politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sweden sours? Will the far right make further inroads in Scand
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sweden sours? Will the far right make further inroads in Scandinavian social democracy?
For the last 100 years, the Social Democrats have dominated Swedish politics. They have been in government for all bar 22 of those years. It used its hegemonic status to establish a social democratic culture that worked with the country’s Lutheran ethos and with business, and for a long time managed to preside over a successful and distinctive blend of high taxation supporting a strong social safety net and a dynamic economy.
Comments
-
First like...noone, it would appear.0
-
SecondTheuniondivvie said:First like...noone, it would appear.
0 -
A distant third....0
-
Alastair Meeks at his best ... spotting political betting value. The Swedish Democrats are currently 2.64 to lay on Betfair which equates to winning odds if successful of 0.58/1 net of the exchange's 5% commission.0
-
Interesting that the Moderates were available yesterday at 100/1 with Betfair to get most votes when you consider that the latest opinion poll had the SocDems on 25% and Moderates on 20% (with the Sweden Democrats in third place).0
-
Good morning, everyone.
It is vital for common sense and economic prosperity that the Moderates win (as I put a little on them at 61 yesterday, thanks to Mr. JS for the tip).
As an aside, do we know how accurate Swedish polls tend to be?0 -
Seventh. Good morning from the Alps.0
-
My "first" was stolen and I will smash my toys and the sexist thief will never be able to umpire on PB whilst I'm on the forum ....
Stamps foot and exits in high dudgeon0 -
Excellent article, am laying the Swedish Democrats myself
Meanwhile here's one for Boris:
https://youtu.be/psDTiUV0PNI0 -
-
-
-
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.0 -
What were they thinking when they invited her?Scott_P said:0 -
It's Osborne's opinion.Scott_P said:
He basically thinks a consensus could be formed around EEA-EFTA.0 -
A good header. I have had a nibble at the Moderates but agree that the Social Democrats should be comfortably first.
@AlastairMeeks is right to point out the rise of the leftist groups as a phenomenon masked by the rise of the far right. It does seem to be happening across the continent, and creating some difficult coalitions. The same trend here has been shoehorned into the two main parties by FPTP.
The reaction to the globalist tax dodging free marketeers and a mobilised world is not one of affection, no matter whether we buy their products or not. Retreat into pooteresque nationalism or millenialist socialism and choose your poison.
0 -
If you combine the talents of the government and opposition front benches, there are currently just two adults on show: Keir Starmer and Philip Hammond. The studentification of British politics is just about complete - and it’s disastrous.0
-
Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.0
-
Leaverstan didn't vote to increase globalisation, they voted against it, or thought they did.Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.
McDonnells economic plans may be rather more appealing than the ERG vision.0 -
Seconded. It’s partly at least the effect of SPADs being picked as candidates.SouthamObserver said:If you combine the talents of the government and opposition front benches, there are currently just two adults on show: Keir Starmer and Philip Hammond. The studentification of British politics is just about complete - and it’s disastrous.
0 -
I've had a taste of the Social Democrats.
I expect I could be surprised, but I don't sense the SDs are on the cusp there, and the economy is doing quite well.
I still expect the SDs to do ok though. Sweden still isn't taking concerns about immigration seriously enough.0 -
I think the idea that McDonnells economic plans would represent an increase in globalisation to be rather sweet.Foxy said:
Leaverstan didn't vote to increase globalisation, they voted against it, or thought they did.Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.
McDonnells economic plans may be rather more appealing than the ERG vision.0 -
I think McDonnells plans are the polar opposite of globalisation, and while not likely to be successful, are likely to appeal to many Leave voters desire to take back control.Casino_Royale said:
I think the idea that McDonnells economic plans would represent an increase in globalisation to be rather sweet.Foxy said:
Leaverstan didn't vote to increase globalisation, they voted against it, or thought they did.Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.
McDonnells economic plans may be rather more appealing than the ERG vision.0 -
The only positive feature of the awful Bojo article I can see is that it has spurred Adonis to accuse him of hyperbole! Irony meter goes off the scale
To be more serious I'd become an abstainer for the first time in my life were this man ever to lead the Conservatives. With all the madness on the left it really is time for people to start and see sense on the right.0 -
Technically the Redwood side would be wingnuttery, not moonbattery. However, moonbattery was involved too - Leave was a coalition between 1970s moonbats (Euro-Socialism In One Country) and 1990s wingnuts (Globalism In One Country).Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.0 -
The latest opinion poll was conducted on September 6th (ie later than most of the poll you are talking about) and had the Swedish Democrats second on 19.1%, ahead of the Moderates on 17.7% but behind the Social Democrats on 24.9%AndyJS said:Interesting that the Moderates were available yesterday at 100/1 with Betfair to get most votes when you consider that the latest opinion poll had the SocDems on 25% and Moderates on 20% (with the Sweden Democrats in third place).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_20180 -
Boris really is a nasty piece of work. UGH.0
-
Yep - a truly disgusting man. It was ever thus, of course; it’s just that now in his desperation for self-advancement he is losing his ability to control what others see of his true self.SquareRoot said:Boris really is a nasty piece of work. UGH.
0 -
Yes, thanks for the correction.edmundintokyo said:
Technically the Redwood side would be wingnuttery, not moonbattery. However, moonbattery was involved too - Leave was a coalition between 1970s moonbats (Euro-Socialism In One Country) and 1990s wingnuts (Globalism In One Country).Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.
