Barnsley want the foreigners booted out according to a vox pop on Ch4 News.

This country can look very ugly at times.

rcs1000 said:

I think it's highly unlikely that Bernie Sanders, who will be 79 at the time of the next US Presidential election, will even stand to be the Democratic nominee.

Polls this far out are basically name recognition. Bernie and Warren will score particularly well in NH as they represent neighbouring States.
Biden was VP.
Therefore the 3 anyone will have heard of.

dixiedean said:

rcs1000 said:

I think it's highly unlikely that Bernie Sanders, who will be 79 at the time of the next US Presidential election, will even stand to be the Democratic nominee.

Polls this far out are basically name recognition. Bernie and Warren will score particularly well in NH as they represent neighbouring States.
Biden was VP.
Therefore the 3 anyone will have heard of.

Hillary was ahead at this stage for the Democratic nomination for 2016 and Romney at this stage for the Republican nomination for 2012.

The fact Sanders and Warren make up 2/3 of the top 3 confirms Democrats are looking for a left-liberal populist.

MikeL said:

Will Trump stand for a 2nd term?

The one thing Trump will really, really, really not want to do is lose.

I suspect he'll settle for one term, say he's done a brilliant job but unfortunately he won't be able to stand again on health / age grounds.

I don't think Trump's ego will allow him to not run for re election and be seen as a quitter

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

Sean_F said:

A crash in house prices wouldn't help young buyers, unless they had plenty of cash (which most people in their 20's don't).

What? Thing being cheaper wouldn't help people wanting to buy it? That's a view I suppose.

The national average used to be a house cost 3.5 times average salary 20 years ago, now it's 7.5 times.

In London it's gone from 4 times salary to 12 times!

Banks currently lend 4 to 4.5 times salary, if house prices fell they would cut that back drastically plus some existing homeowners would face negative equity.

By your own numbers people are still in a far worse position than they were 20 or more years ago. If the cost has gone up from 3.5 times average salary to 7.5 times but the amount the banks will lend has only gone up from 3.5 times to 4.5 times then it is obvious people are far worse off.

We have created an environment where people buy houses as an investment instead of being somewhere to live. We need to change that environment back to what it was - people buying houses as homes not as bank accounts.

Northern Rock was lending up to 7 times salary but we all know what happened to them.

I agree a balance needs to be restored but that would be better achieved by building more affordable housing than praying for a house price crash which would trap millions in negative equity. Plus for most people their house is their main asset.

dixiedean said:

rcs1000 said:

I think it's highly unlikely that Bernie Sanders, who will be 79 at the time of the next US Presidential election, will even stand to be the Democratic nominee.

Polls this far out are basically name recognition. Bernie and Warren will score particularly well in NH as they represent neighbouring States.
Biden was VP.
Therefore the 3 anyone will have heard of.

I believe age will tell against all of them. If younger I think Biden would be in with a chance. He can turn out a decent stump speech (something Bill Clinton, but not his wife, and Barack Obama were good at) and Biden appeals to the blue collar workers that went Trump last time.

Roger said:

Barnsley want the foreigners booted out according to a vox pop on Ch4 News.

This country can look very ugly at times.

All countries have their ugliness - go to any European nation and look at some dark corner of it, or even some very well lit parts of it, and you will find some ugliness. One shouldn't ignore ugliness when it emerges, but nor should one assume that its mere existence is representative.

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeL said:

Will Trump stand for a 2nd term?

The one thing Trump will really, really, really not want to do is lose.

I suspect he'll settle for one term, say he's done a brilliant job but unfortunately he won't be able to stand again on health / age grounds.

I don't think Trump's ego will allow him to not run for re election and be seen as a quitter

I think it depends - he's not completely clueless, and while his self belief is very high, there may be a point where MikeL's prediction applies, as that ego won't let him lose and that might trump his unwillingness to back down.

If he refuses to run he would be tarred as a 'loser' and a 'quitter' anyway

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeL said:

Will Trump stand for a 2nd term?

The one thing Trump will really, really, really not want to do is lose.

I suspect he'll settle for one term, say he's done a brilliant job but unfortunately he won't be able to stand again on health / age grounds.

I don't think Trump's ego will allow him to not run for re election and be seen as a quitter

I think it depends - he's not completely clueless, and while his self belief is very high, there may be a point where MikeL's prediction applies, as that ego won't let him lose and that might trump his unwillingness to back down.

