transfer of records from the former place within a few weeks of moving.

    Good morning, everyone.
    Believe it or not my wife had the same experience even though we have been with the same practice since 1965

    Mind you we have had both our Pfizer vaccinations

    I was called for a smear test by my surgery Around 12 years ago. Bit odd, as I’m definitely not in possession of a cervix. I was tempted to turn up just to see what happened, but then thought they might have tried anyway, so did the right thing and called to get my records changed... turned out there had been a wrong box ticked by someone!
  • felix said:

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Mail on line is £9.99 a month and it is exactly as the hard copy
    The Mailonline I use seems identical and is free. No way in the world would I pay £9.99 a month for any newspaper.
    Mailonline is not the same

    Mail plus is the actual hard copy newspaper replicated on line
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,463

    Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    I'm not sure your last sentence follows from the previous two.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    You've undoubtedly read their content though.
    Never paid for it, it's my silent form of protest.
    You should. As you noted, the Times is pretty good. If you don't have a subscription you can only read a couple articles per month.
  • Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.
    Housing is so ridiculous that you can be earning legitimately good money and still be screwed because the deposit requirements are absurd.

    Contrast that to several very wealthy people I know who earn very little but have a massive deposit they've inherited so they have no trouble getting on the ladder.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    You've undoubtedly read their content though.
    Never paid for it, it's my silent form of protest.
    You should. As you noted, the Times is pretty good. If you don't have a subscription you can only read a couple articles per month.
    I'm not going to reveal how but I read a lot more than a couple of articles a month. Silent form of protest, I won't pay.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,962
    edited April 2021


    I mean in all seriousness people like YAB don't represent Labour or Labour voters. I don't even know who she is.

    Most moderate Labour voters in my experience are fairly comfortable being "British" but don't feel the need to virtue signal by waving flags around all the time (oh the irony). That doesn't mean they "hate" this country.

    As the "right" likes to say: Twitter isn't Britain, but Twitter also isn't "the left".

    Trouble is, the media get YAB on 24-hour media because they are guaranteed to get strongly held views. Yet they are antithetical to what the Tory --> Labour swing voters want to hear. And she bed-blocks the airtime that Labour need to acquire to win over those voters. But the 24-hour media will complain "Labour doesn't have anything to say." Which is a fair critique of Starmer. He may not be as bat-shit crazy as YAB, but at least she has passion in her craziness.
  • Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    I'm not sure your last sentence follows from the previous two.
    The Times is shite, it is however the least shite, if that makes sense.

    I don't pay for any of the content I read, I am not going to reveal how I don't pay - but I don't.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    You've undoubtedly read their content though.
    Never paid for it, it's my silent form of protest.
    You should. As you noted, the Times is pretty good. If you don't have a subscription you can only read a couple articles per month.
    I'm not going to reveal how but I read a lot more than a couple of articles a month. Silent form of protest, I won't pay.
    I don't understand. What has the Times done to deserve you reading their output for free? They aren't a public service.
  • In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Mail on line is £9.99 a month and it is exactly as the hard copy
    Total shite?
    Pardon - that is the price

    You heard me, the Mail is shite. Along with the Independent, Guardian, Telegraph, pretty much our entire media is shite.
    And you know when you say you do not read them

    Strange
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited April 2021
    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
  • In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Mail on line is £9.99 a month and it is exactly as the hard copy
    Total shite?
    Pardon - that is the price

    You heard me, the Mail is shite. Along with the Independent, Guardian, Telegraph, pretty much our entire media is shite.
    And you know when you say you do not read them

    Strange
    I didn't say I don't read them, I said I don't pay.

    Maybe you need to get a new pair of glasses.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    edited April 2021
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    You've undoubtedly read their content though.
    Never paid for it, it's my silent form of protest.
    You should. As you noted, the Times is pretty good. If you don't have a subscription you can only read a couple articles per month.
    I'm not going to reveal how but I read a lot more than a couple of articles a month. Silent form of protest, I won't pay.
    I don't understand. What has the Times done to deserve you reading their output for free? They aren't a public service.
    As I said, the media in general is shite and I don't pay for it on principle. The Times being owned by Murdoch is one reason I won't pay.

