politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This makes me glad I’m laying Boris in the race to be next Tor
Options
Comments
-
More likely the opposite. Brexit tanks the economy, tax revenue drops, inflation rises as the pound devalues. May demostrates her usual incompetence while uncivil war breaks out in the Tory party in the blame game.JennyFreeman said:You write off this lady at your peril:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/05/mays-defiant-defence-austerity/
Here's a scenario:
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?
Labour wins comfortable majority.0 -
Yes. A boost vs. expectations. As in we will continue on trend, rather than going below trend.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's wrong IMO. There will be a very substantial boost* (compared with current falling expectations) if a Brexit deal which avoids a cliff-edge can be done. Of course, you are right that the converse is also true - there is very substantial downside risk, which is only partially priced-in at the moment.rkrkrk said:As an aside - I doubt the economy will bounce from Brexit. The short term risk is downside.
A transitional deal would avoid that but it won't cause a bounce.
* Albeit offset by a substantial rise in sterling.
I don't think that's positive enough that there would be a political benefit though?0 -
Unless you think that gender is to some degree or other a construct, a means by which we categorise in order to control. Gender fluidity is something I'm convinced about: everyone is somewhere on a spectrum and there are few absolutes.GeoffM said:
There's some Canuk-based stupidity occurring right now where a mother wants her baby girl to be listed on the birth certificate as Gender Unknown ... Her mother clearly has a mental disorder and the child should be taken into care.JennyFreeman said:
Almost unbelievable that in 2017 someone can post something so hideously gender binary as this.Beverley_C said:
The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.Beverley_C said:
Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?Theuniondivvie said:
Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416
It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.
Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!
'Boys' 'Girls' names - you'll be telling me that they have to wear only blue and pink respectively next. Ridiculous rubbish.
Even if you don't subscribe to that theory then gender is certainly rather more complex than whether you have a vag or a willy ...0 -
There will be a bounce but it will be in some sectors and not others. Some areas of the economy will take off and some will take a hit.rkrkrk said:
Better than evens on Tories getting most seats would be the bet I'd go for.JennyFreeman said:You write off this lady at your peril:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/05/mays-defiant-defence-austerity/
Here's a scenario:
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?
Doubt May will be leader though in 2022.
As an aside - I doubt the economy will bounce from Brexit. The short term risk is downside.
A transitional deal would avoid that but it won't cause a bounce.
The doom-mongers who are praying for disaster and are represented on here will cherry-pick examples of the downside (or in one case simply Scott'n'Paste the cherrypickings of others).
The evangelists on here will cherry-pick only the good examples and brush off the negative stuff (that's including me).
As always the truth will be somewhere in the middle. But the trend will be upwards.0 -
Then Corbyn and McDonnell crash the economy even further, inflation soars, many of the rich move abroad to escape the Labour tax hikes, we enter a double dip recession, the unions flex their muscles and Priti Patel becomes PM after winning the 2027 general electionfoxinsoxuk said:
More likely the opposite. Brexit tanks the economy, tax revenue drops, inflation rises as the pound devalues. May demostrates her usual incompetence while uncivil war breaks out in the Tory party in the blame game.JennyFreeman said:You write off this lady at your peril:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/05/mays-defiant-defence-austerity/
Here's a scenario:
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?
Labour wins comfortable majority.0 -
I can confirm that it is a factor in the affordability check. Treated in a similar way to childcare costs. Student loan by reducing take home pay does impact on affordability clearly but once again it feels like the system is stacked up against the young.FrancisUrquhart said:
Good question, I don't know if they are considered.DavidL said:
Surely the payments must be relevant for the affordability criteria that lenders are now obliged to apply? It must be a real issue with first time buyers in particular and I suspect is increasingly driving the reduction in home ownership.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is. The rate is set every year at March RPI level + 3%. Student loans aren't really a loan, they are a capped graduate tax.rkrkrk said:
Is it really that high?dyedwoolie said:Interested to hear one of the reasons the government feel they can get away with 6,1% interest in student loans is they don't credit score applicants. However they do garnish their salary so the argument is clearly moot.
Wow... If you were confident you'd pay off the loan in the time period - probably worth refinancing commercially?
