politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling Matters / Political Betting Podcast with Ed Milband

First!

It's too late to listen to the whole thing, so I shall declare it pretty interesting/moronic/greatest thing since sliced bread, though I felt Keiran/Stewart's argument on [insert topic here] to be insightful/inciting.

Good night all.

foxinsoxuk said:

JWisemann said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JWisemann said:

He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.

And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.

I shall be a doctor long after Jezza is deposed as leader!

- and Dunwoody is proud!

foxinsoxuk said:

JWisemann said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JWisemann said:

He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.

And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.

I shall be a doctor long after Jezza is deposed as leader!

The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long!

JWisemann said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JWisemann said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JWisemann said:

He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.

And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.

I shall be a doctor long after Jezza is deposed as leader!

The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long!

I had a friend who always wanted to see his name in lights, so he changed his name to filament.

FPT:

A majority of Labour voters at the general election preferred Britain in 1985 to Britain today according to this report:

"This earthquake in social attitudes, the key to our political landscape, was captured in a little-noticed poll of 12,000 voters on election day by Lord Ashcroft, the Tory peer. The vast majority - 71 per cent - of Tory voters sensibly agreed that “overall, life in Britain is better than it was 30 years ago”. Shockingly, despite the substantial improvements to medical technology, incomes and life expectancy of the past 30 years, 51 per cent of Labour supporters disagreed. To them, 1985 was a better time, despite the unavailability of so many of the goods and services we now take for granted, the violent strikes, the Brixton race riots, the discrimination, the limited opportunities for women and of course the crippling 11.4 per cent rate of unemployment."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11854403/A-bright-new-optimism-is-sweeping-Britain-and-it-hails-from-the-Right.html#comment-2245013983

Two more stories about Hillary's travails - one on her farcical reboot, the other on the emails:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/hiilary-reboot/404398/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/09/senior_intelligence_officials_said_128022.html

The interesting thing about the latter is its thesis that senior intelligence officials are engaged in systematic leaking of damaging revelations about the emails, with the aim of setting Hillary up for prosecution. If that is true, then things could get really bad for her.

AndyJS said:

FPT:

A majority of Labour voters at the general election preferred Britain in 1985 to Britain today according to this report:

UK number 1 thirty years ago this week!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9G4jnaznUoQ

SirBenjamin said:

Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!

RobD said:

SirBenjamin said:

Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!

Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.

RobD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.

Would you like a wine suggestion with each stage also?

Sounds like a plan!

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

SirBenjamin said:

Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!

Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

You all miss the point. What the poll shows is that a Labour pensioner would like to be 30 years younger, whilst a Tory pensioner feels just fine the way they are.

Five hours of voting left before the selectorate usher in The Labour Party: The Jeremy Corbyn Years Weeks.....

This contains some of the details of the announcements etc: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11848265/Labour-leadership-When-will-the-winner-be-announced.html

Although I am presuming the idea that there could be any "winner" from this shambles is intentionally ironic. Certainly there will be no win for the Labour party.

JWisemann said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JWisemann said:

He went to a grammar school, which is obviously of massive interest.

Presumably via the 11+? Yet he went on to very poor A levels and then flunked out at Neasden Poly. What further evidence do we need that the 11+ is not a good selection method.

And yet here he is about become leader of one of the country's two big political parties and you're just a doctor! Just goes to show A Levels aren't everything.

That Corbyn is about to win the election has little to do with the man himself. He's simply been the conduit for his views and its they that'll have him elected.

The measure of the ability of the man will be his performance in office.

Of course, his apologists will claim he'll be unfairly treated by the 'Tory press' and others. Bollocks. Firstly, it's not a Tory press: any badly performing party leader will get the same kind of treatment - see John Major. It's not the Tories' fault that every Labour leader since Foot bar Blair and possibly Smith has been weird, useless or downright dangerous. Them's the rules of the game: if you don't like them, don't enter. It's the same for everyone and - as has been shown - they don't necessarily always apply anyway.

Secondly, his past is not a surprise. If specific incidents are, their nature could easily have been predicted.

Thirdly, in fact it was predicted. Labour is going to have to deal with the fact that most of their senior figures are already on record as describing their soon-to-be-leader as "unelectable".

Fourthly, Corbyn has never run anything in his life and has consciously run from responsibility. He might surprise in office; he might not. But Labour chose a pig-in-a-poke in that respect over two former cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers. If it turns out badly, that was always a strong possibility from taking such a blind gamble on poor odds.

And the list goes on but there's only so much space here.