    However they have some interesting political stuff, so I read it - I just don't pay. They are not getting my money.
  • HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
    If house prices keep jacking up, in a few decades the rest of the country is going to have the same problem, or the market crashes. Wouldn't want to be holding that bomb.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    You've undoubtedly read their content though.
    Never paid for it, it's my silent form of protest.
    You should. As you noted, the Times is pretty good. If you don't have a subscription you can only read a couple articles per month.
    I'm not going to reveal how but I read a lot more than a couple of articles a month. Silent form of protest, I won't pay.
    I don't understand. What has the Times done to deserve you reading their output for free? They aren't a public service.
    As I said, the media in general is shite and I don't pay for it on principle. The Times being owned by Murdoch is one reason I won't pay.

    However they have some interesting political stuff, so I read it - I just don't pay.
    It's shit, but I read it all the time. If everyone took your attitude there would be no newspaper left.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,461

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Sadly, you're out of date: The Guardian in print (without a subscription) is £2.20 and £3.20 on a Saturday. I buy it every day as I still like spreading a newspaper out on the table while I have lunch.

    Just goes to show I must be old, woke, and broke.
    So about £750 per year or £1k of pre taxed income? Someone starting out in life could retire 2-3 years earlier if they invested that in a pension instead. Do you like it that much?
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    You've undoubtedly read their content though.
    Never paid for it, it's my silent form of protest.
    You should. As you noted, the Times is pretty good. If you don't have a subscription you can only read a couple articles per month.
    I'm not going to reveal how but I read a lot more than a couple of articles a month. Silent form of protest, I won't pay.
    I don't understand. What has the Times done to deserve you reading their output for free? They aren't a public service.
    As I said, the media in general is shite and I don't pay for it on principle. The Times being owned by Murdoch is one reason I won't pay.

    However they have some interesting political stuff, so I read it - I just don't pay.
    It's shit, but I read it all the time. If everyone took your attitude there would be no newspaper left.
    If the Times went bust, frankly I don't care, Murdoch can suck it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,860

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yes, this is why it's ludicrous to be writing off Starmer due to current mediocre ratings. There has been nothing but Covid since he got the job. No space for the opposition to attack and carve out a strong and distinctive identity. Just no appetite for it amongst the public (as opposed to winky wonky geeks like us).

    Keir: "Today, I set out why this government is the worst in modern times. A bunch of total charlatans, led by a prize example of the breed, who might have lucked out on vaccines, as even the blind squirrel will eventually stumble on a nut, but other than that are an utter disaster, and what's worse do not give a flying fig so long as they can keep on shoving the moolah in the direction of their fatcat mates".

    Public: "Oh shut up for fuck's sake you irritating little man. We want to hear from Boris about the roadmap."

    This has been the political landscape and dynamic of the pandemic. Starmer knows this and has cut his cloth accordingly. He's ridden it out with the objective of 'do no damage' and he has succeeded. He is ready to roll now, as normal life resumes and normal politics resumes. It's game on.

    That would all make sense if he hadn’t led the polls for a while, and those leads been feted as an example of his great leadership by his fans. You can’t take the bouquets and swerve the brickbats. Now, as more don’t knows make their minds up, he is disliked, not trusted and thought of as weak
    We don't know, is my point. Very exceptional circumstances. If the polls are still looking bad this time next year I will start to worry. But right now I'm quite relaxed. Not exactly optimistic but neither the opposite.

    Hartlepool will be interesting. If Labour can pull off a surprise win there I will start to feel positively bullish.
    It will hardly be a surprise. 50/50 in a seat they hold. Are you writing the lines for labour media rounds on the night? If so can I suggest the following

    - the Tories really should be doing better in London
    - Labour have really held on through difficult times in Liverpool
    - Labour haven't exploded in Scotland, our message is beginning to cut through

    The Tory lines will inevitably include those around losing seats in the middle of a parliament, unprecedented and unpredictable times, and didn't we do well on vaccines
    It will be a genuine surprise and a boost if Labour can win a WWC Leave stronghold like Hartlepool so soon after a triumphant Brexit cum vaccines and with no BXP in play.

    People can laugh all they like but this is a new politics for which we need a new punditry. I'm happy to be the one forging it.
  • Actually the most interesting thing about Hartlepool tbh, is whether Keir the arch Remainer causes massive issues or not. The Tories are not currently going on about it much, either because they're waiting for the end of the campaign or because their polling says it is weak ground.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
    There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.
  • Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
    There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.
    Average age? A lot of younger people migrate to London because it's awesome.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,962

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Sadly, you're out of date: The Guardian in print (without a subscription) is £2.20 and £3.20 on a Saturday. I buy it every day as I still like spreading a newspaper out on the table while I have lunch.