The reason you wouldn't "refinance" is student loans aren't considered when it comes to other lending / credit rating and of course if you lose your job you stop making repayments (and the amount you repay each month is a % of your income not as a % of the debt).
However, in terms of repayments now vs 5 years ago, they won't be different. It is a percentage of your salary, not related to how much you owe. And most people are paying them off so slowly that £20k or £50k at 3% or 6% interest rate, they will still be making payments in late 20 / early 30s when most people come to buy a home.
The real difference is the percentage of people actually clearing that debt by the cut off date vs the government having to clear it for them.
The government have acted appallingly with the 9K student loan reform in general. They introduced it with a set of rules on interest, then reneged within a couple of years. In a few years time I predict they will tweak it again in some novel way to hammer the young once more. If they want to call it a loan, they can't just rewrite the rules of the game once they have been set. Otherwise it looks like a bit of a racket.
I'm a youngish Tory-voter but I'm getting sick of the intergenerational inequity in the system. We will be lucky to retire at 75+, will have barely there pensions/ NHS and yet we will be paying the taxes to fund early retirees at 55.0 -
People shouldn't be allowed to vote if they can't even work out which set of public toilets they're physically plumbed in to use.JennyFreeman said:
Unless you think that gender is to some degree or other a construct, a means by which we categorise in order to control. Gender fluidity is something I'm convinced about: everyone is somewhere on a spectrum and there are few absolutes.GeoffM said:
There's some Canuk-based stupidity occurring right now where a mother wants her baby girl to be listed on the birth certificate as Gender Unknown ... Her mother clearly has a mental disorder and the child should be taken into care.JennyFreeman said:
Almost unbelievable that in 2017 someone can post something so hideously gender binary as this.Beverley_C said:
The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.Beverley_C said:
Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?Theuniondivvie said:
Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416
It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.
Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!
'Boys' 'Girls' names - you'll be telling me that they have to wear only blue and pink respectively next. Ridiculous rubbish.
Even if you don't subscribe to that theory then gender is certainly rather more complex than whether you have a vag or a willy ...0 -
Though, as we now know, everyone needs a Willie. If TM had paid attention to this she'd probably have a thumping great majority at this point.0
-
I don't see how the trend can be upwards in the short term when it comes to trade.GeoffM said:
There will be a bounce but it will be in some sectors and not others. Some areas of the economy will take off and some will take a hit.rkrkrk said:
Better than evens on Tories getting most seats would be the bet I'd go for.JennyFreeman said:You write off this lady at your peril:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/05/mays-defiant-defence-austerity/
Here's a scenario:
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?
Doubt May will be leader though in 2022.
As an aside - I doubt the economy will bounce from Brexit. The short term risk is downside.
A transitional deal would avoid that but it won't cause a bounce.
The doom-mongers who are praying for disaster and are represented on here will cherry-pick examples of the downside (or in one case simply Scott'n'Paste the cherrypickings of others).
The evangelists on here will cherry-pick only the good examples and brush off the negative stuff (that's including me).
As always the truth will be somewhere in the middle. But the trend will be upwards.
The economy could be doing well for other reasons of course, but Brexit is surely a drag in short term.
The EU has deals with loads of countries which will take us time to replicate. That's the trap Hammond has set for Fox.
In the long run its possible we could get more deals and deals more suited to our economy rather than the EU economy. But that can't happen by march 2019.0 -
-
Biologically, I'm afraid it is.JennyFreeman said:
Even if you don't subscribe to that theory then gender is certainly rather more complex than whether you have a vag or a willy ...GeoffM said:
There's some Canuk-based stupidity occurring right now where a mother wants her baby girl to be listed on the birth certificate as Gender Unknown ... Her mother clearly has a mental disorder and the child should be taken into care.JennyFreeman said:
Almost unbelievable that in 2017 someone can post something so hideously gender binary as this.Beverley_C said:
The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.Beverley_C said:
Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?Theuniondivvie said:
Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416
It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.
Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!
