Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair punters now make it a 50-50 chance that Trump won’t co

SystemSystem Posts: 12,775
edited October 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betfair punters now make it a 50-50 chance that Trump won’t complete a full first term

Betdata.io

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,907
    First, FPT Although I don't approve of violence Everton fans punching the wrong team, after another shambolic display.
    Arsenal and Chelsea to come next ....
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,076
    edited October 2017
    2nd like the Tories next time
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,357
    edited October 2017
    First but no SECOND term for Trump.

    Edit and clearly no third term.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,907
    FF43 said:

    First but no SECOND term for Trump.

    Fake news. SAD!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    edited October 2017
    He will complete his first term but it is open in the air whether he wins a second term.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    FPT:
    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    FF43 said:

    First but no SECOND term for Trump.

    Edit and clearly no third term.

    Third, like the Who? Dems, I think you'll find...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,858
    I think the moment of maximum danger has passed for him - opponents are finding they can block his wilder stuff, and put up with the crudity. The exception could be if Korea (remember that place?) goes horribly wrong.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    @FrancisUrquhart FPT

    Thanks for the description of the CNN coverage. Hardly surprising that is their take. I cannot stand Trump, but he has a valid point on much of the media.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    HYUFD said:

    He will complete his first term but it is open in the air whether he wins a second term.


    We still talking about Bernie :)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,312
    I'd be able to bet on this if Winston Peters hadn't robbed me of £20 last night ;(
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,595
    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    Spot on.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,076
    Don't touch people's houses!!!!

    Tory Dementia tax is.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    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.
    No. In many other counties houses are not a rising asset. In the US prior to the 2000s housing bubble house prices were completely static after inflation for decades.

    The idea that you can buy a pile of bricks, do nothing to it and sell it for more than you bought it for is a particularly British delusion.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,664
    edited October 2017
    So David Davis is going to announce No Deal isn't too bad, on Halloween

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/921124688146952194
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,506
    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    Jeremy Corbyn -Mugabe wants to land-grab my house? He can feck off!

    If Warren is Dem. nom. Trump gets a second term.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/920912666696323072
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,907
    Alistair 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.
    No. In many other counties houses are not a rising asset. In the US prior to the 2000s housing bubble house prices were completely static after inflation for decades.

    The idea that you can buy a pile of bricks, do nothing to it and sell it for more than you bought it for is a particularly British delusion.
    It is a particularly south-eastern (and some other areas) delusion), Prices have been steady or falling for a number of years in many parts of the country.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    Mexicanpete said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    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 own home.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    Jeremy Corbyn -Mugabe wants to land-grab my house? He can feck off!

    If Warren is Dem. nom. Trump gets a second term.
    Even Warren beats Trump by 47% to 41%, though that is about half the 51% to 40% Sanders leads Trump by
    https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/2018-shaping-big-democrats/
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Mexicanpete said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    Jeremy Corbyn -Mugabe wants to land-grab my house? He can feck off!

    If Warren is Dem. nom. Trump gets a second term.
    Mugabe, you say?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41551096
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    Alistair 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.
    No. In many other counties houses are not a rising asset. In the US prior to the 2000s housing bubble house prices were completely static after inflation for decades.

    The idea that you can buy a pile of bricks, do nothing to it and sell it for more than you bought it for is a particularly British delusion.
    If you go to anywhere remotely near a big city, Greater New York, Vancouver, Paris, Sydney etc houses are a rising asset actually. It is not just a London and Home counties phenomenon.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    dixiedean said:

    Alistair 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.
    No. In many other counties houses are not a rising asset. In the US prior to the 2000s housing bubble house prices were completely static after inflation for decades.

    The idea that you can buy a pile of bricks, do nothing to it and sell it for more than you bought it for is a particularly British delusion.
    It is a particularly south-eastern (and some other areas) delusion), Prices have been steady or falling for a number of years in many parts of the country.
    Generally the further they are away from London
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    MTimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    He will complete his first term but it is open in the air whether he wins a second term.