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

SirBenjamin said:

Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!

Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

SirBenjamin said:

Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!

Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

We are a very blessed generation. The last of the Baby Boomers. Many things are better now than they were, but the world is also much smaller, more competitive and harsh. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful, but they have also stripped aeay layers of well paid jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

philiph said:

JosiasJessop said:

RobD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.

Would you like a wine suggestion with each stage also?

Sounds like a plan!

The problem is you need popcorn too. The date of the first challenge to the result is unknown.

Doesn't that actually revolve about who wins and by how much? A v small margin would indeed produce orders for popcorn, perhaps for months, meanwhile Labour continue to be paralysed. What not to like?
The bad thing would be that the hectoring and shrill Harperson might have to say on , and I've heard enough from the old windbag to last me a lifetime.

DavidL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

SirBenjamin said:

Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!

Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

Personally speaking, life was great in the 80s and for different reasons it is great now. But I do worry greatly about what future my kids face. There is a housing crisis, much greater competition for fewer well paid jobs, student debt and so on. I am sure things will work out for them, but they have to worry about stuff that never crossed my mind, while the safety net I could fall back on has been greatly restricted over the last couple of decades and could almost completely have disappeared for the under 25s by the end of this Parliament.

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?

Spot on.

DavidL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

SirBenjamin said:

Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!

Not Leicester South either! I think it is the same desire as we see with Corbynism. The purity of opposition without any real likelihood of having to implement anything. All the moral purity but all the advantages of a Tory government too.

The 1980's were also the last period when we had net emigration from the UK...

It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties.

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?

Doctors and Lawyers will always do well. We are very adept at finding new work to do when the old stuff becomes obsolete. There is some truth in GBS's quote that all professions are conspiracies against the general public. But there are a whole raft of previously stable white collar careers that have become a lot more precarious due to globalisation. Still better than being down the mine I suppose.

Someone remarked the other day following the death of David Nobbs that the reason that the remake of Reggie Perin failed was not so much the actors and script, but rather down to the central theme of being trapped in a suffocating white collar job for 30 years no longer having any resonance.

One reason Fox jr is so pro EU is that he wants the option of living and working there, it may be the only place he can afford a house of his own.

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

Personally speaking, life was great in the25s by the end of this Parliament.

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?

I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.

Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

You may well have others in mind.

Innocent_Abroad said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

Personally speaking, life was great in the25s by the end of this Parliament.

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?

I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.

Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

You may well have others in mind.

All out atomic war? That was a spectre that hovered over the eighties but gone now.

Good morning, everyone.

FPT [seems there was a bit of activity after I left]: Mr. T, excellent Greek reference.

Mr. Tyson, the policy of the UK would still be correct even if we did let the views of foreign nations weigh heavily in the scales. Merkel's policy is to blame, a siren call that will see many hundreds/thousands more die needlessly, whilst enriching people smugglers (including those who fund ISIS) and creating a potentially unstable, even explosive, situation in the EU.

There's a reason borders exist.

The Sun's headline was not created by the Government, or the armed forces, or the vast majority of Britons who support the killing of murderous terrorists who sought to orchestrate terrorism in the UK.

I don't believe in dehumanising migrants. I don't want more of them to place their life savings and their lives in the hands of people traffickers, risking death making dangerous journeys. I also don't believe in Germany dictating policy to the whole EU.

Mr. F, I've long been of the view that the EU is unsustainable (trying to apply a one-size-fits-all, undemocratic approach to various nation states). I'd still be surprised if this is what breaks it, but it does show the system up.

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

We are a very blessed generation. The last of the Baby Boomers. Many things are better now than they were, but the world is also much smaller, more competitive and harsh. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful, but they have also stripped aeay layers of well paid jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

OTOH we are a very blessed generation, the younger generations of today. Many things are better than they were, the world is much smaller, more competitive and open. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful and we have also stripped away layers of obsolete jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

Besides having to pay for the unfunded pensions of Baby Boomers and the debt of Brown etc such that interest payments are a considerable burden we do not have much to complain about.

EDIT: I'm 33 and a father, am I allowed to still consider myself part of the younger generations?

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?

I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.

I see even large companies hollowing themselves out with ever fewer direct employees. Even local government is doing this now. The Reggie Perin point by fox seems spot on to me.

As far as law is concerned I fear that two trends are causing problems. Firstly, a lot of traditional legal work is being deskilled, conveyancing being an obvious example, reducing the work. Secondly, intelligent software is having an ever bigger impact on the job and the skill set required.