'Boys' 'Girls' names - you'll be telling me that they have to wear only blue and pink respectively next. Ridiculous rubbish.0 -
It's rather more staggering that you should be allowed to vote given your Neanderthal brain and antediluvian views.GeoffM said:
People shouldn't be allowed to vote if they can't even work out which set of public toilets they're physically plumbed in to use.JennyFreeman said:
Unless you think that gender is to some degree or other a construct, a means by which we categorise in order to control. Gender fluidity is something I'm convinced about: everyone is somewhere on a spectrum and there are few absolutes.GeoffM said:
There's some Canuk-based stupidity occurring right now where a mother wants her baby girl to be listed on the birth certificate as Gender Unknown ... Her mother clearly has a mental disorder and the child should be taken into care.JennyFreeman said:
Almost unbelievable that in 2017 someone can post something so hideously gender binary as this.Beverley_C said:
The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.Beverley_C said:
Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?Theuniondivvie said:
Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416
It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.
Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!
'Boys' 'Girls' names - you'll be telling me that they have to wear only blue and pink respectively next. Ridiculous rubbish.
Even if you don't subscribe to that theory then gender is certainly rather more complex than whether you have a vag or a willy ...0 -
@LomasChar: Sources telling me that residents in housing next to #GrenfellTower are being evacuated as structure has become unstable0
-
Masculine and feminine names and articles are common in most languages, although no doubt it will become very PC to shun such conventions in the UK inside the next 15 years.JennyFreeman said:
Almost unbelievable that in 2017 someone can post something so hideously gender binary as this.Beverley_C said:
The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.Beverley_C said:
Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?Theuniondivvie said:
Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416
It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.
Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!
'Boys' 'Girls' names - you'll be telling me that they have to wear only blue and pink respectively next. Ridiculous rubbish.0 -
Yes, I think there would be a political benefit, because of the boost to business and consumer confidence.rkrkrk said:Yes. A boost vs. expectations. As in we will continue on trend, rather than going below trend.
I don't think that's positive enough that there would be a political benefit though?0 -
I have considerable sympathy with your views. Increasing the interest rate on student loans was designed to make the book more marketable, nothing more. Under any normal circumstances it would be a breach of contract.GideonWise said:
I can confirm that it is a factor in the affordability check. Treated in a similar way to childcare costs. Student loan by reducing take home pay does impact on affordability clearly but once again it feels like the system is stacked up against the young.FrancisUrquhart said:
Good question, I don't know if they are considered.DavidL said:FrancisUrquhart said:rkrkrk said:dyedwoolie said:
However, in terms of repayments now vs 5 years ago, they won't be different. It is a percentage of your salary, not related to how much you owe. And most people are paying them off so slowly that £20k or £50k at 3% or 6% interest rate, they will still be making payments in late 20 / early 30s when most people come to buy a home.
The real difference is the percentage of people actually clearing that debt by the cut off date vs the government having to clear it for them.
The government have acted appallingly with the 9K student loan reform in general. They introduced it with a set of rules on interest, then reneged within a couple of years. In a few years time I predict they will tweak it again in some novel way to hammer the young once more. If they want to call it a loan, they can't just rewrite the rules of the game once they have been set. Otherwise it looks like a bit of a racket.
I'm a youngish Tory-voter but I'm getting sick of the intergenerational inequity in the system. We will be lucky to retire at 75+, will have barely there pensions/ NHS and yet we will be paying the taxes to fund early retirees at 55.0 -
These days, she's more likely to be lauded.GeoffM said:
There's some Canuk-based stupidity occurring right now where a mother wants her baby girl to be listed on the birth certificate as Gender Unknown until she's "old enough to make the decision on her own".JennyFreeman said:
Almost unbelievable that in 2017 someone can post something so hideously gender binary as this.Beverley_C said:
The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.Beverley_C said:
Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?Theuniondivvie said:
Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416
It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.
Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!
'Boys' 'Girls' names - you'll be telling me that they have to wear only blue and pink respectively next. Ridiculous rubbish.