    We still talking about Bernie :)
    Perhaps but that is for 2024
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Alistair 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.
    No. In many other counties houses are not a rising asset. In the US prior to the 2000s housing bubble house prices were completely static after inflation for decades.

    The idea that you can buy a pile of bricks, do nothing to it and sell it for more than you bought it for is a particularly British delusion.
    To be fair it's also an Irish, an Aussie and a Kiwi delusion and was a Spanish one a while back.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,745
    No, nothing to do with me guv....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4998366/Camila-Batmanghelidjh-denies-blame-Kids-Company-demise.html
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,745
    Trump new twitter obsession incoming....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4997182/Reddit-user-reveals-Starbucks-holiday-cup.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,312
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    No, nothing to do with me guv....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4998366/Camila-Batmanghelidjh-denies-blame-Kids-Company-demise.html

    Why Matt Hancock should never ever ever be made Chancellor
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Casino_Royale said:

    Mortimer said:



    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.

    Spot on.
    Possibly spot on in an alternative time stream in which Brexit was not happening, or if it was the tories were not going to get the blame for it. "a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own" are just four of the things that brexit is going to put out of reach; I suppose houses might become very much more affordable, but not in a good way.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    a few.
    .
    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).





    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    You are right in your prognosis, but it seems to me that the opportunity is for a new party to come along, because the tories currently represent precisely NONE of those things. Young people are good at seeing through bullshit. They are fed up with excessive student debt and low pay, which is the reality of seven years of tory rule, while the investor class gets richer and richer. The idea of an aspirational society is for most people a cruel delusion.

    The tories are just the party of people obsessed about Brexit, buy to let landlords and pensioners.


  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    So David Davis is going to announce No Deal isn't too bad, on Halloween

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/921124688146952194

    Surely Guy Fawkes night would be more suitable - so he can announce on the Sunday politics shows and send a rocket up parliament at the same time.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @faisalislam: PM expected to tell leaders to help her deliver deal "we can stand behind and defend to our people"in clear plea to EU27 to keep talks going

    @joncstone: May told EU leaders she needs a deal she can sell to people back at home - she needn't worry, they’re not getting a meaningful vote on it!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    Pulpstar said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    No, nothing to do with me guv....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4998366/Camila-Batmanghelidjh-denies-blame-Kids-Company-demise.html

    Why Matt Hancock should never ever ever be made Chancellor
    I assume you mean Chancellor of the Duchy? Who in their right mind suggested he should be made Chancellor?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe people even in the 1970s did have jobs in the private sector and go on holiday, and had the day's equivalent luxury product of iPhones.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    Staggering weakness from May.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Are we not allowed to edit our own posts anymore?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    Danny565 said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    a few.
    ...
    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe people even in the 1970s did have jobs in the private sector and go on holiday, and had the day's equivalent luxury product of iPhones.
    Of course.

    But they lived in a decade of managed decline.

    No-one had the imagination to think big. Much like with Brexit, to be honest.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    No, nothing to do with me guv....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4998366/Camila-Batmanghelidjh-denies-blame-Kids-Company-demise.html

    The kids company was bigged up as part of the big society bollox. It usefully allowed the tories to push through the austerity agenda and claim that charities and people like Camilla would pick up the slack. A bit of taxpayers money here and there could be justified by the government as it was a fraction of what the state would have to pay to deliver the services they were cutting.

    She's right to be angry. With every cut to council services, the demand kept on rising.

    Until it tipped over.

    Unfortunately, she's also a bit of an arse. And was in above her head.

    This is exactly what happens when you rely on volunteers/charities to run essential state services.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    nielh said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    a few.
    .
    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).





    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    You are right in your prognosis, but it seems to me that the opportunity is for a new party to come along, because the tories currently represent precisely NONE of those things. Young people are good at seeing through bullshit. They are fed up with excessive student debt and low pay, which is the reality of seven years of tory rule, while the investor class gets richer and richer. The idea of an aspirational society is for most people a cruel delusion.