If he refuses to run he would be tarred as a 'loser' and a 'quitter' anyway

Yes he would - but I think it is more about whether he can sell it to himself, believe what he is saying even if the truth is patently the opposite. Stubbornly insisting he was so great he doesn't need another term or something sounds pretty darn implausible, but he might consider it if the alternative is losing to someone else.

Nearly one in three Oxford colleges failed to admit a single black British A-level student in 2015, with the university accused of “social apartheid” over its admissions policies by the former education minister David Lammy.

The data shows that 10 out of 32 Oxford colleges did not award a place to a black British pupil with A-levels in 2015, the first time the university has released such figures since 2010. Oriel College only offered one place to a black British A-level student in six years.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/19/oxford-accused-of-social-apartheid-as-colleges-admit-no-black-students

steve_garner said:

The Sun's website carrying an article suggesting that the Dutch are getting nervous about the Brexit discussions because of their substantial trade with GB. Apparently they are also concerned about the hardline approach the Germans and French are taking.

Didn't the Danes recently castigate the EU for being silly about the negotiations?

GIN1138 said:

MikeL said:

Will Trump stand for a 2nd term?

I think he will... And my guess is that he'll win a second term as well (as the Democrats will manage to come up with another dud candidate)

*DISCLAIMER: I was the first person on here to tip Trump for the Presidency - Everyone laughed at me but they aren't laughing now * )

Trump failed to win the popular vote and won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1%, rustbelt states a populist like Sanders will go down better in than an elitist like Hillary did. If Sanders wins those 3 (pre 2016 they had voted for every Democratic candidate since 1988) and holds the Hillary states he wins the Presidency.

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

MikeL said:

Will Trump stand for a 2nd term?

I think he will... And my guess is that he'll win a second term as well (as the Democrats will manage to come up with another dud candidate)

*DISCLAIMER: I was the first person on here to tip Trump for the Presidency - Everyone laughed at me but they aren't laughing now * )

Trump failed to win the popular vote and won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1%, rustbelt states a populist like Sanders will go down better than an elitist like Hillary did. If Sanders wins those 3 (pre 2016 they had voted for every Democratic candidate since 1988) and holds the Hillary states he wins the Presidency.

We shall see...

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nearly one in three Oxford colleges failed to admit a single black British A-level student in 2015, with the university accused of “social apartheid” over its admissions policies by the former education minister David Lammy.

The data shows that 10 out of 32 Oxford colleges did not award a place to a black British pupil with A-levels in 2015, the first time the university has released such figures since 2010. Oriel College only offered one place to a black British A-level student in six years.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/19/oxford-accused-of-social-apartheid-as-colleges-admit-no-black-students

The single best change that could be made...applications / offers after a-level results are known.

Nah, I loved the incentive of what my required grades were at A Level, it really did focus the mind.

A Levels were the toughest exams I've ever taken. I thought long and hard about taking the Cambridge entrance exam, but just didn't think I could manage to combine it with the A Level workload.

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

MikeL said:

Will Trump stand for a 2nd term?

I think he will... And my guess is that he'll win a second term as well (as the Democrats will manage to come up with another dud candidate)

*DISCLAIMER: I was the first person on here to tip Trump for the Presidency - Everyone laughed at me but they aren't laughing now * )

Trump failed to win the popular vote and won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1%, rustbelt states a populist like Sanders will go down better than an elitist like Hillary did. If Sanders wins those 3 (pre 2016 they had voted for every Democratic candidate since 1988) and holds the Hillary states he wins the Presidency.

We shall see...

If Corbyn wins here I would expect Sanders to win there, in something of a reverse Thatcher and Reagan and much as Trump followed Brexit but as you say we shall see...

Reagan of course narrowly lost the GOP 1976 nomination to Ford who went on to lose the general election to Carter much as Sanders narrowly lost the 2016 Democratic nomination to Clinton who then went onto lose the general election to Trump.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nearly one in three Oxford colleges failed to admit a single black British A-level student in 2015, with the university accused of “social apartheid” over its admissions policies by the former education minister David Lammy.

The data shows that 10 out of 32 Oxford colleges did not award a place to a black British pupil with A-levels in 2015, the first time the university has released such figures since 2010. Oriel College only offered one place to a black British A-level student in six years.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/19/oxford-accused-of-social-apartheid-as-colleges-admit-no-black-students

The single best change that could be made...applications / offers after a-level results are known.

