politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tomorrow is the third anniversary of David Cameron of winning

Cyclefree said:

Elliot said:

ExiledInScotland said:

stodge said:

Evening all

For all the jibes about "Blair", he wasn't that different in his own way from Wilson. Both were able to convince millions of voters (many of them former Conservatives) that the Labour Party they led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Both Blair and Wilson resonated with their time - Wilson had the technocratic "white heat of technology", a message wrapped in modernity for what seemed an optimistic new age.

Blair had "Cool Britannia", an optimistic message for the post-Cold War era and both faced Conservative Governments, exhausted and out of touch after long periods in Government.

Corbyn's fate is perhaps to be the same as Kinnock's. For all the latter's achievements in beginning the rehabilitation of Labour he was never seen as a credible Prime Minister in the way John Smith might have been and Blair certainly was.

Aspects of politics can be seen as cyclical but all politics isn't cyclical - if it was, it would be much easier to predict the future.

I tend to trust the common sense of the British people. They want reasonably competent government that at least tries to balance what we need with what we can afford. They choose leaders on that basis.

The problem is that the balance is being broken as we more retired people. The current centre-left model relies on increasing taxation which eventually stops working. I don't know what the answer is but it won't be pretty.

The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.

The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide

In part the rich have those rewards because of globalisation. How to tax the rich during a time of globalisation is a tough question to which I have seen no well-thought out answers. See, for instance, all the talk about taxing the Amazons and Googles and Facebooks of this world. Brexit may, ironically, be an attempt to retreat from that globalisation but I've yet to see how it will help Britain get a fair share of tax from the top 2%.

MaxPB said:

Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Its a good question. I think the answer is yes in the medium term because I don't see how they can be competitive with countries that don't spend so much on the State. But they certainly show that the structural deficit can be addressed by either cutting spending or by increasing taxes. We still have politicians who pretend we can have their services but our tax rates. They are liars.

We have a system which encourages lying to the electorate.

And in the old days, they'd just blame the EU, and move on.

I think the biggest Brexit dividend is that it will force our politicians to take responsibility for their actions.

rcs1000 said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.
.........
They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

The basic problem for the Tories is that so few people benefit from capitalism these days. That is primarily due to the cost of housing. Even people that slug their guts out to get a good degree, do all the necessary internships, get a great milk round offer, work hard in London for ten years and marry someone similar end up not being able to get more than a three bed house unless they have an hour commute each way. And to do that you need to be working 15 hours a week more than our parents.

The issue is that median family incomes have gone backwards since 2000.

This may be because of low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe, or there may be other reasons. (It's worth noting that basically all developed countries have seen stagnant or falling median incomes, and that's happened irrespective of immigration policy, or whether in the Eurozone, or whatever.)

The reason Donald Trump won in America, that the Front National surged in France, and that there is so much unhappiness with the 'elites', is that they have not delivered on their side of the bargain: they have not delivered steadily rising incomes for all.

Now, the question is why is that? (Note: I have the answer,)

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

The loss of aspiration and middle class regression particularly in the urban areas.

Falling home ownership and increasing inequality is killing people's belief that capitalism works for them.

The way greedy bankers and shyster businessmen can walk away with millions after leaving a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers and empty pension pots destroys faith in the system.

This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?

Hasn't home ownership been falling almost everywhere to varying degrees ?

Apart perhaps from a few odd places like maybe Bolsover.

And how do we test whether people are happy with the status quo ? Are areas which swung to the Conservatives last week regarded as such ?

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.

So that is still more than £20k then? Maybe my daughters will elope.

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.

So that is still more than £20k then? Maybe my daughters will elope.

£16k is what we've budgeted for 80 guests.

I'm not buying a new suit since I already have a suitable one from a previous event and she's ordered a dress from China (my sister did it and it was a tenth of the cost of going to a shop for the same dress). That's actually a huge savings, much bigger than I realised.

MaxPB said:

Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.

My mum didn't want to give up without a fight, but as @rcs1000 said he who pay the bill calls the tune. When I said, "if you want us to have a huge Indian wedding then give us the £80k" she was suddenly a lot more agreeable to our way.

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.