    The tories are just the party of people obsessed about Brexit, buy to let landlords and pensioners.


    Unemployment was 9% when Labour left office it is now 4%
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,513
    Danny565 said:

    Are we not allowed to edit our own posts anymore?

    Hmmmm
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,513
    Danny565 said:

    Are we not allowed to edit our own posts anymore?

    Hmmmm Apparently not...

  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Danny565 said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    a few.
    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe people even in the 1970s did have jobs in the private sector and go on holiday, and had the day's equivalent luxury product of iPhones.
    I was there but I'm not sure what the 70s luxury equivalent of the iPhone was but I distinctly remember having to save up for a suit and I was a middle-ish ranking civil servant. Any offers for iPhone equivalent?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,900
    nielh said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    a few.
    .
    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).





    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    You are right in your prognosis, but it seems to me that the opportunity is for a new party to come along, because the tories currently represent precisely NONE of those things. Young people are good at seeing through bullshit. They are fed up with excessive student debt and low pay, which is the reality of seven years of tory rule, while the investor class gets richer and richer. The idea of an aspirational society is for most people a cruel delusion.

    The tories are just the party of people obsessed about Brexit, buy to let landlords and pensioners.


    The Tories have been giving buy to let landlords a hard time, recently.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,664
    Danny565 said:

    Are we not allowed to edit our own posts anymore?

    Vanilla forums maintenance at the moment, is a periodical thing when they back up/archive their forums.

    It usually comes back within a few minutes, has been occasionally longer.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,767
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    So David Davis is going to announce No Deal isn't too bad, on Halloween

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/921124688146952194

    Nice pic of Amber Rudd & Mikey Fabricant.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,263
    I will check in with Vanilla and find out why editing is not currently working. This is not a site policy change, and it will get fixed soon. (I hope.)
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,076
    HYUFD said:

    nielh said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    a few.
    .
    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).





    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    You are right in your prognosis, but it seems to me that the opportunity is for a new party to come along, because the tories currently represent precisely NONE of those things. Young people are good at seeing through bullshit. They are fed up with excessive student debt and low pay, which is the reality of seven years of tory rule, while the investor class gets richer and richer. The idea of an aspirational society is for most people a cruel delusion.

    The tories are just the party of people obsessed about Brexit, buy to let landlords and pensioners.


    Unemployment was 9% when Labour left office it is now 4%
    ZHC were 80,000 now it's 900,000
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,312
    Mortimer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    No, nothing to do with me guv....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4998366/Camila-Batmanghelidjh-denies-blame-Kids-Company-demise.html

    Why Matt Hancock should never ever ever be made Chancellor
    I assume you mean Chancellor of the Duchy? Who in their right mind suggested he should be made Chancellor?
    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/711471078313500672 *Cough*
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,907



    @Alistait:
    The idea that you can buy a pile of bricks, do nothing to it and sell it for more than you bought it for is a particularly British delusion.
    @dixiedean:
    It is a particularly south-eastern (and some other areas) delusion), Prices have been steady or falling for a number of years in many parts of the country.
    @HYUFD:
    Generally the further they are away from London

    @dixiedean:
    This is generally true. However, the growth in Cities continues. Manchester, Newcastle, (the 2 I am most familiar with) are being re-populated, and are seeing price rises near the City Centres. The further away there is no price rise/ falls. So the solution is not so easy. We need to find soome way to encourage people to move out.
    I love living in the countryside, but the infrastructure is falling behind rapidly.
    Public transpoort being slashed. Poor broadband. Intermittent phone cooverage.
    Under these circumstances, what possible reason would there be for a young family, or small business to move here?
    btw, this is not a Party political point. Both major parties have been at fault.
    Labour ignores rural areas, because there are few votes/seats to be won here.
    Conservatives because they win anyway, and their client vote doesn't want development.