The poor baby is called Searyl Atli Doty which is bad enough. Her mother clearly has a mental disorder and the child should be taken into care.
http://theresurgent.com/canadian-mother-wants-babys-gender-to-be-unknown/0 -
In my scenario Corbyn and Mc Donnell do surprisingly well, having inadvertently taken power at the bottom of the business cycle, and benefitting from the recovery. They take credit for their expansory plans and win a second election, while Tories continue to fight amonst themselves. No Tory currently in Parliament ever sits on the government benches again.HYUFD said:
Then Corbyn and McDonnell crash the economy even further, inflation soars, many of the rich move abroad to escape the Labour tax hikes, we enter a double dip recession, the unions flex their muscles and Priti Patel becomes PM after winning the 2027 general electionfoxinsoxuk said:
More likely the opposite. Brexit tanks the economy, tax revenue drops, inflation rises as the pound devalues. May demostrates her usual incompetence while uncivil war breaks out in the Tory party in the blame game.JennyFreeman said:You write off this lady at your peril:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/05/mays-defiant-defence-austerity/
Here's a scenario:
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?
Labour wins comfortable majority.0 -
Glastonbury disagreed.HYUFD said:
Corbyn isn't charismatic particularly, he is just good at rantingIshmael_Z said:
I find most of that very plausible, but I won't bet on it because it coincides with what I want to happen. I think the Corbgasm was real and intense, but transient, and that he will stitch things up to ensure that his successor shares his politics (but not his charisma). But I don't think there is any chance of May outperforming expectations to a big enough extent to have her going into another GE as PM.JennyFreeman said:You write off this lady at your peril:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/05/mays-defiant-defence-austerity/
Here's a scenario:
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?0 -
Consumer confidence is okay I think... Has fallen since ref. but about average compared to historical levels. Similar story for business confidence I think.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, I think there would be a political benefit, because of the boost to business and consumer confidence.rkrkrk said:Yes. A boost vs. expectations. As in we will continue on trend, rather than going below trend.
I don't think that's positive enough that there would be a political benefit though?
But you're right that it could be positive effect....0 -
EvelynAlastairMeeks said:
Robindyedwoolie said:
Lesley, LeslieBeverley_C said:
The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.Beverley_C said:
Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?Theuniondivvie said:
Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416
It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.
Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!
Frances, Francis
Vivian, Vivian
Frankie etc
And there are no doubt further ones
Jan0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
It is hard to know whether I should give some money to Fox jr to escape these chains of debt early, or whether the debt is going to be written off anyway. It would be a shame to do this then Jezza write off the existing debts.DavidL said:
I have considerable sympathy with your views. Increasing the interest rate on student loans was designed to make the book more marketable, nothing more. Under any normal circumstances it would be a breach of contract.GideonWise said:
I can confirm that it is a factor in the affordability check. Treated in a similar way to childcare costs. Student loan by reducing take home pay does impact on affordability clearly but once again it feels like the system is stacked up against the young.FrancisUrquhart said:
Good question, I don't know if they are considered.DavidL said:FrancisUrquhart said:rkrkrk said:dyedwoolie said:
However, in terms of repayments now vs 5 years ago, they won't be different. It is a percentage of your salary, not related to how much you owe. And most people are paying them off so slowly that £20k or £50k at 3% or 6% interest rate, they will still be making payments in late 20 / early 30s when most people come to buy a home.
The real difference is the percentage of people actually clearing that debt by the cut off date vs the government having to clear it for them.
The government have acted appallingly with the 9K student loan reform in general. They introduced it with a set of rules on interest, then reneged within a couple of years. In a few years time I predict they will tweak it again in some novel way to hammer the young once more. If they want to call it a loan, they can't just rewrite the rules of the game once they have been set. Otherwise it looks like a bit of a racket.
I'm a youngish Tory-voter but I'm getting sick of the intergenerational inequity in the system. We will be lucky to retire at 75+, will have barely there pensions/ NHS and yet we will be paying the taxes to fund early retirees at 55.0 -
You cannot retire at 55 unless you have built up the funds to do so in the private sector and even in the public sector final salary pension schemes are rarer than they were. We may eventually get a retirement age of 75 but only if average life expectancy reaches 90. 65 only worked when life expectancy was 80GideonWise said:
I can confirm that it is a factor in the affordability check. Treated in a similar way to childcare costs. Student loan by reducing take home pay does impact on affordability clearly but once again it feels like the system is stacked up against the young.FrancisUrquhart said:
Good question, I don't know if they or them.DavidL said:
Surely the payments must be relevant for the affordability criteria that lenders are now obliged to apply? It must be a real issue with first time buyers in particular and I suspect is increasingly driving the reduction in home ownership.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is. The rate is set every year at March RPI level + 3%. Student not as a % of the debt).rkrkrk said:
Is it really that high?dyedwoolie said:Interested to hear one of the reasons the government feel they can get away with 6,1% interest in student loans is they don't credit score applicants. However they do garnish their salary so the argument is clearly moot.