My mum didn't want to give up without a fight, but as @rcs1000 said he who pay the bill calls the tune. When I said, "if you want us to have a huge Indian wedding then give us the £80k" she was suddenly a lot more agreeable to our way.

But you will be live streaming the event on Facebook and YouTube, right?

Dadge said:

When will the next 1987-scale result be for the Tories? And does it matter? Although they may be destined to continue squeaking victories (or near-victories) they still seem to get away with it, as it were, and retain their tradition as The Party of Government (TM).

It's likely that GB tends more towards a Labour government these days, but seemingly it all depends on the leadership. I don't think an election-winning Labour leader would have to be a blairite, but they would have to be at least slightly to the left of Corbyn, and they'd definitely need charisma.

another_richard said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Maggie [deleted]
Today's Tories: not so much.

If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?

The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.

I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.

Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?

On a related note, when people say do we want 'Scandinavian style public services' I wonder if they are only possible with a Scandinavian sized country.

Perhaps different economic systems work optimally only for countries of a certain size or type.

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.

My mum didn't want to give up without a fight, but as @rcs1000 said he who pay the bill calls the tune. When I said, "if you want us to have a huge Indian wedding then give us the £80k" she was suddenly a lot more agreeable to our way.

Did you reveal your big stock market gain ?

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.

It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.

This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.

They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.

The loss of aspiration and middle class regression particularly in the urban areas.

Falling home ownership and increasing inequality is killing people's belief that capitalism works for them.

The way greedy bankers and shyster businessmen can walk away with millions after leaving a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers and empty pension pots destroys faith in the system.

This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?

Probably, yes.

HYUFD said:

Singapore has excellent public services, on some scores better than those in Scandinavia, with significantly lower taxes and spending than we do in the UK

Benpointer said:

another_richard said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Maggie had 2 advantages: (1) she came to power when things had got so bad that even those who would normally be members of what you call the "soft left" class felt the need for some drastic change; and (2) she argued the case for what she was trying to do. She argued for why the state should be smaller and taxes lower and people should take more responsibility and why socialism brought disaster and why Communism (in foreign affairs) was wrong. She did not simply assert. She argued her case. And she did not simply accept previously accepted verities and assumptions.

If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?

The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.

I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.

Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?

On a related note, when people say do we want 'Scandinavian style public services' I wonder if they are only possible with a Scandinavian sized country.

Perhaps different economic systems work optimally only for countries of a certain size or type.

By what rationale?

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?

Its a good question. I think the answer is yes in the medium term because I don't see how they can be competitive with countries that don't spend so much on the State. But they certainly show that the structural deficit can be addressed by either cutting spending or by increasing taxes. We still have politicians who pretend we can have their services but our tax rates. They are liars.

Just spotted an interesting comment in your post:"....spend so much on the State."

I think it's important to realise that the public spending is by an large not 'spent on the state'. For example, where does all the money spent on the NHS go? Well of course some of it provides health care and some will be seen to be wasted in admin or inefficiencies. But actually nearly all of it goes in wages and gets pumped back into the economy, generating more demand. It is wrong to think of public spending as money in any way lost to the economy.

It is not lost to the economy but it is a burden on the productive economy which has to be paid for (I simplify, obviously there are parts of the public sector which are "productive"). Where Brown went wrong was his belief that he could have higher growth indefinitely driven by increasing public spending. At some point the productive economy cannot come up with the money and you either have to borrow it or put it off the books by, for example, PFI. It is not sustainable.

Keynes advocated the State increasing public spending and employment to bring an economy out of recession. No one in their right mind contemplates it as the basis of never ending growth.

I agree, but I do think some on the right like to portray all public spending as money down the drain. Personally, I feel we need a mixed economy and that in the past 30 years we have focused too much on the (misguided) belief that the private sector always does things better, and that competition is always good.

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?

Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.

Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).

In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.

If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Singapore has excellent public services, on some scores better than those in Scandinavia, with significantly lower taxes and spending than we do in the UK

I wonder what their ratio of workers to retirees is?

Edit to add: better than ours, but still worsening significantly.

https://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/statistics/visualising_data/old-age-support-ratio2016.pdf

Barnesian said:

The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.

Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change".
Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".

Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.

I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Tweet of the political week, surely?

https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/993085852711571461

I did a Google search, and I'm not sure it's true.

Also, if there is more than one place like Nuneaton, then there is also more than one place like Wandsworth. And there are places that are like neither.

Is the new policy of the Conservative party to be for One Nation - excluding Wandsworth, Richmond, Twickenham, Hampstead, Camden, and a bunch of other places considered too "metropolitan".

Elliot said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?

Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.

Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).

In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.

If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.

The problem with your logic is that almost all the graduate accountant jobs are in London.

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Tweet of the political week, surely?

https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/993085852711571461

I did a Google search, and I'm not sure it's true.

Also, if there is more than one place like Nuneaton, then there is also more than one place like Wandsworth. And there are places that are like neither.

Is the new policy of the Conservative party to be for One Nation - excluding Wandsworth, Richmond, Twickenham, Hampstead, Camden, and a bunch of other places considered too "metropolitan".

Clearly not given they won Wandsworth again on Thursday

ExiledInScotland said:

Elliot said:

ExiledInScotland said:

stodge said:

Evening all

For all the jibes about "Blair", he wasn't that different in his own way from Wilson. Both were able to convince millions of voters (many of them former Conservatives) that the Labour Party they led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Both Blair and Wilson resonated with their time - Wilson had the technocratic "white heat of technology", a message wrapped in modernity for what seemed an optimistic new age.

Blair had "Cool Britannia", an optimistic message for the post-Cold War era and both faced Conservative Governments, exhausted and out of touch after long periods in Government.

Corbyn's fate is perhaps to be the same as Kinnock's. For all the latter's achievements in beginning the rehabilitation of Labour he was never seen as a credible Prime Minister in the way John Smith might have been and Blair certainly was.

Aspects of politics can be seen as cyclical but all politics isn't cyclical - if it was, it would be much easier to predict the future.

I tend to trust the common sense of the British people. They want reasonably competent government that at least tries to balance what we need with what we can afford. They choose leaders on that basis.

The problem is that the balance is being broken as we more retired people. The current centre-left model relies on increasing taxation which eventually stops working. I don't know what the answer is but it won't be pretty.

The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.

The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide

I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again

rcs1000 said:

Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).

In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.

If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

What is the answer?

Normally I chart £25,000 to come to your conference and tell you, but in summary...

There's not one single cause, but many. The factors that have affected pretty much every developed country are:

- demographics - because more and more of your paycheck is now supporting a retired person, with expensive healthcare

- globalisation - because there are people out there who'll do your job for less money, and there's no way to force people in other countries to chose your output over that of the man from Mumbai

- tax and benefits systems - because they act to discourage work

- commodity prices - because they have sucked hundreds of billions out of the pockets of the poor in developed countries, and given it to the rich in the Gulf and Russia

Thanks.

Where shall I send the invoice?

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).

In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.

If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.

You've just managed to sum up why the Tories have lost London.

rottenborough said:

Barnesian said:

The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.

Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change".
Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".

Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.

I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".

Callaghan: "There are times, perhaps once every thirty years, when there is a sea-change in politics. It then does not matter what you say or what you do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of."

It is possible we are approaching such a moment and the last GE hinted at that. Certainly if Brexit is the f*** up I think it will be (e.g. lorry parks at Dover etc etc) then we may well be.

But I can't say it really feels that way at the moment.

rcs1000 said:

Elliot said:

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

What is the answer?

Normally I chart £25,000 to come to your conference and tell you, but in summary...

There's not one single cause, but many. The factors that have affected pretty much every developed country are:

- demographics - because more and more of your paycheck is now supporting a retired person, with expensive healthcare

- globalisation - because there are people out there who'll do your job for less money, and there's no way to force people in other countries to chose your output over that of the man from Mumbai

- tax and benefits systems - because they act to discourage work

- commodity prices - because they have sucked hundreds of billions out of the pockets of the poor in developed countries, and given it to the rich in the Gulf and Russia

Thanks.

Where shall I send the invoice?