    But, to solve the Housing problem we need to attack supply AND demand. Which means booth building more houses in popular areas AND making rural economies more attractive places to live and invest in.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/921036461427822593
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    rcs1000 said:

    I will check in with Vanilla and find out why editing is not currently working. This is not a site policy change, and it will get fixed soon. (I hope.)

    I'm pretty sure this first happened this morning; but I was able to edit a post later on today. Now it has indeed gone again.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,312
    Sean_F said:

    nielh said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    a few.
    .
    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).





    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    You are right in your prognosis, but it seems to me that the opportunity is for a new party to come along, because the tories currently represent precisely NONE of those things. Young people are good at seeing through bullshit. They are fed up with excessive student debt and low pay, which is the reality of seven years of tory rule, while the investor class gets richer and richer. The idea of an aspirational society is for most people a cruel delusion.

    The tories are just the party of people obsessed about Brexit, buy to let landlords and pensioners.


    The Tories have been giving buy to let landlords a hard time, recently.
    Section 24....
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    HYUFD said:

    nielh said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    a few.
    .
    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).





    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    You are right in your prognosis, but it seems to me that the opportunity is for a new party to come along, because the tories currently represent precisely NONE of those things. Young people are good at seeing through bullshit. They are fed up with excessive student debt and low pay, which is the reality of seven years of tory rule, while the investor class gets richer and richer. The idea of an aspirational society is for most people a cruel delusion.

    The tories are just the party of people obsessed about Brexit, buy to let landlords and pensioners.


    Unemployment was 9% when Labour left office it is now 4%
    Is that the guy out of The Young Ones seeing through bullshit?
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    Scott_P - it will be the EU's fault.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,664
    edited October 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    Mortimer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    No, nothing to do with me guv....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4998366/Camila-Batmanghelidjh-denies-blame-Kids-Company-demise.html

    Why Matt Hancock should never ever ever be made Chancellor
    I assume you mean Chancellor of the Duchy? Who in their right mind suggested he should be made Chancellor?
    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/711471078313500672 *Cough*
    I tipped him at 16/1 as next Chancellor back in August 2015.

    I wish I could say it was an excellent trading bet.

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/08/02/next-chancellor-after-osborne-betting/

    I think Mike said he would take away my ability to publish threads after that piece.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    bigjohnowls said:

    HYUFD said:

    nielh said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    AnneJGP said:

    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pong said:

    (snip)

    ...
    ...

    a few.
    .
    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).





    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.
    People say the Tory party has no future; I say it has huge opportunities. Young people want into the system. They don't want a council house and a steady job on the bins, they want all that comes from an aspirational society: a good job in the private sector, the latest iphone, foreign holidays, a house of their own.

    Yes we need to change things to achieve this, but the values are closer to Conservative values than people make out. Corbyn's vision needs to be shown up for what it is: 1970s managed decline, where everyone knows their place and no-one can get on.
    You are right in your prognosis, but it seems to me that the opportunity is for a new party to come along,


    Unemployment was 9% when Labour left office it is now 4%
    ZHC were 80,000 now it's 900,000
    900 000 out of about 32 million in employment and of course a zero hours contract is still better than permanent welfare.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    dixiedean said:




    @Alistait:
    The idea that you can buy a pile of bricks, do nothing to it and sell it for more than you bought it for is a particularly British delusion.

    @dixiedean:
    It is a particularly south-eastern (and some other areas) delusion), Prices have been steady or falling for a number of years in many parts of the country.
    @HYUFD:
    Generally the further they are away from London

    @dixiedean:
    This is generally true. However, the growth in Cities continues. Manchester, Newcastle, (the 2 I am most familiar with) are being re-populated, and are seeing price rises near the City Centres. The further away there is no price rise/ falls. So the solution is not so easy. We need to find soome way to encourage people to move out.
    I love living in the countryside, but the infrastructure is falling behind rapidly.
    Public transpoort being slashed. Poor broadband. Intermittent phone cooverage.
    Under these circumstances, what possible reason would there be for a young family, or small business to move here?
    btw, this is not a Party political point. Both major parties have been at fault.
    Labour ignores rural areas, because there are few votes/seats to be won here.
    Conservatives because they win anyway, and their client vote doesn't want development.