Nah, I loved the incentive of what my required grades were at A Level, it really did focus the mind.

The problem is the predicted system is nonsense and it doesn’t give any chance to those for it clicks in the second year of their courses. Having the actual exam marks you can compare real performance and then interview those who make the cut.

But wouldn't that cause even more stress, the applications and acceptance window would be less than a month for everyone.

A Level Results come out in August and unis start in September.

Effectively you'd be putting everyone in clearing.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nearly one in three Oxford colleges failed to admit a single black British A-level student in 2015, with the university accused of “social apartheid” over its admissions policies by the former education minister David Lammy.

The data shows that 10 out of 32 Oxford colleges did not award a place to a black British pupil with A-levels in 2015, the first time the university has released such figures since 2010. Oriel College only offered one place to a black British A-level student in six years.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/19/oxford-accused-of-social-apartheid-as-colleges-admit-no-black-students

The single best change that could be made...applications / offers after a-level results are known.

Nah, I loved the incentive of what my required grades were at A Level, it really did focus the mind.

The problem is the predicted system is nonsense and it doesn’t give any chance to those for it clicks in the second year of their courses. Having the actual exam marks you can compare real performance and then interview those who make the cut.

But wouldn't that cause even more stress, the applications and acceptance window would be less than a month for everyone.

A Level Results come out in August and unis start in September.

Effectively you'd be putting everyone in clearing.

It would require a rejig of school / uni year to have a proper window.

We have discussed this on here in the past and Gove looked at it, but unis wouldn’t even entertain the idea.

Everton are going to get a heavy fine and a stadium ban for this.

Note the father of the year who aims punches at the Lyon players, whilst holding a child.

https://twitter.com/TimsBallPhobia/status/921111527893151744?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

SandyRentool said:

DavidL said:

Completely O/T but one of my favourite sites, http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ now has the same for the French NG.

What I have noticed is that the French demand is fairly consistently 20% more than ours. I appreciate France is a much bigger country and no doubt their wastage in transmission will exceed ours by a considerable margin but their economy is roughly the same size as is their population. What makes their energy consumption so much higher than ours?

In the summer they will have a significant power demand for a/c. Maybe they have more electric domestic heating than in the UK too.

I wondered if we use a lot more gas in houses and maybe even industry than they do.

I see general Kelly has thrown trump under the bus.

HHemmelig said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well this was a successful attack line during the general election

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/920963885909336064

Out of the 7 faces fully visible in that picture, I count 5 have beards (and Livingstone had a moustache). Very indicative of the circles Jez moved in, as beards were very unfashionable in the early 80s.

Yes they were. Labour leaders in fashion again

AndyJS said:

Big question of the moment. How is it possible for Gibralter to have more than one football team?

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.135666751

One for the Gibraltar Liberation Front and another for The Liberation Front of Gibraltar?

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see general Kelly has thrown trump under the bus.

What's he done?

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see general Kelly has thrown trump under the bus.

What's he done?

Not how I read it.

GIN1138 said:

rcs1000 said:

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

GIN1138 said:

MikeL said:

Will Trump stand for a 2nd term?

I think he will... And my guess is that he'll win a second term as well (as the Democrats will manage to come up with another dud candidate)

*DISCLAIMER: I was the first person on here to tip Trump for the Presidency - Everyone laughed at me but they aren't laughing now * )

Trump failed to win the popular vote and won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1%, rustbelt states a populist like Sanders will go down better than an elitist like Hillary did. If Sanders wins those 3 (pre 2016 they had voted for every Democratic candidate since 1988) and holds the Hillary states he wins the Presidency.

We shall see...

Who the hell knows?

We're less than a year into a Trump Presidency. He might get sick. He might face re-election at the same time as a recession. There might be a "smoking gun". It might be that Obama-care repeal blows up his face.

And it might be that he tacks to the centre following the mid-terms, that the US economy grows strongly across the four years, and the Democrats put up a no-hoper.

At this stage, the range of outcomes is staggeringly wide. Still, I'd take the 1.9 available on Betfair for him going in 2020 or later, which covers a lot of outcomes.

Yeah. I'm not saying he WILL 100% win POTUS again in 2020 as there are so many different outcomes who the hell knows.

I'm just saying that the assumption he WILL be a one term Presidency (I see it particularly from Democrat supporting friends from US in other places) seems pretty complacent.