Redwoodism meets Corbynism.
No wonder a plan was never produced.
We need a vote on the Deal.0 -
His comments could have been more measured but he does I think correctly identify that May will effectively keep us in the single market and customs union (with a work permit or study place on arrival requirement for EU migrants) because of the Irish backstop and he says the latter means May will completely cave to Barnier and Brussels.SquareRoot said:Boris really is a nasty piece of work. UGH.
Boris says he instead wants a 'generous free trade deal' with the EU and a technological solution for the Irish border0 -
This was always going to be the case, though. The cost-free sunlit uplands Boris and his mates promised were never deliverable.HYUFD said:
His comments could have been more measured but he does I think correctly identify that May will effectively keep us in the single market and customs union (with a work permit or study place on arrival requirement for EU migrants) because of the Irish backstop and he says the latter means May will completely cave to Barnier and Brussels.SquareRoot said:Boris really is a nasty piece of work. UGH.
0 -
These new complaints about Boris are so much pearl clutching. He’s a shit, always will be a shit, but he’s doing here what he does well...creating an eye catching metaphor.
Does anyone deny that May has botched the negotiations? 80%+ of the public think so.
(That Boris does not have his own plan is beside the point).
We need a vote on the Deal.0 -
Had no idea that Armando Ianouchi was running Momentum. Are we sure that the last few years aren't proof that we have all been sucked into an artificial universe being generated by the briefcase on his Thick of It writers desk?RobD said:
What were they thinking when they invited her?Scott_P said:0 -
His latest outburst is crass and insensitive.HYUFD said:
His comments could have been more measured but he does I think correctly identify that May will effectively keep us in the single market and customs union (with a work permit or study place on arrival requirement for EU migrants) because of the Irish backstop and he says the latter means May will completely cave to Barnier and Brussels.SquareRoot said:Boris really is a nasty piece of work. UGH.
It is inexcusable but adds to a long catalogue of stupidity and has greatly angered his colleagues. He will not win the leadership.0 -
+1felix said:The only positive feature of the awful Bojo article I can see is that it has spurred Adonis to accuse him of hyperbole! Irony meter goes off the scale
To be more serious I'd become an abstainer for the first time in my life were this man ever to lead the Conservatives. With all the madness on the left it really is time for people to start and see sense on the right.0 -
+1SquareRoot said:Boris really is a nasty piece of work. UGH.
0 -
Leaving aside personal preference, I'm impressed both by Michael Gove and his counterpart Sue Hayman, the two environment front-benchers who I frequently have dealings with. My impression is that some of the others on both sides are pretty good too. I think you're going too much by the headful of front-benchers who get lots of media coverage. There is a correlation here - the more moon-battery you are, the more the media likes to cover you. Serious attention to your portfolio is not regarded as worth reporting.OldKingCole said:
Seconded. It’s partly at least the effect of SPADs being picked as candidates.SouthamObserver said:If you combine the talents of the government and opposition front benches, there are currently just two adults on show: Keir Starmer and Philip Hammond. The studentification of British politics is just about complete - and it’s disastrous.
0 -
Why describe Sweden Democrats as "far right" in the headline? Does anyone who's not vaguely lefty far right now, even in this great place?0
-
That may be the case and for a starter the peoples vote campaign need to be honest and call it a second referendum. They accuse Brexiteers of all kinds of wrongs but they are just dishonest themselves.Gardenwalker said:These new complaints about Boris are so much pearl clutching. He’s a shit, always will be a shit, but he’s doing here what he does well...creating an eye catching metaphor.
Does anyone deny that May has botched the negotiations? 80%+ of the public think so.
(That Boris does not have his own plan is beside the point).
We need a vote on the Deal.
I do not have a problem with a second referendum but first of all I want to see TM's deal. If it is a fair compromise we need to get on with it. However, if there is any move to a hard Brexit I will do everything I can to stop it including accepting the need for a second referendum0 -
I also think the 1.23 available on Betfair Exchange for the Greens to pass the 4% threshold again is good value. Virtually no polls have had them lower, for several years. And at 1.2 there's a hefty £854 you can stake.Polls generally put them in the 5-6% range (MP in this table):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_20180 -
Whatever the contnet of what he said, there's only one politician people are talking about today....0
-
Sounds like a better situation than we sometimes seem to see, and my experience too is that people with whom one deals are often different to, perhaps, their public persona. I think though that the development of a group of career politicians, with little or no experience outside that rather hothouse world isn’t helpful to the general body politic.NickPalmer said:
Leaving aside personal preference, I'm impressed both by Michael Gove and his counterpart Sue Hayman, the two environment front-benchers who I frequently have dealings with. My impression is that some of the others on both sides are pretty good too. I think you're going too much by the headful of front-benchers who get lots of media coverage. There is a correlation here - the more moon-battery you are, the more the media likes to cover you. Serious attention to your portfolio is not regarded as worth reporting.OldKingCole said:
Seconded. It’s partly at least the effect of SPADs being picked as candidates.SouthamObserver said:If you combine the talents of the government and opposition front benches, there are currently just two adults on show: Keir Starmer and Philip Hammond. The studentification of British politics is just about complete - and it’s disastrous.