    But, to solve the Housing problem we need to attack supply AND demand. Which means booth building more houses in popular areas AND making rural economies more attractive places to live and invest in.


    Good luck with that
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    Pulpstar said:

    Mortimer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    No, nothing to do with me guv....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4998366/Camila-Batmanghelidjh-denies-blame-Kids-Company-demise.html

    Why Matt Hancock should never ever ever be made Chancellor
    I assume you mean Chancellor of the Duchy? Who in their right mind suggested he should be made Chancellor?
    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/711471078313500672 *Cough*
    Oh dear....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,664
    I think the edit button is back.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,962
    edited October 2017
    PAW said:

    Staggering weakness from May.

    Theresa's desperate begging on her hands and knees at the feet of the EU is very embarrassing.

    Theresa May is more Scarlett than Rhet at the moment sadly.
  • BaskervilleBaskerville Posts: 391
    edited October 2017
    iPhone? That's nothing.
    1970 to 1974 we had a party line phone; different numbers but the same phone line as our next door neighbour, so if they were on the phone we had to wait to make a call. Is that not the same. cutting edge tech?
    The GPO, British Rail, British Steel, BOAC, British Airways... bywords for efficiency and customer service. Why wouldn't you want to go back to the good old days?



    I was there but I'm not sure what the 70s luxury equivalent of the iPhone was but I distinctly remember having to save up for a suit and I was a middle-ish ranking civil servant. Any offers for iPhone equivalent?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,357
    edited October 2017
    Good to know that David Davis and the government have got Plan B in hand. Now all they need is something for Plan A.

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    So David Davis is going to announce No Deal isn't too bad, on Halloween

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/921124688146952194


  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Chris Grayling again showing that when Brexiteers talk about "no deal", they don't actually MEAN "no deal". He just blithely asserted that planes will keep flying no matter what, even though that will require some kind of deal to achieve that.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    edited October 2017
    Hilarious.

    The LD President just said we would be legally required to impose tariffs.

    Edit: To be fair, when she was corrected she kind of clarified.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,513
    Danny565 said:

    Chris Grayling again showing that when Brexiteers talk about "no deal", they don't actually MEAN "no deal". He just blithely asserted that planes will keep flying no matter what, even though that will require some kind of deal to achieve that.

    Don't planes currently fly between non-EU nations?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,513
    GIN1138 said:

    PAW said:

    Staggering weakness from May.

    Theresa's desperate begging on her hands and knees at the feet of the EU is very embarrassing.

    Theresa May is more Scarlett than Rhet at the moment sadly.
    "After all... Tomorrow is another May!"
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Danny565 said:

    Chris Grayling again showing that when Brexiteers talk about "no deal", they don't actually MEAN "no deal". He just blithely asserted that planes will keep flying no matter what, even though that will require some kind of deal to achieve that.

    Don't planes currently fly between non-EU nations?
    Yes, but, as far as I know, it requires "deals" of some kind.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    Next CE is tremendously level headed, and a good communicator (far better than Grayling). I can see why they've done so well over the last few years.

    Get him into the cabinet soon, please.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,357
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Danny565 said:

    Chris Grayling again showing that when Brexiteers talk about "no deal", they don't actually MEAN "no deal". He just blithely asserted that planes will keep flying no matter what, even though that will require some kind of deal to achieve that.

    Don't planes currently fly between non-EU nations?
    Indeed they do because there is a deal. So we would be talking about No Deal with rather a lot of deals attached. A No Deal Deal if you will. The question is whether a No Deal Deal No Deal is better than a bad deal.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,513
    Danny565 said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Danny565 said:

    Chris Grayling again showing that when Brexiteers talk about "no deal", they don't actually MEAN "no deal". He just blithely asserted that planes will keep flying no matter what, even though that will require some kind of deal to achieve that.