These trends have made law firms completely different animals from what they were 30 years ago. Getting to stay around until what might be thought of as a normal retirement age is becoming increasingly unusual.

Law firms have changed but equally, and you may be removed from this, the American influence means that if you can continue to generate billables you can stay for longer. For example, Reed Smith has a formal retirement age in the mid70s. in essence it's far more performance related than it was 30 years ago.

Scott_P said:

Nice line

@politicshome: Priti Patel tells @PolhomeEditor Labour has spent the summer "cementing their irrelevance". http://t.co/zfo8Nhy85r http://t.co/jvRpk28XO5

Excellent line. The labour Party now seems to now exist solely for its own self-indulgence. It isn't listening to those who would elect it.

They are locked in a world where they are pandering to an electorate they wish existed, rather the one that does.

david_herdson said:

The threat of imminent nuclear annihilation - Reagan and the Cold War and all that - or on a more local level, IRA bombings are two. Industrial relations are far better, despite the odd strike on the Underground. You could also probably expand the list of medical improvements greatly but you're right that the threat of AIDS was hyped greatly in retrospect.

I'm sure others could add to the list but I need to go off to work now.

I'm not sure the threat of AIDS was hyped too greatly, Africans certainly may take issue with that claim. Plus there is the fact that safe sex has become far more common as a result of the AIDS scare which in itself helps not just prevent the spread of it between the two people involved in having safe sex but any possible future sexual partners too. A kind of "herd immunity".

In a counterfactual without the AIDS scare, there is every possibility AIDS in Europe could have been every bit as devastating as it is on Africa.

Philip_Thompson said:

david_herdson said:

The threat of imminent nuclear annihilation - Reagan and the Cold War and all that - or on a more local level, IRA bombings are two. Industrial relations are far better, despite the odd strike on the Underground. You could also probably expand the list of medical improvements greatly but you're right that the threat of AIDS was hyped greatly in retrospect.

I'm sure others could add to the list but I need to go off to work now.

I'm not sure the threat of AIDS was hyped too greatly, Africans certainly may take issue with that claim. Plus there is the fact that safe sex has become far more common as a result of the AIDS scare which in itself helps not just prevent the spread of it between the two people involved in having safe sex but any possible future sexual partners too. A kind of "herd immunity".

In a counterfactual without the AIDS scare, there is every possibility AIDS in Europe could have been every bit as devastating as it is on Africa.

Don't worry, Philip. David and I have a long history of misquoting each other on here.

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Does anyone have an outline of the timetable of the next few days, i.e. when the various results are planned to be announced? TIA.

Would you like a wine suggestion with each stage also?

If Sadiq Khan wins the London gig then perhaps a soft drink so as not to offend muslim sensibilities. For Jezza then something deep red from the Seventies perhaps a Bulgarian Claret. It may be a little pat its best but that would be compensated for by its socialist origins. If Watson gets elected as nonce-finder general then surely only a draught of hemlock is required?

No.

Jezza was a Frisky Socialist once.

Babycham.

Innocent_Abroad said:

david_herdson said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?

I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.

Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

You may well have others in mind.

The threat of imminent nuclear annihilation - Reagan and the Cold War and all that - or on a more local level, IRA bombings are two. Industrial relations are far better, despite the odd strike on the Underground. You could also probably expand the list of medical improvements greatly but you're right that the threat of AIDS was hyped greatly in retrospect.

I'm sure others could add to the list but I need to go off to work now.

Bless you. I never worried about nukes after the Cuba crisis passed of peacefully, and never understood why other people didn't take the same view (usually turned out they had some military connection or other!). In fact I worry about them far more now, what with Da'esh & co.

Industrial relations are not better - strikes are effectively illegal, which is not at all the same thing.

Which is why the Tube Drivers never go on strike. Oh wait.

It seems to me that Mr Tebbit saved the Trades Unions from their somewhat mad leaderships by forcing them to be a little more democratic.

Deciding strike action by mass meetings where those making the wrong vote could be victimised later belongs in the dustbin of history.

In many cases we are in the same position now.

JEO said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

We are a very blessed generation. The last of the Baby Boomers. Many things are better now than they were, but the world is also much smaller, more competitive and harsh. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful, but they have also stripped aeay layers of well paid jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

OTOH we are a very blessed generation, the younger generations of today. Many things are better than they were, the world is much smaller, more competitive and open. The internet, digitisation, cheap travel etc are wonderful and we have also stripped away layers of obsolete jobs that no longer need to be done by humans.