No matter what the individual’s politics are.0 -
Tugendhat's got some nerve getting a drippy dick over Boris' suicide vest bit. TT was Int Corps in Helmand. He's seen, done and been party to a lot worse than that...Gardenwalker said:These new complaints about Boris are so much pearl clutching.
0 -
At first glance the idea of workers getting a share of their company’s profits seems very appealing. But then you’re told that you can’t ever cash that in. So no nest egg for your retirement or for your kids or lump of money for you to go off and do your own thing. So what’s the point of that? How does it make an ordinary person’s life any better?Foxy said:
Leaverstan didn't vote to increase globalisation, they voted against it, or thought they did.Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.
McDonnells economic plans may be rather more appealing than the ERG vision.
Oh no, it doesn’t. But it does help those who love to turn up at meetings at 6 pm on a Thursday evening to vote on this, that or the other. McDonnell is selling - under the illusion of control and fair share of profits - a pig in a poke, something that will only benefit activists. Much like the Leavers’ plans.0 -
Pretty much. From what I can tell they are not all that different to Ukip. The media in this country daren't describe Ukip as far right.saddo said:Why describe Sweden Democrats as "far right" in the headline? Does anyone who's not vaguely lefty far right now, even in this great place?
0 -
Is #ToryCivilWar trending yet?0
-
Chuka Umunna says the Labour Party is "institutionally racist".
So why is he still a member?0 -
I don’t have an issue with a second referendum in principle. But doesn’t it depend on what the choice is?
People might give a different answer depending on whether the question is:-
- Do you want this deal or to leave the EU with no deal at all, including no transition deal?
- Do you want this deal or to Remain?0 -
Nigel Farage, UKIP's most prominent politician, is currently toying with the idea of forced deportations of millions from Britain. That's obviously the politics of the far right.tlg86 said:
Pretty much. From what I can tell they are not all that different to Ukip. The media in this country daren't describe Ukip as far right.saddo said:Why describe Sweden Democrats as "far right" in the headline? Does anyone who's not vaguely lefty far right now, even in this great place?
0 -
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1038705678829973504
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1038704384824279040
Chuka WANTS to be a member of an institutionally racist party...0 -
-
Mr. P, that's tribalism. No need for rational thinking when you love your rosette's colour so much.0
-
McDonnell might do better with an explicit promise of German-style workers' councils, since this will make it harder for Conservatives to oppose since Labour can point to Germany's superior economic performance. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as they say.Foxy said:
I think McDonnells plans are the polar opposite of globalisation, and while not likely to be successful, are likely to appeal to many Leave voters desire to take back control.Casino_Royale said:
I think the idea that McDonnells economic plans would represent an increase in globalisation to be rather sweet.Foxy said:
Leaverstan didn't vote to increase globalisation, they voted against it, or thought they did.Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.
McDonnells economic plans may be rather more appealing than the ERG vision.0 -
Well, lets see the details.Cyclefree said:
At first glance the idea of workers getting a share of their company’s profits seems very appealing. But then you’re told that you can’t ever cash that in. So no nest egg for your retirement or for your kids or lump of money for you to go off and do your own thing. So what’s the point of that? How does it make an ordinary person’s life any better?Foxy said:
Leaverstan didn't vote to increase globalisation, they voted against it, or thought they did.Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.
McDonnells economic plans may be rather more appealing than the ERG vision.
Oh no, it doesn’t. But it does help those who love to turn up at meetings at 6 pm on a Thursday evening to vote on this, that or the other. McDonnell is selling - under the illusion of control and fair share of profits - a pig in a poke, something that will only benefit activists. Much like the Leavers’ plans.
I do not back McDonnell's economic policy solutions, but he is at least trying to address the questions raised by the IPPR report chaired by Justin Welby earlier this week. These poll widespread support, across most of society, young and old, North and South, educated or not:
https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/unfair-and-in-need-of-reform
0 -
I think the vast majority of those advocating a second referendum want it solely to overturn the 2016 vote so we can Remain.Cyclefree said:I don’t have an issue with a second referendum in principle. But doesn’t it depend on what the choice is?
People might give a different answer depending on whether the question is:-
- Do you want this deal or to leave the EU with no deal at all, including no transition deal?
- Do you want this deal or to Remain?
An interesting question: had the polls at any time over the last 27 months shown an earlier move to mild Bregret, or had the economy performed less well, would the 2nd referendum campaign have got moving much earlier?
Personally, I think so. It's an opportunistic move.0 -
They’re probably more like Italy’s National Alliance (under Fini) which had its roots in the Fascists and then morphed into the Future and Freedom party.tlg86 said:
Pretty much. From what I can tell they are not all that different to Ukip. The media in this country daren't describe Ukip as far right.saddo said:Why describe Sweden Democrats as "far right" in the headline? Does anyone who's not vaguely lefty far right now, even in this great place?
I note the comment at the end of an interesting piece about Sweden retreating into “ introspection”.
It may be a criticism but it seems to me that such criticisms tend to avoid noting that had there been a touch more introspection - or intelligent thought - before letting in very large numbers of Muslim migrants from war and terrorism torn Middle Eastern and North African countries about the challenges of integration, the clash between a society founded on a strong welfare state but also a strong Lutheran work ethic and a belief that people have rights to public goods by virtue of their status regardless of their contribution, then groups such as the Sweden Democrats would not now have such purchase on the voters. The established parties had a somewhat Panglossian belief in apparently unlimited immigration from very different cultures and ignored the strains this produced, all of which were predictable. You can ignore reality only for so long before it smacks you in the face.0 -
A #peoplesvote bill wouldn't get through Parliament without Remain being an option. Deal might win if it was an AV voting system, depending on the deal.Cyclefree said:I don’t have an issue with a second referendum in principle. But doesn’t it depend on what the choice is?