    Don't planes currently fly between non-EU nations?
    Yes, but, as far as I know, it requires "deals" of some kind.
    Such as?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    edited October 2017
    Last 2 questions on QT both accusing the LDs and Labour of pushing a second EU referendum
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,346
    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    It's in Dunstable...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    edited October 2017
    williamglenn said:

    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    It's in Dunstable...
    56% leave, not hugely out of line with the result.

    And it has been the same across the country.

    You might not like it chum, but you're in the minority. Brexit is popular.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Baskerville said:

    iPhone? That's nothing.
    1970 to 1974 we had a party line phone; different numbers but the same phone line as our next door neighbour, so if they were on the phone we had to wait to make a call. Is that not the same. cutting edge tech?
    The GPO, British Rail, British Steel, BOAC, British Airways... bywords for efficiency and customer service. Why wouldn't you want to go back to the good old days?



    I was there but I'm not sure what the 70s luxury equivalent of the iPhone was but I distinctly remember having to save up for a suit and I was a middle-ish ranking civil servant. Any offers for iPhone equivalent?


    Well, there were 8 track cassettes (though only for the top 1%), and for urgent messages, telegrams reached the recipient in a matter of days. And polaroid cameras.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    edited October 2017
    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    Are there any hard Brexit backers on PB though, apart from maybe yourself and Sunil and Alanbrooke? Certainly there are a number of other former Leave voters like RCS and SeanT and Richard Tyndall but most of those back soft Brexit.

    40-45% of the country backs hard Brexit, I would say barely 10% of PBers at best
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    Are there any hard Brexit backers on PB though, apart from maybe yourself and Alanbrooke? Certainly there are a number of Leave backers like RCS and SeanT and Richard Tyndall but most of those backed soft Brexit.

    40-45% of the country backs hard Brexit, I would say barely 10% of PBers at best
    Even I'm on the fence, to be honest....
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,962
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    GIN1138 said:

    PAW said:

    Staggering weakness from May.

    Theresa's desperate begging on her hands and knees at the feet of the EU is very embarrassing.

    Theresa May is more Scarlett than Rhet at the moment sadly.
    "After all... Tomorrow is another May!"
    :D
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,346
    edited October 2017
    Mortimer said:

    Even I'm on the fence, to be honest....

    Like any addiction, you have to hit rock bottom before you can recover.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    Are there any hard Brexit backers on PB though, apart from maybe yourself and Alanbrooke? Certainly there are a number of Leave backers like RCS and SeanT and Richard Tyndall but most of those backed soft Brexit.

    40-45% of the country backs hard Brexit, I would say barely 10% of PBers at best
    Even I'm on the fence, to be honest....
    We could certainly do with a few more posters who take that view to ensure it is properly represented, perhaps OGH should put an up an advert in Thanet or Clacton!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,367
    williamglenn said:

    Mortimer said:

    Even I'm on the fence, to be honest....

    Like any addition, you have to hit rock bottom before you can recover.
    I'm not on the fence about Leaving. Thats a done deal. As 99% of people accept.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,346
    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    Are there any hard Brexit backers on PB though, apart from maybe yourself and Alanbrooke? Certainly there are a number of Leave backers like RCS and SeanT and Richard Tyndall but most of those backed soft Brexit.

    40-45% of the country backs hard Brexit, I would say barely 10% of PBers at best
    Even I'm on the fence, to be honest....
    We could certainly do with a few more posters who take that view to ensure it is properly represented, perhaps OGH should put an up an advert in Thanet or Clacton!
    Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that 40-45% back hard Brexit?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,962
    Man on Question Time thinks we should ban McDonalds...

    It's a point of view I guess... ;)
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    GIN1138 said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    GIN1138 said:

    PAW said:

    Staggering weakness from May.

    Theresa's desperate begging on her hands and knees at the feet of the EU is very embarrassing.

    Theresa May is more Scarlett than Rhet at the moment sadly.
    "After all... Tomorrow is another May!"
    :D
    It's time to say Tara EU.