Trump could well win again in 2020. Stranger things have happened - The value bet is probably for him for get four more years as it seems so unlikely at the moment...

Trump could win, the Tories could win, who knows. Though at the moment the former is even further behind than the latter.

MTimT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see general Kelly has thrown trump under the bus.

What's he done?

Said obama not calling him wasn’t a problem and that he told trump that he shouldn’t be calling because the only people service families want to hear from is military officials.

From what I have read, he did not say Trump should not call, but related his own personal experience that, when he got the news of his own son's death, the only calls that really mattered were those from his son's friends.

According to fake news cnn he advised trump not to but trump insisted and so he advised him what to say.

TheScreamingEagles said:

AndyJS said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nearly one in three Oxford colleges failed to admit a single black British A-level student in 2015, with the university accused of “social apartheid” over its admissions policies by the former education minister David Lammy.

The data shows that 10 out of 32 Oxford colleges did not award a place to a black British pupil with A-levels in 2015, the first time the university has released such figures since 2010. Oriel College only offered one place to a black British A-level student in six years.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/19/oxford-accused-of-social-apartheid-as-colleges-admit-no-black-students

The problem is class not race.

Yup, privately educated people are demonised and insulted on a regular basis by society.

Never noticed it myself

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

Sean_F said:

A crash in house prices wouldn't help young buyers, unless they had plenty of cash (which most people in their 20's don't).

What? Thing being cheaper wouldn't help people wanting to buy it? That's a view I suppose.

The national average used to be a house cost 3.5 times average salary 20 years ago, now it's 7.5 times.

In London it's gone from 4 times salary to 12 times!

Banks currently lend 4 to 4.5 times salary, if house prices fell they would cut that back drastically plus some existing homeowners would face negative equity.

By your own numbers people are still in a far worse position than they were 20 or more years ago. If the cost has gone up from 3.5 times average salary to 7.5 times but the amount the banks will lend has only gone up from 3.5 times to 4.5 times then it is obvious people are far worse off.

We have created an environment where people buy houses as an investment instead of being somewhere to live. We need to change that environment back to what it was - people buying houses as homes not as bank accounts.

Northern Rock was lending up to 7 times salary but we all know what happened to them.

I agree a balance needs to be restored but that would be better achieved by building more affordable housing than praying for a house price crash which would trap millions in negative equity. Plus for most people their house is their main asset.

It shouldn't be considered as an asset. That is why we got into this mess. It is a place to live. Successive governments have enacted policies and tax breaks which have encouraged people to buy houses as an investment. That is the main reason we are in this mess today.

It is a place to live but the whole point of home ownership is also to build up an asset for yourself and your family which was why Thatcher was so keen on it.

If the point of homeownership is to build up an asset, then presumably you'd be yelling at young people not to buy a house right now. Returning to 3.5x average earnings would ruin most of them.

In central Berlin, you can rent a spacious room in a shared flat for €350/month, bills included, or a reasonable family house in the commutable 'burbs for €500/mo. Long, secure tenancies.
Tenant obligations to look after the property, with decent leeway to renovate/personalise.

And then you save perhaps half of your rent cost every month into a proper pension, investing in productive companies, employing and training real people.

You can buy if you want, but for many people it doesn't make that much sense.

MTimT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MTimT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see general Kelly has thrown trump under the bus.

What's he done?

Said obama not calling him wasn’t a problem and that he told trump that he shouldn’t be calling because the only people service families want to hear from is military officials.

From what I have read, he did not say Trump should not call, but related his own personal experience that, when he got the news of his own son's death, the only calls that really mattered were those from his son's friends.

According to fake news cnn he advised trump not to but trump insisted and so he advised him what to say.

From that other fake news site, the NYT:

"John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, delivered an emotional, personal defense of President Trump’s call this week to the widow of a slain soldier, describing the trauma of learning about his son’s death in Afghanistan and calling the criticism of Mr. Trump’s call unfair.

"Mr. Kelly said that he was stunned to see the criticism, which came from a Democratic congresswoman, Representative Frederica S. Wilson of Florida, after Mr. Trump delivered a similar message to the widow of one of the soldiers killed in Niger."

Thanks.

Pong said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

Sean_F said:

A crash in house prices wouldn't help young buyers, unless they had plenty of cash (which most people in their 20's don't).

What? Thing being cheaper wouldn't help people wanting to buy it? That's a view I suppose.