    Just goes to show I must be old, woke, and broke.
    Is it THAT much cheaper than a table cloth?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    There's definitely an element of it, it's not the whole story but it certainly motivates me to vote anti-Tory in any election that comes up.
    The problem Labour have is that the sort of people that vote with their feet also tend to vote Tory.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    edited April 2021
    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    There's definitely an element of it, it's not the whole story but it certainly motivates me to vote anti-Tory in any election that comes up.
    The problem Labour have is that the sort of people that vote with their feet also tend to vote Tory.
    100% spot on.

    As I said before, vaccine passports should be what motivates anyone under the age of 40 to vote next time. But my peers will just sit at home as they always do. It is so frustrating seeing it election after election.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited April 2021

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
    If house prices keep jacking up, in a few decades the rest of the country is going to have the same problem, or the market crashes. Wouldn't want to be holding that bomb.
    We will see, hopefully the tighter controls on immigration now and building more affordable housing via local plans should help, especially in the South where it is most needed.

    At the moment there is a huge house price divide in England, in the North East the average house price is just £174,116 compared to an average house price of £670,601 in London.

    In the West Midlands the average house price is just £245,048 compared to an average house price of £438,998 in the South East

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-England.html
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
    There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.
    Average age? A lot of younger people migrate to London because it's awesome.
    Yeah, and once they start having families, they migrate out, because it isn't.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yes, this is why it's ludicrous to be writing off Starmer due to current mediocre ratings. There has been nothing but Covid since he got the job. No space for the opposition to attack and carve out a strong and distinctive identity. Just no appetite for it amongst the public (as opposed to winky wonky geeks like us).

    Keir: "Today, I set out why this government is the worst in modern times. A bunch of total charlatans, led by a prize example of the breed, who might have lucked out on vaccines, as even the blind squirrel will eventually stumble on a nut, but other than that are an utter disaster, and what's worse do not give a flying fig so long as they can keep on shoving the moolah in the direction of their fatcat mates".

    Public: "Oh shut up for fuck's sake you irritating little man. We want to hear from Boris about the roadmap."

    This has been the political landscape and dynamic of the pandemic. Starmer knows this and has cut his cloth accordingly. He's ridden it out with the objective of 'do no damage' and he has succeeded. He is ready to roll now, as normal life resumes and normal politics resumes. It's game on.

    That would all make sense if he hadn’t led the polls for a while, and those leads been feted as an example of his great leadership by his fans. You can’t take the bouquets and swerve the brickbats. Now, as more don’t knows make their minds up, he is disliked, not trusted and thought of as weak
    We don't know, is my point. Very exceptional circumstances. If the polls are still looking bad this time next year I will start to worry. But right now I'm quite relaxed. Not exactly optimistic but neither the opposite.

    Hartlepool will be interesting. If Labour can pull off a surprise win there I will start to feel positively bullish.
    It will hardly be a surprise. 50/50 in a seat they hold. Are you writing the lines for labour media rounds on the night? If so can I suggest the following

    - the Tories really should be doing better in London
    - Labour have really held on through difficult times in Liverpool
    - Labour haven't exploded in Scotland, our message is beginning to cut through

    The Tory lines will inevitably include those around losing seats in the middle of a parliament, unprecedented and unpredictable times, and didn't we do well on vaccines
    It will be a genuine surprise and a boost if Labour can win a WWC Leave stronghold like Hartlepool so soon after a triumphant Brexit cum vaccines and with no BXP in play.

    People can laugh all they like but this is a new politics for which we need a new punditry. I'm happy to be the one forging it.
    I think while there's a certain amount of narrative control on both sides but rationally the following points are simultaneously true:

    - It would be disappointing for Labour not win a seat in their historic heartlands, during midterm as the opposition.
    - It would be a good result for Labour to win the seat due to its demographics and the results of the GE 2019 election regarding BREXIT/CON vote splitting.
    - The Tories are on the ascendancy on Teesside and have been for a while, both in terms of local councils, the mayorship, and investment in the area. They should really be expecting to win. This is reflected by the reported attitude of their MPs.
    - The Tories shouldn't be disappointed if they don't win as it doesn't affect their electoral strategy for the next GE.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
    If house prices keep jacking up, in a few decades the rest of the country is going to have the same problem, or the market crashes. Wouldn't want to be holding that bomb.
    We will see, hopefully the tighter controls on immigration now and building more affordable housing via local plans should help.