So the answer is pro-natalism, shifting taxes from labour to land, and nuclear energy. Not sure what you do about globalisation but you could limit immigration so at least the non-remote working jobs aren't undercut.

Why is nuclear power the answer? It's an incredibly expensive form of energy.

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.

Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change".
Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".

Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.

I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".

It is precisely because at least as many voters prefer to 'Cling to Nurse' than go for a 'Time to Change' to socialism that the Tories are currently still polling 40%+ and Labour could not achieve a NEV voteshare lead on Thursday.

New Labour, Cameron's Tories, Trudeau's Liberals all examples of sensible centrist parties that thrived under FPTP

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Barnesian said:

The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.

Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change".
Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".

Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.

I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".

Callaghan: "There are times, perhaps once every thirty years, when there is a sea-change in politics. It then does not matter what you say or what you do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of."

It is possible we are approaching such a moment and the last GE hinted at that. Certainly if Brexit is the f*** up I think it will be (e.g. lorry parks at Dover etc etc) then we may well be.

But I can't say it really feels that way at the moment.

There are lorry parks at Dover already.

More seriously, forget what the loons (archer101au and williamglenn) are saying, there is a real desire on both the part of the EU and the UK to produce a workable solution. Barnier and Davis, while they will never be close friends, work well enough together, and at the senior civil servant level, things are tough but cordial.

There will be far less disruption on Brexit day that people fear, although "regulatory divergence" will probably end up being a 2025 story rather than a 2019 one.

Foxy said:

Elliot said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?

Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.

Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).

In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.

If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.

The problem with your logic is that almost all the graduate accountant jobs are in London.

To state the bleeding obvious: House prices in London are high because that is where the money is (albeit asymetrically distributed- only the very poor and very rich can live there). Houses are cheap in Leicester and Nottingham because these cities have the lowest household disposable incomes in England, while London is highest. Fig4 here gives some idea:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/regionalaccounts/grossdisposablehouseholdincome/bulletins/regionalgrossdisposablehouseholdincomegdhi/2015

Elliot said:

Foxy said:

Elliot said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?

Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.

Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).

In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.

If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.

The problem with your logic is that almost all the graduate accountant jobs are in London.

To state the bleeding obvious: House prices in London are high because that is where the money is (albeit asymetrically distributed- only the very poor and very rich can live there). Houses are cheap in Leicester and Nottingham because these cities have the lowest household disposable incomes in England, while London is highest. Fig4 here gives some idea:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/regionalaccounts/grossdisposablehouseholdincome/bulletins/regionalgrossdisposablehouseholdincomegdhi/2015

I know that is obvious but I don't see what it is adding to or arguing against my point.

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

Elliot said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?

Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.

Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).

In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.

If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.

The problem with your logic is that almost all the graduate accountant jobs are in London.

To state the bleeding obvious: House prices in London are high because that is where the money is (albeit asymetrically distributed- only the very poor and very rich can live there). Houses are cheap in Leicester and Nottingham because these cities have the lowest household disposable incomes in England, while London is highest. Fig4 here gives some idea:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/regionalaccounts/grossdisposablehouseholdincome/bulletins/regionalgrossdisposablehouseholdincomegdhi/2015

As a minor aside, Nottingham stats are skewed by the limited size of the city boundaries e.g. West Bridgford and Beeston not included.

Sandpit said:

Benpointer said:

Elliot said:

ExiledInScotland said:

Elliot said:

ExiledInScotland said:

stodge said:

Evening all
..

..

The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.

The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide

I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again

This is oft repeated but no evidence is ever provided beyond anecdotes. Because it's not true. You jack up taxes on the very wealthy and only a handful move abroad. Most of them have lives, friends and family in London and giving those things up isn't worth an additional 10% income.

Also, you can put the taxes on their land, which isn't very moveable.

+1

Suspect the idea that the top 2% will always be able to avoid additional taxes is put about by said top 2% to avoid such taxes being imposed. If they can avoid additional taxes why are bothering to pay any tax at all?

Top 1% pay 27% of income tax: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/616441/Table_2.4.pdf#page=2)

Well if Corbyn gets in we’ll soon find out. I’d bet good money that raising the 45% income tax rate to 60% as he proposes, will generate little if anything in extra revenue. It’s much more likely to lead to a shortfall of billions.