People might give a different answer depending on whether the question is:-
- Do you want this deal or to leave the EU with no deal at all, including no transition deal?
- Do you want this deal or to Remain?0 -
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.0 -
A Deal vs No Deal referendum may well deliver No Deal, so best not ask a silly question!Foxy said:
A #peoplesvote bill wouldn't get through Parliament without Remain being an option. Deal might win if it was an AV voting system, depending on the deal.Cyclefree said:I don’t have an issue with a second referendum in principle. But doesn’t it depend on what the choice is?
People might give a different answer depending on whether the question is:-
- Do you want this deal or to leave the EU with no deal at all, including no transition deal?
- Do you want this deal or to Remain?0 -
"My friends, as I have discovered myself, there are no disasters, only opportunities. And, indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters!"MarqueeMark said:Whatever the contnet of what he said, there's only one politician people are talking about today....
- Boo-ris in 2004, on being sacked from the Shadow Cabinet by Michael Howard after the Petronella Wyatt affair.0 -
Not a bad tip. I'd prefer something like 1.35-1.4 for that bet, but it's not bad.NickPalmer said:I also think the 1.23 available on Betfair Exchange for the Greens to pass the 4% threshold again is good value. Virtually no polls have had them lower, for several years. And at 1.2 there's a hefty £854 you can stake.Polls generally put them in the 5-6% range (MP in this table):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018
Also a bit of a hedge. If the Social Democrats do underperform, I'd expect much of their vote to go to parties like the Greens.0 -
Once translated, that means the TUC will campaign for a second referendum regardless.Scott_P said:0 -
I'm not as outraged as some, but I do think Boris has a habit of acting as though politics is some sort of game. If he really wants to be the leader of the Tories and PM he needs to tone down the rhetoric, not ramp it up. Boris does not act as though the job is a serious one.Gardenwalker said:These new complaints about Boris are so much pearl clutching. He’s a shit, always will be a shit, but he’s doing here what he does well...creating an eye catching metaphor.
0 -
Mr. Royale, I agree.
Hmm. May be time to hedge my second referendum bet.
Edited extra bit: think I've done that already, actually...0 -
His use of "Suicide Vest" asa metaphor is an interesting choice of words, keeping him in touch with Islamophobia, but a deniable distance, much like his letterbox comment. Deliberate, of course, and arguably it is the No Dealers who are strapping the vest onto poor old Brittania.glw said:
I'm not as outraged as some, but I do think Boris has a habit of acting as though politics is some sort of game. If he really wants to be the leader of the Tories and PM he needs to tone down the rhetoric, not ramp it up. Boris does not act as though the job is a serious one.Gardenwalker said:These new complaints about Boris are so much pearl clutching. He’s a shit, always will be a shit, but he’s doing here what he does well...creating an eye catching metaphor.
0 -
Cyclefree is right that they're a party with overtly neo-Nazi background that has made an effort to clean itself up. They now have a pleasant-sounding leader, but inevitably they still have middle-ranking members who say unpleasant things. I think that "far right" remains a fair description, but like "far left" it's shorthand which doesn't take account of nuance.saddo said:Why describe Sweden Democrats as "far right" in the headline? Does anyone who's not vaguely lefty far right now, even in this great place?
FWIW I think UKIP are far right too, but not as far as the Sweden Democrats: to be fair, they've always tried to exclude the neo-Nazis. Being nationalist and perhaps dubious about foreigners is one thing, wanting to murder them is something else. In these wild days we need to make distinctions between extremists.0 -
That IPPR report is interesting. If the Tories or the Lib Dems had any sense they would be looking to it to give them ideas for policies not leaving the ground to malicious idiots like McDonnell. There is quite a lot in that report which chimes with May’s Mansion House speech as PM about helping the struggling middle.Foxy said:
Well, lets see the details.Cyclefree said:
At first glance the idea of workers getting a share of their company’s profits seems very appealing. But then you’re told that you can’t ever cash that in. So no nest egg for your retirement or for your kids or lump of money for you to go off and do your own thing. So what’s the point of that? How does it make an ordinary person’s life any better?Foxy said:
Leaverstan didn't vote to increase globalisation, they voted against it, or thought they did.Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.
McDonnells economic plans may be rather more appealing than the ERG vision.
Oh no, it doesn’t. But it does help those who love to turn up at meetings at 6 pm on a Thursday evening to vote on this, that or the other. McDonnell is selling - under the illusion of control and fair share of profits - a pig in a poke, something that will only benefit activists. Much like the Leavers’ plans.
I do not back McDonnell's economic policy solutions, but he is at least trying to address the questions raised by the IPPR report chaired by Justin Welby earlier this week. These poll widespread support, across most of society, young and old, North and South, educated or not:
https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/unfair-and-in-need-of-reform0 -
Saves having to explain why they themselves are crap, having stiffed the population for so long they cannot understand why people are miffed.saddo said:Why describe Sweden Democrats as "far right" in the headline? Does anyone who's not vaguely lefty far right now, even in this great place?