    At the moment there is a huge house price divide in England, in the North East the average house price is just £174,116 compared to an average house price of £670,601 in London.

    In the West Midlands the average house price is just £245,048 compared to an average house price of £438,998 in the South East

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-England.html
    Do you think this is something the Tories should try and resolve though? It makes no difference to them politically - to me it's just not right to allow it to continue.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,461
    edited April 2021
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
    There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.
    Housing and Brexit will be the two biggest issues in London. Not that Labour have the answers on housing either, both parties are scared of a free market not propped up by govt subsidies and market distortions. Labour also don't have the answer on Brexit but at least didn't cause the problem.
  • Talking about the Times here is todays cartoon

    https://twitter.com/BrookesTimes/status/1377938212421824513?s=19
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
    There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.
    Average age? A lot of younger people migrate to London because it's awesome.
    That too. Large numbers of students and university workers would provide a pool of Labour and Green Party voters.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,463
    edited April 2021

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Sadly, you're out of date: The Guardian in print (without a subscription) is £2.20 and £3.20 on a Saturday. I buy it every day as I still like spreading a newspaper out on the table while I have lunch.

    Just goes to show I must be old, woke, and broke.
    So about £750 per year or £1k of pre taxed income? Someone starting out in life could retire 2-3 years earlier if they invested that in a pension instead. Do you like it that much?
    That's a weird argument; you could apply that to anything. A coffee each day from Starbucks would be the same; a pint of beer a day would be more. I spend a lot less on buying a daily paper than others do on coffee. I buy cheap cars, saving me '000s each year. Regardless, my £2.20 per day on a paper pales into insignificance when compared with my other half's spending on vintage clothes. Everybody needs their little luxury. Mine is a daily Guardian. Hardly extravagant.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    TimT said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
    There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.
    Average age? A lot of younger people migrate to London because it's awesome.
    Yeah, and once they start having families, they migrate out, because it isn't.
    You beat me to it. London is a place for day visits and then retreat quickly. Just about the only place worth living in London is St John's Wood, for obvious reasons.
  • If you're in your 20s and 30s, I genuinely think there is nothing like London in the UK. Beyond that, yeah I will leave
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    edited April 2021

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
    There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.
    Housing and Brexit will be the two biggest issues in London. Not that Labour have the answers on housing either, both parties are scared of a free market not propped up by govt subsidies and market distortions. Labour also don't have the answer on Brexit but at least didn't cause the problem.
    Since 2010, housing has tended to become more affordable, relative to income, in most parts, but certainly not in London. From the twenties to the eighties, housing was an issue that both main parties took a huge interest in, but then they lost interest for some reason.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288

    Actually the most interesting thing about Hartlepool tbh, is whether Keir the arch Remainer causes massive issues or not. The Tories are not currently going on about it much, either because they're waiting for the end of the campaign or because their polling says it is weak ground.

    How do you know this ?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288

    Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    I'm not sure your last sentence follows from the previous two.
    The Times is shite, it is however the least shite, if that makes sense.

    I don't pay for any of the content I read, I am not going to reveal how I don't pay - but I don't.
    The get all the papers at Labour HQ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    Talking about the Times here is todays cartoon

    https://twitter.com/BrookesTimes/status/1377938212421824513?s=19

    Lordy, they should be paying us.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Lucy Powell on Sky endorsing vaccine passports for attendance at large scale events

    In the real world Lucy, where we live, unlike where you live, they’re a very bad idea.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,860

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yes, this is why it's ludicrous to be writing off Starmer due to current mediocre ratings. There has been nothing but Covid since he got the job. No space for the opposition to attack and carve out a strong and distinctive identity. Just no appetite for it amongst the public (as opposed to winky wonky geeks like us).

    Keir: "Today, I set out why this government is the worst in modern times. A bunch of total charlatans, led by a prize example of the breed, who might have lucked out on vaccines, as even the blind squirrel will eventually stumble on a nut, but other than that are an utter disaster, and what's worse do not give a flying fig so long as they can keep on shoving the moolah in the direction of their fatcat mates".

    Public: "Oh shut up for fuck's sake you irritating little man. We want to hear from Boris about the roadmap."

    This has been the political landscape and dynamic of the pandemic. Starmer knows this and has cut his cloth accordingly. He's ridden it out with the objective of 'do no damage' and he has succeeded. He is ready to roll now, as normal life resumes and normal politics resumes. It's game on.