The national average used to be a house cost 3.5 times average salary 20 years ago, now it's 7.5 times.

In London it's gone from 4 times salary to 12 times!

Banks currently lend 4 to 4.5 times salary, if house prices fell they would cut that back drastically plus some existing homeowners would face negative equity.

By your own numbers people are still in a far worse position than they were 20 or more years ago. If the cost has gone up from 3.5 times average salary to 7.5 times but the amount the banks will lend has only gone up from 3.5 times to 4.5 times then it is obvious people are far worse off.

We have created an environment where people buy houses as an investment instead of being somewhere to live. We need to change that environment back to what it was - people buying houses as homes not as bank accounts.

Northern Rock was lending up to 7 times salary but we all know what happened to them.

I agree a balance needs to be restored but that would be better achieved by building more affordable housing than praying for a house price crash which would trap millions in negative equity. Plus for most people their house is their main asset.

It shouldn't be considered as an asset. That is why we got into this mess. It is a place to live. Successive governments have enacted policies and tax breaks which have encouraged people to buy houses as an investment. That is the main reason we are in this mess today.

It is a place to live but the whole point of home ownership is also to build up an asset for yourself and your family which was why Thatcher was so keen on it.

In central Berlin, you can rent a spacious room in a shared flat for €350/month, bills included, or a reasonable family house in the commutable 'burbs for €500/mo. Long, secure tenancies.
Tenant obligations to look after the property, with decent leeway to renovate/personalise.

And then you save perhaps half of your rent cost every month into a proper pension, investing in productive companies, employing and training real people.

You can buy if you want, but for many people it doesn't make that much sense.

Who pays for maintenance and capital projects of shared space and amenities, such as a new roof?

MTimT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MTimT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see general Kelly has thrown trump under the bus.

What's he done?

Said obama not calling him wasn’t a problem and that he told trump that he shouldn’t be calling because the only people service families want to hear from is military officials.

From what I have read, he did not say Trump should not call, but related his own personal experience that, when he got the news of his own son's death, the only calls that really mattered were those from his son's friends.

According to fake news cnn he advised trump not to but trump insisted and so he advised him what to say.

From that other fake news site, the NYT:

"John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, delivered an emotional, personal defense of President Trump’s call this week to the widow of a slain soldier, describing the trauma of learning about his son’s death in Afghanistan and calling the criticism of Mr. Trump’s call unfair.

"Mr. Kelly said that he was stunned to see the criticism, which came from a Democratic congresswoman, Representative Frederica S. Wilson of Florida, after Mr. Trump delivered a similar message to the widow of one of the soldiers killed in Niger."

This is how cnn have written it up...


Kelly's place at the podium came days after Trump pulled his chief of staff into the political storm by saying in an interview with Fox News: "You could ask General Kelly, did he get a call from Obama?"

The answer to that question was no, Kelly said Thursday, though he stressed "that was not a criticism."

In fact, Kelly said he advised Trump not to phone the families of fallen soldiers because "if you're not in the family, if you've never worn the uniform, if you're not in combat, you can't even begin to imagine how to make that call."

When Trump insisted on making the calls, Kelly offered advice.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/politics/john-kelly-donald-trump-niger-family-calls/index.html

Their spin is unsurprisingly negative on trump starting half way down. If you only read that and see the talking heads they are making it sound like he has contradicted trump.

Pong said:

In central Berlin, you can rent a spacious room in a shared flat for €350/month, bills included, or a reasonable family house in the commutable 'burbs for €500/mo. Long, secure tenancies.
Tenant obligations to look after the property, with decent leeway to renovate/personalise.

An interesting comparison:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

AnneJGP said:

brendan16 said:

HYUFD said:

Pong said:

HYUFD said:

Pong said:

(snip)

60% of the country are homeowners most of whose children and grandchildren will inherit that housing wealth thanks to Osborne's inheritance tax cut.

Anyway Javid is already pushing a mass programme of building more affordable housing, even going beyond council's local plans to do so.

You're not wrong that a few youngsters (esp only children) who have looked up the value of their parents house on zoopla and calculated their inheritance and go to bed every night hoping their parents don't wake up in the morning will vote tory.

a few.

It does not have to be that cynical but many parents and grandparents who are homeowners, especially in London, the South East and East, have built up a large nest egg particularly with rising house prices which they want to pass on to their children and grandchildren. It is called looking after your family.