Besides having to pay for the unfunded pensions of Baby Boomers and the debt of Brown etc such that interest payments are a considerable burden we do not have much to complain about.

EDIT: I'm 33 and a father, am I allowed to still consider myself part of the younger generations?

One major difference is that the majority of people who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s could realistically expect to buy their own property. That is a shrinking prospect for many young people today, many of whom have to spend a third or more of their income on rent.

Thatcher's great achievement was to bring about a property-owning democracy of people who felt they had a stake in society, who in turn fell into conservative thinking and voting patterns. It will be a great failure of the current government if they allow that to collapse. It will end in the majority of the public being in council housing (and thus having a socialist state-dependent mentality) or private rentals (and thus wanting the state to protect them from the capitalist class).

It's not enough to have a few flagship policies you can talk about on the doorstep when questioned on the issue. You have to actually increase the number of houses per capita in the country or our culture will shift. That means adding substantially to the housing stock or limiting population growth.

That's my concern.

I don't really share the worries of those who think we're heading for mass unemployment or poorly paid employment. Similar concerns have been around since the industrial revolution - the economy simply restructures around different services and more leisure. I do agree that careers in future will be more flexible and unpredictable, but that can be liberating and interesting rather than worrying.

But the affordability of housing is a big issue, particularly for the Conservatives, and there will be troue ahead if it's not tackled.

Serious question.

What legal action can be taken against the Labour Party given that they are an unincorporated association?

I don't think they can be sued, and it is limited to breaches of the rule book by internal appeal.

@IsabelOakeshott: Jon Cruddas casts doubt on very future of Labour Party. V bleak assessment. "It could just collapse" @BBCr4today

@BBCJLandale: Jon Cruddas warns Corbyn-led Labour could be an "early 80s Trotskyist tribute act" that collapses in front of electorate @BBCr4today

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

When I think back on when I started out doing what I do now - we used to lay pages out on grids by cutting out galleys sent to us by typesetters. We used to send them back by messenger to get the proofs then send these to the printers. We dealt with four or five different companies (typesetters, messengers, printers) who all went through a multitude of processes, most of which involved skilled, well-paid individuals. Now a couple of people do it all on computer.

Are you saying that's a good or a bad thing? I'd say its a good thing, Luddites (not saying you are one) have complained about the loss of obsolete jobs since the 19th century but we don't all need to be pre-industrial textile weavers.

The Luddite (and later Swing riots) were quite a complex response to industrialisation. I think that it was very much in line with Marx's thinking on the alienation of the workers from the means of production. Prior to the Luddites most of the textile workers were self employed outworkers often doing some cloth work from home. The industrialisation of the textile industry was a large part of the creation of an urban working class. In the end it was the home workers of the world who were put out of business by the exported goods of England.

http://www.luddites200.org.uk/theLuddites.html

What we see now is the reversal of the alienation process, with the cheap textiles coming from abroad, and the British worker having to adapt back to the pre-Luddite existence of self employment, working from home and regaining control over how and when they work.

Scott_P said:

@BBCJLandale: Jon Cruddas warns Corbyn-led Labour could be an "early 80s Trotskyist tribute act" that collapses in front of electorate @BBCr4today

On at your local working man's club for only £3.

Innocent_Abroad said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

Personally speaking, life was great in the25s by the end of this Parliament.

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?

I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.

Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

You may well have others in mind.

Cultural change - e.g. tolerance of homosexuality (both on a personal level and legally)

I quite agree on housing. We are hugely failing anyone under 45 as a country.

Other than houses, most things in this country are not difficult or expensive. But housing makes life very difficult for people under 45. We are not short of space as a country. It's only the antiquated planning system we stick to that makes housing almost impossible to build where people want to live. One day, we'll reform it. Can't come soon enough.

YBarddCwsc said:

rottenborough said:

RodCrosby said:

DavidL said:

RodCrosby said:

DavidL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

SirBenjamin said:

Why do Labour voters prefer a time when the country was more Tory than ever before or since?!? 'Son, it were a truly great time. We didn't hold Barrow, we didn't hold Luton, we didn't even hold Lewisham East'...

And the height of Thatcherism, no less. They sure like it up 'em!!

Psnip

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

snip

In other words, things are falling apart.

Society has become too complex to be sustainable.

No, not falling apart, probably richer and with a higher standard of living overall. But far less predictable, far less secure, far less tolerant of those of limited abilities or who make mistakes, just a lot more brutal. We have seen the casualisation of work for the poorly qualified and paid already and how hard that makes their lives. We shall see this spread up into the professions.