    That would all make sense if he hadn’t led the polls for a while, and those leads been feted as an example of his great leadership by his fans. You can’t take the bouquets and swerve the brickbats. Now, as more don’t knows make their minds up, he is disliked, not trusted and thought of as weak
    We don't know, is my point. Very exceptional circumstances. If the polls are still looking bad this time next year I will start to worry. But right now I'm quite relaxed. Not exactly optimistic but neither the opposite.

    Hartlepool will be interesting. If Labour can pull off a surprise win there I will start to feel positively bullish.
    It will hardly be a surprise. 50/50 in a seat they hold. Are you writing the lines for labour media rounds on the night? If so can I suggest the following

    - the Tories really should be doing better in London
    - Labour have really held on through difficult times in Liverpool
    - Labour haven't exploded in Scotland, our message is beginning to cut through

    The Tory lines will inevitably include those around losing seats in the middle of a parliament, unprecedented and unpredictable times, and didn't we do well on vaccines
    It will be a genuine surprise and a boost if Labour can win a WWC Leave stronghold like Hartlepool so soon after a triumphant Brexit cum vaccines and with no BXP in play.

    People can laugh all they like but this is a new politics for which we need a new punditry. I'm happy to be the one forging it.
    I think while there's a certain amount of narrative control on both sides but rationally the following points are simultaneously true:

    - It would be disappointing for Labour not win a seat in their historic heartlands, during midterm as the opposition.
    - It would be a good result for Labour to win the seat due to its demographics and the results of the GE 2019 election regarding BREXIT/CON vote splitting.
    - The Tories are on the ascendancy on Teesside and have been for a while, both in terms of local councils, the mayorship, and investment in the area. They should really be expecting to win. This is reflected by the reported attitude of their MPs.
    - The Tories shouldn't be disappointed if they don't win as it doesn't affect their electoral strategy for the next GE.
    Yes I agree with all of that. It's a particularly fascinating test coming at a particularly fascinating time. I'm hoping Lab but expecting Con.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    ydoethur said:

    Lucy Powell on Sky endorsing vaccine passports for attendance at large scale events

    In the real world Lucy, where we live, unlike where you live, they’re a very bad idea.
    Why?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

    The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

    I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

    The Times is the only newspaper of worth in the UK, it prints balanced opinions most of the time and challenges its readers. The problem with the telegraph, guardian, mail etc... is that they have become echo chambers of pro or anti government and there's no deviation from that. The guardian's coverage of our vaccine success has been lamentable and the telegraph's coverage of the many failings outside of vaccines has been poor. Unfortunately most of the media have become followers of opinion rather than leaders. If they were the latter all of them would be smashing the government on the vaccine passports idea and giving them a much harder time over it. Instead the papers read the same polls we do and think that the idea is popular so why oppose it and upset the readers.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    edited April 2021

    tlg86 said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    There's definitely an element of it, it's not the whole story but it certainly motivates me to vote anti-Tory in any election that comes up.
    The problem Labour have is that the sort of people that vote with their feet also tend to vote Tory.
    100% spot on.

    As I said before, vaccine passports should be what motivates anyone under the age of 40 to vote next time. But my peers will just sit at home as they always do. It is so frustrating seeing it election after election.
    Sorry, what I meant was people who move to where they can afford to buy tend to vote Tory. Obviously, that becomes problematic for the Tories if you can’t afford to buy in a lot of the country.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Actually the most interesting thing about Hartlepool tbh, is whether Keir the arch Remainer causes massive issues or not. The Tories are not currently going on about it much, either because they're waiting for the end of the campaign or because their polling says it is weak ground.

    It os not a naturally Tory seat. It is quite different to the likes of Stockton south or Darlington. There are rampers on here who've labelled it close in order to give Starmer a faux triumph. They will get their wish.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631

    If you're in your 20s and 30s, I genuinely think there is nothing like London in the UK. Beyond that, yeah I will leave

    Not all 20 and 30 year olds are the same...I moved where I am when 21 and worked in a job with a lot of 20 to 30 year olds....about 25 in the lab I worked in. Despite being only a 20 minute train ride into London most I worked with didn't visit and more couldn't stand the place than liked it. This was 87 so maybe its changed. Are you sure you are not just assuming all 20 to 30 year olds feel about it like you do?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,461

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Sadly, you're out of date: The Guardian in print (without a subscription) is £2.20 and £3.20 on a Saturday. I buy it every day as I still like spreading a newspaper out on the table while I have lunch.