0 -
McDonnell is no idiot.Cyclefree said:
That IPPR report is interesting. If the Tories or the Lib Dems had any sense they would be looking to it to give them ideas for policies not leaving the ground to malicious idiots like McDonnell. There is quite a lot in that report which chimes with May’s Mansion House speech as PM about helping the struggling middle.Foxy said:
Well, lets see the details.Cyclefree said:
At first glance the idea of workers getting a share of their company’s profits seems very appealing. But then you’re told that you can’t ever cash that in. So no nest egg for your retirement or for your kids or lump of money for you to go off and do your own thing. So what’s the point of that? How does it make an ordinary person’s life any better?Foxy said:
Leaverstan didn't vote to increase globalisation, they voted against it, or thought they did.Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.
McDonnells economic plans may be rather more appealing than the ERG vision.
Oh no, it doesn’t. But it does help those who love to turn up at meetings at 6 pm on a Thursday evening to vote on this, that or the other. McDonnell is selling - under the illusion of control and fair share of profits - a pig in a poke, something that will only benefit activists. Much like the Leavers’ plans.
I do not back McDonnell's economic policy solutions, but he is at least trying to address the questions raised by the IPPR report chaired by Justin Welby earlier this week. These poll widespread support, across most of society, young and old, North and South, educated or not:
https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/unfair-and-in-need-of-reform
That is a bit simple even for you.
He might be a lot of things , but not that.
0 -
Most Tory MPs and certainly the ERG and the DUP and Labour Leave MPs would also vote down any second EU referendum with a Remain optionFoxy said:
A #peoplesvote bill wouldn't get through Parliament without Remain being an option. Deal might win if it was an AV voting system, depending on the deal.Cyclefree said:I don’t have an issue with a second referendum in principle. But doesn’t it depend on what the choice is?
People might give a different answer depending on whether the question is:-
- Do you want this deal or to leave the EU with no deal at all, including no transition deal?
- Do you want this deal or to Remain?0 -
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.0 -
No advocate of a second referendum can explain who'd propose it or how it would get through Parliament. It would require the Government to propose the legislation, with Theresa May as PM tabling it, and then it would need to pass through Parliament in an environment where Con-DUP still have a majority and are currently trying to pass a series of other complex Brexit bills. Neither do its proponents explain how they'd deal with the EU Withdrawal Act, which makes Brexit now a legal fact in law.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, I agree.
Hmm. May be time to hedge my second referendum bet.
Edited extra bit: think I've done that already, actually...
They assert a second referendum must, or will happen, because they really, really want it to happen. There's no evidence for it.
It's a fantasy, driven by the same coalition of EU flag wavers and luvvies who lost last time, and unpleasant characters like Alastair Campbell, who now think they've got a 2nd bite at the cherry and think if they make enough angry noise about it that will somehow be enough.0 -
Of course, if credit was that restricted and as inflexible today as it was then it would hugely constrain the growth and put home purchase beyond a large segment of society.Cyclefree said:
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
The world has changed.0 -
Remain on what terms? People who advocate remain without setting out what it me@ns in practice (and without having a clear binding agreement from third parties ie the EU) are as much active liars and deceivers as the Johnsons and Moggs.Foxy said:
A #peoplesvote bill wouldn't get through Parliament without Remain being an option. Deal might win if it was an AV voting system, depending on the deal.Cyclefree said:I don’t have an issue with a second referendum in principle. But doesn’t it depend on what the choice is?
People might give a different answer depending on whether the question is:-
- Do you want this deal or to leave the EU with no deal at all, including no transition deal?
- Do you want this deal or to Remain?
Their view of their own moral worth blinds them to their own essential duplicity. It’s the same as allying with the racists of UKIP for a greater good.0 -
It is interesting, and merits more public discussion. There is a rather apple pie tinge to it in that it looks at only one side of the equation. Higher spending without discussing the way the money is raised to any great degree.Cyclefree said:
That IPPR report is interesting. If the Tories or the Lib Dems had any sense they would be looking to it to give them ideas for policies not leaving the ground to malicious idiots like McDonnell. There is quite a lot in that report which chimes with May’s Mansion House speech as PM about helping the struggling middle.Foxy said:
Well, lets see the details.Cyclefree said:
At first glance the idea of workers getting a share of their company’s profits seems very appealing. But then you’re told that you can’t ever cash that in. So no nest egg for your retirement or for your kids or lump of money for you to go off and do your own thing. So what’s the point of that? How does it make an ordinary person’s life any better?Foxy said:
Leaverstan didn't vote to increase globalisation, they voted against it, or thought they did.Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.
McDonnells economic plans may be rather more appealing than the ERG vision.
Oh no, it doesn’t. But it does help those who love to turn up at meetings at 6 pm on a Thursday evening to vote on this, that or the other. McDonnell is selling - under the illusion of control and fair share of profits - a pig in a poke, something that will only benefit activists. Much like the Leavers’ plans.