It will be interesting to see what such a society does to peoples' politics.

'Overall' and averages mean nothing. The fact is the UK is a more unequal place, whether measured by income, health or life expectancy than ever before, at least since 1918.

This cannot be true in any real sense. One only has to read of people's ordinary, lived experiences in, say 1920s or 30s, to question the meaning of these kinds of stats, which may be right in some technical way but fail to capture something. Look, for example, at Alan Silitoe's description of life in rented slums in 1930s. Or Orwell.

I think your general point is true, but Sillitoe was post-war.

He wrote of 1950s Nottingham.

I was actually thinking of his memories of growing up in an early time. He came from a desperately poor background in pre-war slum Nottingham. You right though, the books are set in 1950s - things we looking a bit brighter by then, at least for skilled workers who liked to drink ten pints on Saturday night.

Charles said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

It's not a huge surprise that supporters of the governing party have a more positive outlook on the present than supporters of other parties. Presumably they support the government because they like what the government does. For a lot of other voters things perhaps look less good. Given that, it's understandable that they believe things were better in the past, when they were younger and not yet beaten down. Do we know what the findings were for UKIP voters and those for other parties, or was this just a Labour/Tory thing? It may turn out that overall the 71% of optimistic Tories are the minority overall. They are less than 30% of those who voted in May.

Personally speaking, life was great in the25s by the end of this Parliament.

I agree. Fox jr faces a much less rosy future than I did 30 years ago. But many things are better too.

The main differences I see are the lack of structure and predictability. 30 odd years ago there were lots of stable and predictable jobs for life, you as a doctor and I as a lawyer. For my children the idea of a stable, single career seems absurd. There are lots of opportunities out there, probably more than ever, but they seem somewhat ephemeral.

I therefore see a lack of financial security and stability for my children which is worrying. How do you fund mortgages in such a world? How do they bring up their own families on such a roller coaster? How much strain will continue to be on the bank of Mum and Dad?

I'm not sure that's true. I remember being told the same thing when I was at school and yet now at my own place of work I see people retiring having worked for the company for 30, 35, 40 or more years, and of people in their thirties who've worked for the company for ten years or more and expect and intend to stay for the rest of their career. True, they won't necessarily be doing the exactly same thing for that whole career but that was true in the 1980s too, or the 1960s, or the 1860s. You update your skills and work-related knowledge throughout.

Certainly society has changed and there are new uncertainties but at the same time old ones have faded or gone away entirely.

Care to expand, David? The only ones that I can think of that have "faded or gone away" are medical - HIV+ is manageable for example.

You may well have others in mind.

Cultural change - e.g. tolerance of homosexuality (both on a personal level and legally)

I have a London-centric view, so would date that change earlier. May well have been different in the sticks!

Philip_Thompson said:

On Labour's leadership I'm not remotely convinced that Corbyn is dead set for the leadership. The polls are meaningless, there have only been two and not for a month - and even then YouGov haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently.

Noise on Twitter etc is utterly irrelevant when it comes to voting, as again was shown at the election.

My current gut estimate of the chances is ~50% Corbyn, ~40% Cooper, ~10% Burnham and ~0% Kendall (Cooper boosted to final round due to Kendall's early elimination).

You may find this analysis interesting (and hopefully), if you've not already seen it:

http://labourlist.org/2015/09/the-leadership-result-is-going-to-be-closer-than-you-think/

Philip_Thompson said:

On Labour's leadership I'm not remotely convinced that Corbyn is dead set for the leadership. The polls are meaningless, there have only been two and not for a month - and even then YouGov haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently.

Noise on Twitter etc is utterly irrelevant when it comes to voting, as again was shown at the election.

My current gut estimate of the chances is ~50% Corbyn, ~40% Cooper, ~10% Burnham and ~0% Kendall (Cooper boosted to final round due to Kendall's early elimination).

Cooper has next to no chance in the final round due to more Burnham voters p referencing Corbyn than Cooper voters yougov is taking a risk leaving its final poll a month old though agreed

Innocent_Abroad said:

Bless you. I never worried about nukes after the Cuba crisis passed of peacefully, and never understood why other people didn't take the same view (usually turned out they had some military connection or other!)

The world was incredibly fortunate during the Cold War, there were far, far more bombs, many of them on alert (launch on warning), and the safe guards were in some cases non-existant and a best nothing like as robust as those used on more modern weapons.