    Just goes to show I must be old, woke, and broke.
    So about £750 per year or £1k of pre taxed income? Someone starting out in life could retire 2-3 years earlier if they invested that in a pension instead. Do you like it that much?
    That's a weird argument; you could apply that to anything. A coffee each day from Starbucks would be the same; a pint of beer a day would be more. I spend a lot less on buying a daily paper than others do on coffee. I buy cheap cars, saving me '000s each year. Regardless, my £2.20 per day on a paper pales into insignificance when compared with my other half's spending on vintage clothes. Everybody needs their little luxury. Mine is a daily Guardian. Hardly extravagant.
    I am also amazed that people spend that much on Starbucks! Agree it is far from extravagant and entirely your personal decision, but imo coffee and broadsheet newspapers are hideously overpriced and rely on a habitual customer base who dont notice the price creeps. The Guardian has risen from 70p in 2006 to £2.20 now, despite people now having much better access to other free news. How many jobs paying £35k in 2006 are now paying £110k which is the equivalent rise?

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,860

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Sadly, you're out of date: The Guardian in print (without a subscription) is £2.20 and £3.20 on a Saturday. I buy it every day as I still like spreading a newspaper out on the table while I have lunch.

    Just goes to show I must be old, woke, and broke.
    So about £750 per year or £1k of pre taxed income? Someone starting out in life could retire 2-3 years earlier if they invested that in a pension instead. Do you like it that much?
    That's a weird argument; you could apply that to anything. A coffee each day from Starbucks would be the same; a pint of beer a day would be more. I spend a lot less on buying a daily paper than others do on coffee. I buy cheap cars, saving me '000s each year. Regardless, my £2.20 per day on a paper pales into insignificance when compared with my other half's spending on vintage clothes. Everybody needs their little luxury. Mine is a daily Guardian. Hardly extravagant.
    An excellent habit imo and one I'm at risk of losing - the ability to settle into a non screen read.

    Not good. Contemplating a digital detox. Get back to basics.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    "after telling this newspaper yesterday that vaccine passports were against “the British instinct”, [Starmer's] aides then rushed to explain that this didn’t mean he actually opposes them."

    Telegraph.

    Starmer in a nutshell it seems.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286

    If you're in your 20s and 30s, I genuinely think there is nothing like London in the UK. Beyond that, yeah I will leave

    Never lived there but visited as often as possible in my 20s. The Tube is my favourite thing about London.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    If you're in your 20s and 30s, I genuinely think there is nothing like London in the UK. Beyond that, yeah I will leave

    Truthfully, I’ve never liked the place, although I’m still in my 30s. And I liked it much less in my twenties because I had to spend a lot more time there.

    I think London is, when you have no money, the most tedious and unpleasant place in the world.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,461
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

    So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

    No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

    Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

    I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
    I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

    I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

    London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.
    Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

    Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory
    There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.
    Housing and Brexit will be the two biggest issues in London. Not that Labour have the answers on housing either, both parties are scared of a free market not propped up by govt subsidies and market distortions. Labour also don't have the answer on Brexit but at least didn't cause the problem.
    Since 2010, housing has tended to become more affordable, relative to income, in most parts, but certainly not in London. From the twenties to the eighties, housing was an issue that both main parties took a huge interest in, but then they lost interest for some reason.
    The reason is that the solutions rely on reducing the asset value of the age cohorts who vote most.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    edited April 2021
    felix said:

    Actually the most interesting thing about Hartlepool tbh, is whether Keir the arch Remainer causes massive issues or not. The Tories are not currently going on about it much, either because they're waiting for the end of the campaign or because their polling says it is weak ground.

    It os not a naturally Tory seat. It is quite different to the likes of Stockton south or Darlington. There are rampers on here who've labelled it close in order to give Starmer a faux triumph. They will get their wish.
    You're doing the exact same thing Felix.

    Which of my points do you disagree with?

    Tory MPs seem quite confident about winning if the reports are to be believed.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    "after telling this newspaper yesterday that vaccine passports were against “the British instinct”, [Starmer's] aides then rushed to explain that this didn’t mean he actually opposes them."

    Telegraph.

    Starmer in a nutshell it seems.

    @Richard_Nabavi did predict this lol
  • "after telling this newspaper yesterday that vaccine passports were against “the British instinct”, [Starmer's] aides then rushed to explain that this didn’t mean he actually opposes them."