Wow... If you were confident you'd pay off the loan in the time period - probably worth refinancing commercially?
The government have acted appallingly with the 9K student loan reform in general. They introduced it with a set of rules on interest, then reneged within a couple of years. In a few years time I predict they will tweak it again in some novel way to hammer the young once more. If they want to call it a loan, they can't just rewrite the rules of the game once they have been set. Otherwise it looks like a bit of a racket.
I'm a youngish Tory-voter but I'm getting sick of the intergenerational inequity in the system. We will be lucky to retire at 75+, will have barely there pensions/ NHS and yet we will be paying the taxes to fund early retirees at 55.0 -
LMAO at this idea that the Tories "defending austerity" is the key to them recovering politically and getting a majority next time.
One of May's biggest faux-pas during the campaign is precisely when she implicitly defended the Tories' economic record (the Question Time "magic money tree" moment). Sneerily telling people who want better for themselves and their families that they just need to get their heads out of the clouds is not a recipe for political success - especially when it now comes at a time when magic money trees conveniently sprout up in Belfast when the Tories' own personal claims on power are at stake0 -
Doubt Jezza would do that in practice.foxinsoxuk said:
It is hard to know whether I should give some money to Fox jr to escape these chains of debt early, or whether the debt is going to be written off anyway. It would be a shame to do this then Jezza write off the existing debts.DavidL said:
I have considerable sympathy with your views. Increasing the interest rate on student loans was designed to make the book more marketable, nothing more. Under any normal circumstances it would be a breach of contract.GideonWise said:
I can confirm that it is a factor in the affordability check. Treated in a similar way to childcare costs. Student loan by reducing take home pay does impact on affordability clearly but once again it feels like the system is stacked up against the young.FrancisUrquhart said:
Good question, I don't know if they are considered.DavidL said:FrancisUrquhart said:rkrkrk said:dyedwoolie said:
However, in terms of repayments now vs 5 years ago, they won't be different. It is a percentage of your salary, not related to how much you owe. And most people are paying them off so slowly that £20k or £50k at 3% or 6% interest rate, they will still be making payments in late 20 / early 30s when most people come to buy a home.
The real difference is the percentage of people actually clearing that debt by the cut off date vs the government having to clear it for them.
The government have acted appallingly with the 9K student loan reform in general. They introduced it with a set of rules on interest, then reneged within a couple of years. In a few years time I predict they will tweak it again in some novel way to hammer the young once more. If they want to call it a loan, they can't just rewrite the rules of the game once they have been set. Otherwise it looks like a bit of a racket.
I'm a youngish Tory-voter but I'm getting sick of the intergenerational inequity in the system. We will be lucky to retire at 75+, will have barely there pensions/ NHS and yet we will be paying the taxes to fund early retirees at 55.
Reducing interest rates on debt for those post 2012 is likely though I would guess.0 -
Which is clearly, to use an appropriate phrase, total bollocks.JennyFreeman said:
Unless you think that gender is to some degree or other a construct, a means by which we categorise in order to control.GeoffM said:
There's some Canuk-based stupidity occurring right now where a mother wants her baby girl to be listed on the birth certificate as Gender Unknown ... Her mother clearly has a mental disorder and the child should be taken into care.JennyFreeman said:
Almost unbelievable that in 2017 someone can post something so hideously gender binary as this.Beverley_C said:
The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.Beverley_C said:
Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?Theuniondivvie said:
Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416
It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.
Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!
'Boys' 'Girls' names - you'll be telling me that they have to wear only blue and pink respectively next. Ridiculous rubbish.
99%+ of people are born male or born female.
0 -
Hence Boris, ever the populist, backed ending the public sector pay cap this weekDanny565 said:LMAO at this idea that the Tories "defending austerity" is the key to them recovering politically and getting a majority next time.