I do not back McDonnell's economic policy solutions, but he is at least trying to address the questions raised by the IPPR report chaired by Justin Welby earlier this week. These poll widespread support, across most of society, young and old, North and South, educated or not:
https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/unfair-and-in-need-of-reform
It is only human to want to cherry pick the benefits of globalisation, but not its downsides of migration and economic dislocation.0 -
They don't care. They haven't thought it through, and see no reason why they should.matt said:
Remain on what terms? People who advocate remain without setting out what it me@ns in practice (and without having a clear binding agreement from their parties ie the EU) are as much active liars and deceivers as the Johnsons and Moggs.Foxy said:
A #peoplesvote bill wouldn't get through Parliament without Remain being an option. Deal might win if it was an AV voting system, depending on the deal.Cyclefree said:I don’t have an issue with a second referendum in principle. But doesn’t it depend on what the choice is?
People might give a different answer depending on whether the question is:-
- Do you want this deal or to leave the EU with no deal at all, including no transition deal?
- Do you want this deal or to Remain?
Their view of their own moral worth blinds them to their own essential duplicity. It’s the same as allying with the racists of UKIP for a greater good.
They want revenge, and for Leavers to feel as awful and as angry as they have for the last two years.
It should be rightly dismissed for the ruse it is. It would make divisions in this country much worse, not better.0 -
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.Cyclefree said:
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.0 -
Look at the posts on the previous thread showing how he does not understand company structures. McDonnell is cunning and can appear superficially reasonable and plausible. But nonetheless he very frequently does not understand what he is talking about which is why many of his apparent solutions do not survive scrutiny.Yorkcity said:
McDonnell is no idiot.Cyclefree said:
That IPPR report is interesting. If the Tories or the Lib Dems had any sense they would be looking to it to give them ideas for policies not leaving the ground to malicious idiots like McDonnell. There is quite a lot in that report which chimes with May’s Mansion House speech as PM about helping the struggling middle.Foxy said:
Well, lets see the details.Cyclefree said:
At first glance the idea of workers getting a share of their company’s profits seems very appealing. But then you’re told that you can’t ever cash that in. So no nest egg for your retirement or for your kids or lump of money for you to go off and do your own thing. So what’s the point of that? How does it make an ordinary person’s life any better?Foxy said:
Leaverstan didn't vote to increase globalisation, they voted against it, or thought they did.Gardenwalker said:
Why is he surprised?Scott_P said:
It has always been obvious to Remainers that Leave is reheated 90s moonbattery.
McDonnells economic plans may be rather more appealing than the ERG vision.
Oh no, it doesn’t. But it does help those who love to turn up at meetings at 6 pm on a Thursday evening to vote on this, that or the other. McDonnell is selling - under the illusion of control and fair share of profits - a pig in a poke, something that will only benefit activists. Much like the Leavers’ plans.
I do not back McDonnell's economic policy solutions, but he is at least trying to address the questions raised by the IPPR report chaired by Justin Welby earlier this week. These poll widespread support, across most of society, young and old, North and South, educated or not:
https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/unfair-and-in-need-of-reform
That is a bit simple even for you.
He might be a lot of things , but not that.
He is not a genuinely thoughtful man, IMO. And being cunning does not stop you also being an idiot ie of failing to understand what you are talking about, failing to think through the implications of what you propose, failing to learn from experience, failing to take advice from those with more real, expert knowledge than you.
0 -
By all means suggest to my children's’ generation that we go back to the economy of 50 years ago and see how you get on. Be sure to remind them that they cannot use credit or debit cards and that they will be limited as to how much money they can take when they travel abroad. Oh and tell my daughter that in some jobs she would have to resign if she got married and would need her dad or brothers to stand behind her if she wanted to save or have any sort of financial profile. Let us know how you get on.Alistair said:
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.Cyclefree said:
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.0 -
In 1960 the average first time buyer was 23 and paid an inflation adjusted deposit of 12,500 pounds. Now they are 30 and pay a deposit of 20,000. And that 20k is against a background of vastly higher rents.Alistair said:
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.Cyclefree said:
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.0 -
If one takes London (and perhaps the Home Counties out) does that materially change the position? I don’t know, it’s a real question.Alistair said:
In 1960 the average first time buyer was 23 and paid an inflation adjusted deposit of 12,500 pounds. Now they are 30 and pay a deposit of 20,000. And that 20k is against a background of vastly higher rents.Alistair said:
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.Cyclefree said:
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
The centrality of London in public life (be it politicians, business or, perhaps most importantly, media) directly affects public perceptions.
Edit: the age grouping is actively misleading. Perhaps the better time to consider is how long after leaving education. That doesn’t look to have seriously changed.0 -
I managed to get a mortgage in 1963 without having a long term relationship with a building society, although the agent was the ‘family’ solicitor, which made a difference!Alistair said:
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.Cyclefree said:
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
A year before though, I had quite a row with a furniture shop when my (quite new) wife went in to order something, and was told she couldn’t sign an HP agreement; Id have to go in and do it. Unfortunately this was the 60’s, shops still had half days and as a pharmacist mine was the same as the furniture shop.
0 -
You’re cherry picking. How long had those 23 year olds been working before they bought? 5 years? Or 7 if they left school at 16? How many went to to university? How many lived at home until they bought?Alistair said:
In 1960 the average first time buyer was 23 and paid an inflation adjusted deposit of 12,500 pounds. Now they are 30 and pay a deposit of 20,000. And that 20k is against a background of vastly higher rents.Alistair said:
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.Cyclefree said:
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
We clearly need to do something about today’s housing market but nostalgia for the good old days of half a century ago is not the answer.0 -
Not saying it's going to happen but the difficult part, assuming no intervening election, is:Casino_Royale said:
No advocate of a second referendum can explain who'd propose it or how it would get through Parliament. It would require the Government to propose the legislation, with Theresa May as PM tabling it, and then it would need to pass through Parliament in an environment where Con-DUP still have a majority and are currently trying to pass a series of other complex Brexit bills. Neither do its proponents explain how they'd deal with the EU Withdrawal Act, which makes Brexit now a legal fact in law.