    Although by March 2019 frankly most of us won't give a damn!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,346
    https://twitter.com/OleRyborg/status/921144713801027584
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,357
    williamglenn said:

    Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that 40-45% back hard Brexit?

    Thought this man put it well ...

    https://twitter.com/timjn1/status/920199246426632192

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,312
    Mogg and Salmons next week :)
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,962
    Pulpstar said:

    Mogg and Salmons next week :)

    That should liven things up after tonights bore-fest.... ;)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,745
    The founder of Just for Laughs festival is being accused now...

    Canada producer leaves TV amid flurry of sexual abuse allegations

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41685262
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    Are there any hard Brexit backers on PB though, apart from maybe yourself and Sunil and Alanbrooke? Certainly there are a number of other former Leave voters like RCS and SeanT and Richard Tyndall but most of those back soft Brexit.

    40-45% of the country backs hard Brexit, I would say barely 10% of PBers at best
    There's no such thing as "soft Brexit". The EU don't want to negotiate on anything and won't budge until the UK stumps up a load of money for nothing whatsoever, which of course is completely unacceptable.

    Best get the things sorted so we won't have our planes grounded etc. and just get on with it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    edited October 2017
    williamglenn said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    Are there any hard Brexit backers on PB though, apart from maybe yourself and Alanbrooke? Certainly there are a number of Leave backers like RCS and SeanT and Richard Tyndall but most of those backed soft Brexit.

    40-45% of the country backs hard Brexit, I would say barely 10% of PBers at best
    Even I'm on the fence, to be honest....
    We could certainly do with a few more posters who take that view to ensure it is properly represented, perhaps OGH should put an up an advert in Thanet or Clacton!
    Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that 40-45% back hard Brexit?
    A July Mori poll had 41% putting control of immigration first in negotiations while 49% put preferred access to the single market first. In January it was 44% to 42%.
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brits-keener-on-single-market-access-than-full-immigration-control-brexit-poll-shows-a3594611.html

    Last October Sky had as many as 52% putting immigration control first and 40% the single market.
    http://news.sky.com/story/more-than-half-favour-immigration-controls-over-trade-poll-reveals-10604088
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,962
    brendan16 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    GIN1138 said:

    PAW said:

    Staggering weakness from May.

    Theresa's desperate begging on her hands and knees at the feet of the EU is very embarrassing.

    Theresa May is more Scarlett than Rhet at the moment sadly.
    "After all... Tomorrow is another May!"
    :D
    It's time to say Tara EU.

    Although by March 2019 frankly most of us won't give a damn!
    You'll be giving TSE ideas at this rate (assuming he hasn't joined the brain-fade and emigrated to Canada yet... ;) )
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,962
    CopperSulphate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    Are there any hard Brexit backers on PB though, apart from maybe yourself and Sunil and Alanbrooke? Certainly there are a number of other former Leave voters like RCS and SeanT and Richard Tyndall but most of those back soft Brexit.

    40-45% of the country backs hard Brexit, I would say barely 10% of PBers at best
    The EU don't want to negotiate on anything and won't budge until the UK stumps up a load of money for nothing whatsoever, which of course is completely unacceptable.
    I'm not sure Theresa agrees with that... ;)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,332
    edited October 2017
    CopperSulphate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    Are there any hard Brexit backers on PB though, apart from maybe yourself and Sunil and Alanbrooke? Certainly there are a number of other former Leave voters like RCS and SeanT and Richard Tyndall but most of those back soft Brexit.

    40-45% of the country backs hard Brexit, I would say barely 10% of PBers at best
    There's no such thing as "soft Brexit". The EU don't want to negotiate on anything and won't budge until the UK stumps up a load of money for nothing whatsoever, which of course is completely unacceptable.

    Best get the things sorted so we won't have our planes grounded etc. and just get on with it.
    Guess I can add you to the hard Brexit tent in the PB camp then.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,346
    edited October 2017
    brendan16 said:

    It's time to say Tara EU.