One of May's biggest faux-pas during the campaign is precisely when she implicitly defended the Tories' economic record (the Question Time "magic money tree" moment). Sneerily telling people who want better for themselves and their families that they just need to get their heads out of the clouds is not a recipe for political success - especially when it now comes at a time when magic money trees conveniently sprout up in Belfast when the Tories' own personal claims on power are at stake0 -
No chance, if we still have an economy left after Corbyn and McDonnell have got their hands on it the Tories will be highly likely to win the next general election, those 2 would guarantee a quicker Tory recovery than Lazarus. Even a Patel general election win is possible after the disaster that would be a Corbyn premiershipfoxinsoxuk said:
In my scenario Corbyn and Mc Donnell do surprisingly well, having inadvertently taken power at the bottom of the business cycle, and benefitting from the recovery. They take credit for their expansory plans and win a second election, while Tories continue to fight amonst themselves. No Tory currently in Parliament ever sits on the government benches again.HYUFD said:
Then Corbyn and McDonnell crash the economy even further, inflation soars, many of the rich move abroad to escape the Labour tax hikes, we enter a double dip recession, the unions flex their muscles and Priti Patel becomes PM after winning the 2027 general electionfoxinsoxuk said:
More likely the opposite. Brexit tanks the economy, tax revenue drops, inflation rises as the pound devalues. May demostrates her usual incompetence while uncivil war breaks out in the Tory party in the blame game.JennyFreeman said:You write off this lady at your peril:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/05/mays-defiant-defence-austerity/
Here's a scenario:
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?
Labour wins comfortable majority.0 -
A twig with a red rosette would be cheered at Glastonbury!Ishmael_Z said:
Glastonbury disagreed.HYUFD said:
Corbyn isn't charismatic particularly, he is just good at rantingIshmael_Z said:
I find most of that very plausible, but I won't bet on it because it coincides with what I want to happen. I think the Corbgasm was real and intense, but transient, and that he will stitch things up to ensure that his successor shares his politics (but not his charisma). But I don't think there is any chance of May outperforming expectations to a big enough extent to have her going into another GE as PM.JennyFreeman said:You write off this lady at your peril:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/05/mays-defiant-defence-austerity/
Here's a scenario:
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?0 -
BJO retired at 54HYUFD said:
You cannot retire at 55 unless you have built up the funds to do so in the private sector and even in the public sector final salary pension schemes are rarer than they were. We may eventually get a retirement age of 75 but only if average life expectancy reaches 90. 65 only worked when life expectancy was 80GideonWise said:
I can confirm that it is a factor in the affordability check. Treated in a similar way to childcare costs. Student loan by reducing take home pay does impact on affordability clearly but once again it feels like the system is stacked up against the young.FrancisUrquhart said:
Good question, I don't know if they or them.DavidL said:
Surely the payments must be relevant for the affordability criteria that lenders are now obliged to apply? It must be a real issue with first time buyers in particular and I suspect is increasingly driving the reduction in home ownership.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is. The rate is set every year at March RPI level + 3%. Student not as a % of the debt).rkrkrk said:
Is it really that high?dyedwoolie said:Interested to hear one of the reasons the government feel they can get away with 6,1% interest in student loans is they don't credit score applicants. However they do garnish their salary so the argument is clearly moot.
Wow... If you were confident you'd pay off the loan in the time period - probably worth refinancing commercially?
The government have acted appallingly with the 9K student loan reform in general. They introduced it with a set of rules on interest, then reneged within a couple of years. In a few years time I predict they will tweak it again in some novel way to hammer the young once more. If they want to call it a loan, they can't just rewrite the rules of the game once they have been set. Otherwise it looks like a bit of a racket.