1) TMay (or whoever is PM) has to want to do it
2) The Tories (or whoever lead the government) have to let it happen without defenestrating their leader and replacing them with someone who doesn't want to do this
If you grant those I think the rest is all doable. The obvious sequencing is something like:
1) PM tells other EU countries she'd like to hold a re-referendum and requests an extension while it's done, and an assurance that the UK could resume membership if they vote Remain without joining the Euro or giving away Cornwall or whatever.
2) EU Council agrees to an extension, which freezes the EU Withdrawal Act, which has provisions to this effect IIUC
3) PM passes legislation with her majority, minus sundry Tory rebels, plus small parties and Labour Centrist-Dad anti-Corbyn extremists, to hold the referendum, including whatever changes are needed to the EU Withdrawal Act
4) Have the referendum, then leave the EU, or don't, depending on the result0 -
When my wife and I first set up home together in 1962 we paid £2 a week rent, inclusive of rates. Equivalent to £41 today. It was just outside Rochdale, over a ‘corner shop’.matt said:
If one takes London (and perhaps the Home Counties out) does that materially change the position? I don’t know, it’s a real question.Alistair said:
In 1960 the average first time buyer was 23 and paid an inflation adjusted deposit of 12,500 pounds. Now they are 30 and pay a deposit of 20,000. And that 20k is against a background of vastly higher rents.Alistair said:
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.Cyclefree said:
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
The centrality of London in public life (be it politicians, business or, perhaps most importantly, media) directly affects public perceptions.0 -
Of course it does, in the UK outside of London the average property price for first time buyers is £210 000, in London the average property price for first time buyers is £420 000.matt said:
If one takes London (and perhaps the Home Counties out) does that materially change the position? I don’t know, it’s a real question.Alistair said:
In 1960 the average first time buyer was 23 and paid an inflation adjusted deposit of 12,500 pounds. Now they are 30 and pay a deposit of 20,000. And that 20k is against a background of vastly higher rents.Alistair said:
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.Cyclefree said:
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
The centrality of London in public life (be it politicians, business or, perhaps most importantly, media) directly affects public perceptions.
Edit: the age grouping is actively misleading. Perhaps the better time to consider is how long after leaving education. That doesn’t look to have seriously changed.
Just 12% of first time buyers live in London
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-house-prices-first-time-buyers-london-average-deposit-mortgage-a8363736.html?amp0 -
Chequers has already done that.Casino_Royale said:
They want revenge, and for Leavers to feel as awful and as angry as they have for the last two years.0 -
Chuka on Sophy Ridge sounded deflated and rather pathetic with his pleading to Corbyn to call of the dogs.
He is hoping to blackmail Corbyn into accepting a second referendum as his price to ignore the bad things going on.
Where has honesty and morality gone0 -
Of course not. Another feature to put in would be that many young men spent two years National Service, earning nothing, as the majority of those born before October 1939 (21 in 1960) did.Cyclefree said:
You’re cherry picking. How long had those 23 year olds been working before they bought? 5 years? Or 7 if they left school at 16? How many went to to university? How many lived at home until they bought?Alistair said:
In 1960 the average first time buyer was 23 and paid an inflation adjusted deposit of 12,500 pounds. Now they are 30 and pay a deposit of 20,000. And that 20k is against a background of vastly higher rents.Alistair said:
Yet somehow with those terrible lending conditions vastly more under 25 year olds owned their own home than now.Cyclefree said:
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
We clearly need to do something about today’s housing market but nostalgia for the good old days of half a century ago is not the answer.0 -
And that would be the right result, since No Deal is better than a bad deal.Foxy said:
A Deal vs No Deal referendum may well deliver No Deal, so best not ask a silly question!Foxy said:
A #peoplesvote bill wouldn't get through Parliament without Remain being an option. Deal might win if it was an AV voting system, depending on the deal.Cyclefree said:I don’t have an issue with a second referendum in principle. But doesn’t it depend on what the choice is?
People might give a different answer depending on whether the question is:-
- Do you want this deal or to leave the EU with no deal at all, including no transition deal?
- Do you want this deal or to Remain?0 -
Russia is gearing up for its biggest military exercise in decades next week. 300 000 soldiers, 1000 planes and 36 000 tanks will be involved in the exercise taking place in Siberia. China has been invited and is sending 3000 troops.
Apparently a train carrying Chinese troops to the exercise was attacked by locals. The Chinese soldiers opened fire killing three attackers. This is from Chinese social media. Obviously not reported by State media.0 -
If Boris really wants to be the leader of the Tories and PM he needs to show he some ideas for what he would do. There is currenly no positive case he makes to vote for him. His numerous enemies are having a fine time poisoning the well.glw said:
I'm not as outraged as some, but I do think Boris has a habit of acting as though politics is some sort of game. If he really wants to be the leader of the Tories and PM he needs to tone down the rhetoric, not ramp it up. Boris does not act as though the job is a serious one.Gardenwalker said:These new complaints about Boris are so much pearl clutching. He’s a shit, always will be a shit, but he’s doing here what he does well...creating an eye catching metaphor.