    We've moved on from Monty Hall to Blind Date. Will what emerges from behind the screen live up their promises?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,076
    edited October 2017
    Does the EU having no ability to interfere with Socialist policies such as state aid get me a hard Brexit tent?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,745
    edited October 2017
    Did you know that Monty Hall raised $1bn for charity during his lifetime....apparently he spent basically 6 months a year doing charity work.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    HYUFD said:

    williamglenn said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    Are there any hard Brexit backers on PB though, apart from maybe yourself and Alanbrooke? Certainly there are a number of Leave backers like RCS and SeanT and Richard Tyndall but most of those backed soft Brexit.

    40-45% of the country backs hard Brexit, I would say barely 10% of PBers at best
    Even I'm on the fence, to be honest....
    We could certainly do with a few more posters who take that view to ensure it is properly represented, perhaps OGH should put an up an advert in Thanet or Clacton!
    Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that 40-45% back hard Brexit?
    A July Mori poll had 41% putting control of immigration first in negotiations while 49% put preferred access to the single market first. In January it was 44% to 42%.
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brits-keener-on-single-market-access-than-full-immigration-control-brexit-poll-shows-a3594611.html

    Last October Sky had as many as 52% putting immigration control first and 40% the single market.
    http://news.sky.com/story/more-than-half-favour-immigration-controls-over-trade-poll-reveals-10604088
    It would be nice to get a poll on how many people support us walking away from negotiations until the EU start being reasonable.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    CopperSulphate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    Are there any hard Brexit backers on PB though, apart from maybe yourself and Sunil and Alanbrooke? Certainly there are a number of other former Leave voters like RCS and SeanT and Richard Tyndall but most of those back soft Brexit.

    40-45% of the country backs hard Brexit, I would say barely 10% of PBers at best
    There's no such thing as "soft Brexit". The EU don't want to negotiate on anything and won't budge until the UK stumps up a load of money for nothing whatsoever, which of course is completely unacceptable.

    Best get the things sorted so we won't have our planes grounded etc. and just get on with it.
    Anyone who thinks they understand how fecked we are, does not understand how fecked we are. In a hard brexit there is by definition no mechanism for "getting the things sorted."
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    HYUFD said:

    CopperSulphate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Very interesting in the QT audience.

    The most popular Tory policy? Brexit.

    Very much against the prevailing view on here.

    Are there any hard Brexit backers on PB though, apart from maybe yourself and Sunil and Alanbrooke? Certainly there are a number of other former Leave voters like RCS and SeanT and Richard Tyndall but most of those back soft Brexit.

    40-45% of the country backs hard Brexit, I would say barely 10% of PBers at best
    There's no such thing as "soft Brexit". The EU don't want to negotiate on anything and won't budge until the UK stumps up a load of money for nothing whatsoever, which of course is completely unacceptable.

    Best get the things sorted so we won't have our planes grounded etc. and just get on with it.
    Guess I can add you to the hard Brexit tent in the PB camp then.
    It's not that I want it, I just can't see how it is possible to avoid it. The EU won't negotiate ANYTHING at all. What exactly is the government supposed to do?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,784
    Danny565 said:

    Chris Grayling again showing that when Brexiteers talk about "no deal", they don't actually MEAN "no deal". He just blithely asserted that planes will keep flying no matter what, even though that will require some kind of deal to achieve that.

    You write as though the EU would treat the UK as some sort of pariah state on a par with Syria or North Korea, rather than say Canada.

    But let's assume you're right. Just as with the trade in goods, the trade in tourism is currently massively imbalanced in the EU's favour. In the case of Spain, the collapse of tourist flights between the UK and EU would cause a huge economic collapse of a key industry and an associated weakening of property prices in resorts that could have wider ramifications. The same risks apply in varying degrees to the likes of Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Italy, France, Austria..... etc. By contrast, reverse risks to UK tourism would be more than offset by the numbers choosing to take staycations here.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025