I'm a youngish Tory-voter but I'm getting sick of the intergenerational inequity in the system. We will be lucky to retire at 75+, will have barely there pensions/ NHS and yet we will be paying the taxes to fund early retirees at 55.0 -
Well if he has saved enough pension good luck to himnigel4england said:
BJO retired at 54HYUFD said:
You cannot retire at 55 unless you have built up the funds to do so in the private sector and even in the public sector final salary pension schemes are rarer than they were. We may eventually get a retirement age of 75 but only if average life expectancy reaches 90. 65 only worked when life expectancy was 80GideonWise said:
I can confirm that it is a factor in the affordability check. Treated in a similar way to childcare costs. Student loan by reducing take home pay does impact on affordability clearly but once again it feels like the system is stacked up against the young.FrancisUrquhart said:
Good question, I don't know if they or them.DavidL said:
Surely the payments must be relevant for the affordability criteria that lenders are now obliged to apply? It must be a real issue with first time buyers in particular and I suspect is increasingly driving the reduction in home ownership.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is. The rate is set every year at March RPI level + 3%. Student not as a % of the debt).rkrkrk said:
Is it really that high?dyedwoolie said:Interested to hear one of the reasons the government feel they can get away with 6,1% interest in student loans is they don't credit score applicants. However they do garnish their salary so the argument is clearly moot.
Wow... If you were confident you'd pay off the loan in the time period - probably worth refinancing commercially?
The government have acted appallingly with the 9K student loan reform in general. They introduced it with a set of rules on interest, then reneged within a couple of years. In a few years time I predict they will tweak it again in some novel way to hammer the young once more. If they want to call it a loan, they can't just rewrite the rules of the game once they have been set. Otherwise it looks like a bit of a racket.
I'm a youngish Tory-voter but I'm getting sick of the intergenerational inequity in the system. We will be lucky to retire at 75+, will have barely there pensions/ NHS and yet we will be paying the taxes to fund early retirees at 55.0 -
In 2017 it's still pretty normal to be "gender binary" albeit with an appreciation and acceptance that it isn't always.JennyFreeman said:
Almost unbelievable that in 2017 someone can post something so hideously gender binary as this.Beverley_C said:
The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.Beverley_C said:
Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?Theuniondivvie said:
Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416
It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.
Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!
'Boys' 'Girls' names - you'll be telling me that they have to wear only blue and pink respectively next. Ridiculous rubbish.
You are right though that Beverley's prejudice against unisex names is quaint. There have always been unisex names and most people don't have a problem with it. I was teaching a class yesterday with a male Morgan and a female Morgan in it. Other common unisex names are Alex, Ashley, Bailey, Billy, Corey, Drew, Frankie, Jamie, Mackenzie, Rowan, Robin, Sam and Taylor.0 -
Just came from a really really downbeat economic briefing...rkrkrk said:
Better than evens on Tories getting most seats would be the bet I'd go for.JennyFreeman said:You write off this lady at your peril:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/05/mays-defiant-defence-austerity/
Here's a scenario:
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?
Doubt May will be leader though in 2022.
As an aside - I doubt the economy will bounce from Brexit. The short term risk is downside.
A transitional deal would avoid that but it won't cause a bounce.0 -
Here is "their" online profile. Cuckoo cuckoo.GeoffM said:
There's some Canuk-based stupidity occurring right now where a mother wants her baby girl to be listed on the birth certificate as Gender Unknown until she's "old enough to make the decision on her own".JennyFreeman said:
Almost unbelievable that in 2017 someone can post something so hideously gender binary as this.Beverley_C said:
The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.Beverley_C said:
Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?Theuniondivvie said:
Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416
It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.
Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!
'Boys' 'Girls' names - you'll be telling me that they have to wear only blue and pink respectively next. Ridiculous rubbish.
The poor baby is called Searyl Atli Doty which is bad enough. Her mother clearly has a mental disorder and the child should be taken into care.