He either takes some time to elucidate the foundations of "Borisism" (I know, horribe) or he gives up politics. The best thing he could do is support David Davis as interim Brexit-delivering PM and do some bloody work in the meantime. If he's as bright as he thinks he is, he'll come up with a personal manifesto that will deliver the MPs and members when Davis calls a leadership election to succeed him.
We have had enough of people wanting to be Prime Minister simply because they think they would be quite good at it....0 -
Chuka never exuded either....Big_G_NorthWales said:Chuka on Sophy Ridge sounded deflated and rather pathetic with his pleading to Corbyn to call of the dogs.
He is hoping to blackmail Corbyn into accepting a second referendum as his price to ignore the bad things going on.
Where has honesty and morality gone0 -
Not many comments about Alastair's main point which is the fragmentation of politics. As we see this is commonplace in many countries including Sweden. In the UK we have had shades of it with UKIP and the Greens but by and large FPTP has forced our major parties to be big tents containing a range of views.
What we are seeing inside these parties, however, is the same pressure towards fragmentation. So we have the anti-Semetism row in Labour along with an ongoing civil war between the Corbynites and the remainder of what used to be Labour. In the Tories we have a former FS accusing his own PM of putting a suicide vest on our constitution and the ERG not even able to agree with themselves about what particular fantasy they want to promote.
I think we have to wonder how long can the centre of these deeply divided parties hold? The chance of a real split on both sides of the aisle is far from insignificant and only the savage penalties of FPTP have prevented it happening already.
Why is this happening? My tentative theory is that modern media, the 24 hour news culture and the ability of the internet to bring together groups who agree about almost anything play a part. As people play to these groups they demonstrate their intolerance of others because that is what distinguishes them and all too often gives them a purpose. We need to find ways of giving what we agree on more attention than the silly rows and splits. It's not going to be easy.0 -
My first 'proper' job was in a building society (this was '80). We had HMG-set mortgage rates and a mortgage quota (iirc, it was 300k per month). Hence, waiting lists for mortgages.Casino_Royale said:
Of course, if credit was that restricted and as inflexible today as it was then it would hugely constrain the growth and put home purchase beyond a large segment of society.Cyclefree said:
50 years or so ago you had to save a deposit for a number of years with the same building society before asking them for a mortgage and could only borrow 3 or maybe 3.25 your income. Credit of all kinds was very much more limited than it is now. If you couldn’t afford something you went without. Consumer goods were not changed every few weeks on a whim. Women could not get a mortgage without a man backing them.Alistair said:
Average age of first property purchase half a century ago and today?Vinny said:Mr Meeks, just because an increasing number of people don't believe in the liberal-left concensus any more, does not make them extreme, a position implied by your use of the term 'far right.' Can you not see the effects of half a century of excessive social benefits and human 'rights?' We live in a society turned upside down, where attainment and ownership means little, and in which our children are damaged by an all-pervading expectation of entitlement.
Expectation and entitlement, chortle.
Very few of today’s generation would want to go back to the economy of 50 years ago, whatever comparison might be made with the average age of first time buyers.
The world has changed.0 -
The only point of a second referendum IMO is to allow Leave voters, who now realise they were sold a pup, to change their minds. It needs to be driven by former Leave voters. So far there aren't enough of them. The rest voted for the "suicide belt" and by implication still support it.0
-
I bought my first flat in 1984 in my first year of work as a trainee solicitor. In those days establishment firms such as I worked for had a deal with building societies which entitled them to as much in the way of mortgage funds each month as they had on deposit with them on behalf of executories, trusts and investors. It gave them a huge competitive advantage because even if other smaller firms could undercut them in fees they really struggled to get them a mortgage. I also frankly wonder whether there was more than a hint of a conflict of interest on the part of the solicitors who might otherwise have invested those funds elsewhere such as the stock market for better returns.John_M said:
My first 'proper' job was in a building society (this was '80). We had HMG-set mortgage rates and a mortgage quota (iirc, it was 300k per month). Hence, waiting lists for mortgages.Casino_Royale said:
So the market was rigged, uncompetitive, did not protect the interests of savers and favoured vested interests. OTOH it kept me employed. What we have now is vastly superior.0 -
Michael Gove has definitely been conspicuous by his absence from the media over the summer. He appears to be getting on with the day job, in a department that is going to be directly affected by leaving the EU more than almost any other.NickPalmer said:
Leaving aside personal preference, I'm impressed both by Michael Gove and his counterpart Sue Hayman, the two environment front-benchers who I frequently have dealings with. My impression is that some of the others on both sides are pretty good too. I think you're going too much by the headful of front-benchers who get lots of media coverage. There is a correlation here - the more moon-battery you are, the more the media likes to cover you. Serious attention to your portfolio is not regarded as worth reporting.OldKingCole said:
Seconded. It’s partly at least the effect of SPADs being picked as candidates.SouthamObserver said:If you combine the talents of the government and opposition front benches, there are currently just two adults on show: Keir Starmer and Philip Hammond. The studentification of British politics is just about complete - and it’s disastrous.
I also think he’s a great bet if we do get a leadership contest, I don’t see how Boris has more than a handful of MPs supporting him any more.0