    Telegraph.

    Starmer in a nutshell it seems.

    I doubt Lucy Powell would have endorsed them for large events if Starmer was opposed
  • Supporting vaccine passports is a disaster from Labour, if true. Stupid move Keir
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    ydoethur said:

    If you're in your 20s and 30s, I genuinely think there is nothing like London in the UK. Beyond that, yeah I will leave

    Truthfully, I’ve never liked the place, although I’m still in my 30s. And I liked it much less in my twenties because I had to spend a lot more time there.

    I think London is, when you have no money, the most tedious and unpleasant place in the world.
    I love London but even if my salary was double what I could earn here in Newcastle my standard of living would probably be worse.

    I'd only want to live there if I was very wealthy and/or didn't have to worry about housing costs.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited April 2021

    ydoethur said:

    Lucy Powell on Sky endorsing vaccine passports for attendance at large scale events

    In the real world Lucy, where we live, unlike where you live, they’re a very bad idea.
    Why?
    First of all, because if they’re on a phone that raises civil liberties issues and if they’re on paper knowing our government they’ll be easy to forge.

    But more pertinently because the majority of people who will want to attend large scale events are too young to be vaccinated (including the staff) and by the time they have been vaccinated a passport will be unnecessary.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,100
    edited April 2021
    Gottlieb is on the Board of Directors of Pfizer. I bet he wants it evaluated.

    Pfizer has a 20bn skin in the game.

    https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    MaxPB said:

    "after telling this newspaper yesterday that vaccine passports were against “the British instinct”, [Starmer's] aides then rushed to explain that this didn’t mean he actually opposes them."

    Telegraph.

    Starmer in a nutshell it seems.

    @Richard_Nabavi did predict this lol
    As I have said if the tories introduce them I will absolutely vote against them at the next election and out of curiousity checked the constituency I am moving to the torie has about a 7k majority and happily the challenger appears to be an independent so don't even have to hold my nose and vote labour or lib dem
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited April 2021
    kinabalu said:

    In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

    The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

    I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.
    Sadly, you're out of date: The Guardian in print (without a subscription) is £2.20 and £3.20 on a Saturday. I buy it every day as I still like spreading a newspaper out on the table while I have lunch.

    Just goes to show I must be old, woke, and broke.
    So about £750 per year or £1k of pre taxed income? Someone starting out in life could retire 2-3 years earlier if they invested that in a pension instead. Do you like it that much?
    That's a weird argument; you could apply that to anything. A coffee each day from Starbucks would be the same; a pint of beer a day would be more. I spend a lot less on buying a daily paper than others do on coffee. I buy cheap cars, saving me '000s each year. Regardless, my £2.20 per day on a paper pales into insignificance when compared with my other half's spending on vintage clothes. Everybody needs their little luxury. Mine is a daily Guardian. Hardly extravagant.
    An excellent habit imo and one I'm at risk of losing - the ability to settle into a non screen read.

    Not good. Contemplating a digital detox. Get back to basics.
    You’ll end up turning into John Major.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,461
    Andy_JS said:
    Why is this going to be different in 2025?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Andy_JS said:
    So if that is what he believes how the hell are we ever meant to unlock?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044

    Supporting vaccine passports is a disaster from Labour, if true. Stupid move Keir

    This. :+1:

    Starmer is making a total f*cking hash of this. Ed Davey can make the running on this. Many people who haven't really given it any thought who are all for it now will be against it once the messy details come out.


    "It’s hard to think of a time when there has been a greater need for rigorous Opposition."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/01/keir-starmer-acting-like-tory-superfan-robbing-britain-real/
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    @Andy_JS I hope its not news to Boris that almost everyone on my street appears to have had at the very least 1 guest over, indoors, this week.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited April 2021
    Andy_JS said:
    Well, by that logic we will never be able to meet indoors.

    It’s not his real reason of course - he’s just afraid that if vaccinated people can meet indoors that will set up howls from the unvaccinated - but really, surely even Cummings would have come up with a more convincing lie than that.

    What an idiot he is. I’m embarrassed to think he’s our PM.

    Edit - and I also think he’s being very foolish by using the word ‘irreversible.’ Czechia said something similar and it didn’t end well for them. ‘Being cautious so we give ourselves the maximum chance of staying unlocked’ would have been safer.
This discussion has been closed.