Rent privately for 40 years and then inherit - or own in your 20s and 30s post a Corbyn induced crash? I expect most would rather the latter option.

Something was said the other day about a policy to nationalise housing (don't know whether it was a spoof).

I'd be open to something really radical to tackle the housing 'problem', although there are so many factors involved I can't see it happening.

Say the state takes ownership of my housing. If it does, then the state will have to pick up the tab for my care in later life. Bit of a gamble whether the state comes out of it for gain or for loss.

Good evening, everyone.

Bang goes most peoples' main asset overnight were housing to be nationalised.

Of course the state currently picks up the tab for care anyway if you have assets under £23k (excluding your house in the case of personal care), maybe soon rising to £100k

I imagine that such a policy could only be imposed by using extreme violence.

Labour would be dead meat in days if they tried it. You don't touch people's houses. You just don't go there.

The British might not be free-market right wingers, but they sure as hell aren't communists either.

Much of Corbyn's support comes from young people frustrated they can't afford their own home.

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

AnneJGP said:

brendan16 said:

HYUFD said:

Pong said:

HYUFD said:

Pong said:

(snip)

60% of the country are homeowners most of whose children and grandchildren will inherit that housing wealth thanks to Osborne's inheritance tax cut.

Anyway Javid is already pushing a mass programme of building more affordable housing, even going beyond council's local plans to do so.

You're not wrong that a few youngsters (esp only children) who have looked up the value of their parents house on zoopla and calculated their inheritance and go to bed every night hoping their parents don't wake up in the morning will vote tory.

a few.

It does not have to be that cynical but many parents and grandparents who are homeowners, especially in London, the South East and East, have built up a large nest egg particularly with rising house prices which they want to pass on to their children and grandchildren. It is called looking after your family.

Rent privately for 40 years and then inherit - or own in your 20s and 30s post a Corbyn induced crash? I expect most would rather the latter option.

Something was said the other day about a policy to nationalise housing (don't know whether it was a spoof).

I'd be open to something really radical to tackle the housing 'problem', although there are so many factors involved I can't see it happening.

Say the state takes ownership of my housing. If it does, then the state will have to pick up the tab for my care in later life. Bit of a gamble whether the state comes out of it for gain or for loss.

Good evening, everyone.

Bang goes most peoples' main asset overnight were housing to be nationalised.

Of course the state currently picks up the tab for care anyway if you have assets under £23k (excluding your house in the case of personal care), maybe soon rising to £100k

I imagine that such a policy could only be imposed by using extreme violence.

Labour would be dead meat in days if they tried it. You don't touch people's houses. You just don't go there.

The British might not be free-market right wingers, but they sure as hell aren't communists either.

Much of Corbyn's support comes from young people frustrated they can't afford their own home.

I seemed to vaguely remember the tories got in a spot of trouble during the GE over this.....

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nearly one in three Oxford colleges failed to admit a single black British A-level student in 2015, with the university accused of “social apartheid” over its admissions policies by the former education minister David Lammy.

The data shows that 10 out of 32 Oxford colleges did not award a place to a black British pupil with A-levels in 2015, the first time the university has released such figures since 2010. Oriel College only offered one place to a black British A-level student in six years.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/19/oxford-accused-of-social-apartheid-as-colleges-admit-no-black-students

The single best change that could be made...applications / offers after a-level results are known.

Nah, I loved the incentive of what my required grades were at A Level, it really did focus the mind.

A Levels were the toughest exams I've ever taken. I thought long and hard about taking the Cambridge entrance exam, but just didn't think I could manage to combine it with the A Level workload.

Agreed.

University was a doddle next to A-levels.

I found chemistry A level tough, maths at A level was simple enough, with Physics being about the same as further maths AS.
I struggled with some of the second and third year modules when I read maths. Should probably have done economics, the students complained about the stats modules they shared with the maths students ( Stats modules were pretty damn easy compared to the proper maths) as their hardest modules.

williamglenn said:

Pong said:

In central Berlin, you can rent a spacious room in a shared flat for €350/month, bills included, or a reasonable family house in the commutable 'burbs for €500/mo. Long, secure tenancies.
Tenant obligations to look after the property, with decent leeway to renovate/personalise.

An interesting comparison:

Not really that surprising given Berlin's unique history. But as you say it is an interesting comparison of the capitals and their influence/benefit to the economies.