http://theresurgent.com/canadian-mother-wants-babys-gender-to-be-unknown/
http://koridoty.com/?page_id=440 -
But Glastonbury consists largely of middle class young people in Che Guevera teeshirt phase. There is also something very very sinister about the sight and sound of large numbers of young people participating in mindless chanting whether it be "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" or "Sieg Heil".Ishmael_Z said:
Glastonbury disagreed.HYUFD said:
Corbyn isn't charismatic particularly, he is just good at rantingIshmael_Z said:
I find most of that very plausible, but I won't bet on it because it coincides with what I want to happen. I think the Corbgasm was real and intense, but transient, and that he will stitch things up to ensure that his successor shares his politics (but not his charisma). But I don't think there is any chance of May outperforming expectations to a big enough extent to have her going into another GE as PM.JennyFreeman said:You write off this lady at your peril:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/05/mays-defiant-defence-austerity/
Here's a scenario:
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?0 -
Do your clients know you're the bank who said YES YES YES?Charles said:
Just came from a really really downbeat economic briefing...rkrkrk said:
Better than evens on Tories getting most seats would be the bet I'd go for.JennyFreeman said:You write off this lady at your peril:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/05/mays-defiant-defence-austerity/
Here's a scenario:
The Corbyn lustre fades gradually. Brexit goes through and the UK economy begins to bounce. The deficit is dealt with (if not removed) and, most importantly of all, the May camp learn from the awful mistakes of this last election campaign.
Worth betting on a Conservative victory in 2022?
Doubt May will be leader though in 2022.
As an aside - I doubt the economy will bounce from Brexit. The short term risk is downside.
A transitional deal would avoid that but it won't cause a bounce.
(If I'd voted Leave I wouldn't even get a tampax ad!)0 -
NHS pen-pusher. WE saved HIM enough pension.HYUFD said:
Well if he has saved enough pension good luck to himnigel4england said:
BJO retired at 54HYUFD said:
You cannot retire at 55 unless you have built up the funds to do so in the private sector and even in the public sector final salary pension schemes are rarer than they were. We may eventually get a retirement age of 75 but only if average life expectancy reaches 90. 65 only worked when life expectancy was 80GideonWise said:
I can confirm that it is a factor in the affordability check. Treated in a similar way to childcare costs. Student loan by reducing take home pay does impact on affordability clearly but once again it feels like the system is stacked up against the young.FrancisUrquhart said:
Good question, I don't know if they or them.DavidL said:
Surely the payments must be relevant for the affordability criteria that lenders are now obliged to apply? It must be a real issue with first time buyers in particular and I suspect is increasingly driving the reduction in home ownership.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is. The rate is set every year at March RPI level + 3%. Student not as a % of the debt).rkrkrk said:
Is it really that high?dyedwoolie said:Interested to hear one of the reasons the government feel they can get away with 6,1% interest in student loans is they don't credit score applicants. However they do garnish their salary so the argument is clearly moot.
Wow... If you were confident you'd pay off the loan in the time period - probably worth refinancing commercially?
The government have acted appallingly with the 9K student loan reform in general. They introduced it with a set of rules on interest, then reneged within a couple of years. In a few years time I predict they will tweak it again in some novel way to hammer the young once more. If they want to call it a loan, they can't just rewrite the rules of the game once they have been set. Otherwise it looks like a bit of a racket.
I'm a youngish Tory-voter but I'm getting sick of the intergenerational inequity in the system. We will be lucky to retire at 75+, will have barely there pensions/ NHS and yet we will be paying the taxes to fund early retirees at 55.0 -
I had a great grandfather called Fenton and a great uncle called Dennison. My first head teacher was called Dyson Beaumont. It seems it was a Yorkshire tradition to use the maternal line surnames as first names.DecrepitJohnL said:
Americans seem also to repurpose surnames as first names so you see Taylor and Jackson, for instance. I expect there will be a few Trumps starting school soon.Beverley_C said:
The other american custom I find a bit odd is that of giving boys girl's names and vice versa. I once came across a boy called Claire and a girl called Robin. Two more famous examples were Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and Michael Learned (Mrs Walton in "The Waltons").DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes -- though I wonder if it is changing slightly as we adopt the American custom of just making names up, as well as immigrants no longer feeling compelled to anglicise their names. It is tough now -- he'd be criticised as well for calling the boy Wayne.Beverley_C said:
Are the other boys named in sequence? Primus, Secundus, etc.....?Theuniondivvie said:
Unaccountably he has given his only daughter the single Christian name of Mary. Perhaps he thinks fillies are too weak to bear the burden of lots of stupid names.TheScreamingEagles said:twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882510117610172416
It seems like a rotten thing to do to the children. They have to bear the ridicule of unusual names, not the parent who named them.
Someone on here pointed out to me, many years ago, that 100 years ago Beverley was sometimes a boys name. Yikes!0
This discussion has been closed.