Those earning £150-250k in salaried jobs will get stung, as will the footballers. Multinational companies will relocate their head offices and senior staff to Switzerland, Singapore or the USA. The entrepreneurs will all head to Monaco, Dubai or the Carribean though, having their share dividends paid though various offshore companies. The Philip Greens and Richard Bransons (The PM’s “Citizens of Nowhere”) are offshore already, such punitive tax rates only encourage others further down the scale to behave in the same way.

Sandpit said:

Benpointer said:

Elliot said:

ExiledInScotland said:

Elliot said:

ExiledInScotland said:

stodge said:

Evening all
..

..

The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.

The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide

I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again

This is oft repeated but no evidence is ever provided beyond anecdotes. Because it's not true. You jack up taxes on the very wealthy and only a handful move abroad. Most of them have lives, friends and family in London and giving those things up isn't worth an additional 10% income.

Also, you can put the taxes on their land, which isn't very moveable.

+1

Suspect the idea that the top 2% will always be able to avoid additional taxes is put about by said top 2% to avoid such taxes being imposed. If they can avoid additional taxes why are bothering to pay any tax at all?

Top 1% pay 27% of income tax: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/616441/Table_2.4.pdf#page=2)

Well if Corbyn gets in we’ll soon find out. I’d bet good money that raising the 45% income tax rate to 60% as he proposes, will generate little if anything in extra revenue. It’s much more likely to lead to a shortfall of billions.

Those earning £150-250k in salaried jobs will get stung, as will the footballers. Multinational companies will relocate their head offices and senior staff to Switzerland, Singapore or the USA. The entrepreneurs will all head to Monaco, Dubai or the Carribean though, having their share dividends paid though various offshore companies. The Philip Greens and Richard Bransons (The PM’s “Citizens of Nowhere”) are offshore already, such punitive tax rates only encourage others further down the scale to behave in the same way.

rottenborough said:

BREAKING: New line from the Corbynistas.

"Why don't you f*** off and join the LibDems?"

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/993223651012038656

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/993244486800113664

Yes, we get it, May has decided to stitch up everyone who voted Leave by staying in the Customs Union and then lying and pretending that she hasn't. Isn't is a wonder that nobody trusts anyone in Parliament any more?

Sandpit said:

Well if Corbyn gets in we’ll soon find out. I’d bet good money that raising the 45% income tax rate to 60% as he proposes, will generate little if anything in extra revenue. It’s much more likely to lead to a shortfall of billions.

Those earning £150-250k in salaried jobs will get stung, as will the footballers. Multinational companies will relocate their head offices and senior staff to Switzerland, Singapore or the USA. The entrepreneurs will all head to Monaco, Dubai or the Carribean though, having their share dividends paid though various offshore companies. The Philip Greens and Richard Bransons (The PM’s “Citizens of Nowhere”) are offshore already, such punitive tax rates only encourage others further down the scale to behave in the same way.

archer101au said:

GIN1138 said:

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/993244486800113664

Yes, we get it, May has decided to stitch up everyone who voted Leave by staying in the Customs Union and then lying and pretending that she hasn't. Isn't is a wonder that nobody trusts anyone in Parliament any more?

Time for Brexiteers to get rid of Theresa The Appeaser. What else have they got to lose?

I agree, but I have now come to terms with the fact that they will not move against her and put their ministerial careers at risk. If they were going to roll her and take control of Brexit they should have done this in December - now it is too late to do anything other than withdraw from the talks and go for Hard Brexit in March and none of them have the guts to do so.

They seem to have this fantasy that if May delivers some sort of Brexit they can take over then and make it 'better'. This is utter, utter crap. Whatever deal we do with the EU will never get 'improved' - the only direction it will then move is towards more re-integration.

Leavers need to realise that the Remainers will never give up in their desire to sell us out to foreign powers. The only way to stop it is to have such a clear break now that there is no basis for re-integrating later. If we remain in the CU and subject to SM regulations as May plans, it is perfectly obvious that this will just be the jumping off point for Remainers to start the re-integration process. They will never accept the referendum result.