politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on will Boris Johnson still be Foreign Secretary of th

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on will Boris Johnson still be Foreign Secretary of the 1st of January 2018

William Hill have a market up on whether Boris Johnson will still be Foreign Secretary on the 1st of January 2018.

Read the full story here

tlg86

First like Arsenal!

RobD

Glorious second, like Remain!

CarlottaVance

Third! Like Scottish Labour....

tlg86

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

CarlottaVance

As someone wryly observed to me a few weeks ago Theresa May is Mrs Thatcher without the warmth, people skills, or election winning nous

And how is George? Not thrilled over his forty eight point favourability gap vs Mrs May?

rkrkrk

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

rkrkrk

In other news... England currently 139-1 to win against India....

CarlottaVance

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

Well, if your hero lagged the PM in favourability ratings by forty eight points what would you do?

CarlottaVance

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

That's already been noted:

Cameron was known to have a taste for Savile Row tailor Richard James, whose suits can cost more than £3,100 ($3,900), during his first few years in office. Later, perhaps as austerity measures took hold in Britain, another tailor – named Geoffrey Golding – was pictured leaving 10 Downing Street. Golding's suits cost a slightly more reasonable £2,000 ($2,500) or so.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/theresa-may-s-995-trousers-sparked-debate-but-david-cameron-s-suits-cost-much-more-a7462891.html

TheScreamingEagles

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

Link please.

CarlottaVance

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

Link please.

They were on Dave's suits before he became PM:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/6291362/The-curious-case-of-David-Camerons-suit.html

DecrepitJohnL

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

For Mrs Thatcher, it may have been the reverse: patrician sneering at how cheap her was her wardrobe and did she buy everything from M&S?

For all that Conservatives look back on Mrs Thatcher's administrations as some sort of golden age of government, the reality is that she was in more-or-less open conflict with the party, her Cabinet and especially her Chancellors of the Exchequer. Blair/Brown feuding had nothing on Thatcher/Lawson.

Back to this week. Should Morgan have said it? Maybe not, but it is the petulant overreaction by Theresa May (or possibly just her over-promoted assistants) that is the story.

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

Link please.

In 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/6291362/The-curious-case-of-David-Camerons-suit.html

In 2015

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910707/2k-suit-tailor-helping-PM-beat-squeeze-Speculation-fresh-cuts-Cameron-s-wardrobe-suit-maker-seen-entering-Number-10.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11435689/David-Cameron-I-wear-MandS-clothes-so-I-dont-stand-out.html


In 2016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/6291362/The-curious-case-of-David-Camerons-suit.html

JosiasJessop

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

Link please.

From 2009:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/6291362/The-curious-case-of-David-Camerons-suit.html

From 2015:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910707/2k-suit-tailor-helping-PM-beat-squeeze-Speculation-fresh-cuts-Cameron-s-wardrobe-suit-maker-seen-entering-Number-10.html

etc, etc.

ISTR many conversations on here about Cameron's hair, and whether a parting meant he was trying to hide hair loss. Or something like that. It seemed to matter to some people to a rather odd degree.

JosiasJessop

Snap, with TSE.

DecrepitJohnL

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

And with Jeremy Corbyn and his scruffiness.

tlg86

Thanks for the links. FWIW I really don't care what politicians wear or how much it costs. I think it's one thing to have the press gossiping about the clothes politicians are wearing, it's quite another to have Tory MPs doing it. That's why Nadine Dorries's attack on Cameron and Osborne was so out of order. I don't care if they don't know the price of milk, that's not what they were being paid a lot of money to know. The same is true with May. Morgan should keep her gob shut.

felix

A disappointing thread. Really time for TSE to move on from the petty anti-Brexit backbiting at every opportunity. Just all a bit boring - speaking as a 'Remainer' i have no doubt that the biggest dangers to the country now lie with Corbyn's Labour and Farron's LD along with talk of a 'progressive alliance against Brexit. But silly sniping within the party is helping no-one - not least does it demean TSE. As for Bojo, I hope BJWNBPM!

MarqueeMark

DecrepitJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

For Mrs Thatcher, it may have been the reverse: patrician sneering at how cheap her was her wardrobe and did she buy everything from M&S?

For all that Conservatives look back on Mrs Thatcher's administrations as some sort of golden age of government, the reality is that she was in more-or-less open conflict with the party, her Cabinet and especially her Chancellors of the Exchequer. Blair/Brown feuding had nothing on Thatcher/Lawson.

Back to this week. Should Morgan have said it? Maybe not, but it is the petulant overreaction by Theresa May (or possibly just her over-promoted assistants) that is the story.

Morgan has nothing left to lose. She had ridiculously overblown notions of her own abilities (sounding out about running for leader? really?) and having had a short stint in Cabinet, that looks as high up the greasy pole as she is going to get.

She and Soubry look like embittered members of a post-Brexit First Wives Club.

surbiton

Will BJ be Foreign Secretary on January 1st, 2017 ? After all, he is the first Foreign Secretary of HMG who does not speak for the government when abroad.

tlg86

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

And with Jeremy Corbyn and his scruffiness.

I think that's slightly different. Perhaps it's unfair, but we have an expectation that our politicians are well presented. FWIW I think the criticism of Michael Foot was unfair, but I think Corbyn's appearance when he first became leader was not of the required standard.

TCPoliticalBetting

felix said:

A disappointing thread. Really time for TSE to move on from the petty anti-Brexit backbiting at every opportunity. Just all a bit boring - speaking as a 'Remainer' i have no doubt that the biggest dangers to the country now lie with Corbyn's Labour and Farron's LD along with talk of a 'progressive alliance against Brexit. But silly sniping within the party is helping no-one - not least does it demean TSE. As for Bojo, I hope BJWNBPM!

Why do the more vociferous Remainers carry on with these bitter resentments?

TheScreamingEagles

felix said:

A disappointing thread. Really time for TSE to move on from the petty anti-Brexit backbiting at every opportunity. Just all a bit boring - speaking as a 'Remainer' i have no doubt that the biggest dangers to the country now lie with Corbyn's Labour and Farron's LD along with talk of a 'progressive alliance against Brexit. But silly sniping within the party is helping no-one - not least does it demean TSE. As for Bojo, I hope BJWNBPM!

A betting thread is demeaning ? It's a view I suppose

surbiton

DecrepitJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

For Mrs Thatcher, it may have been the reverse: patrician sneering at how cheap her was her wardrobe and did she buy everything from M&S?

For all that Conservatives look back on Mrs Thatcher's administrations as some sort of golden age of government, the reality is that she was in more-or-less open conflict with the party, her Cabinet and especially her Chancellors of the Exchequer. Blair/Brown feuding had nothing on Thatcher/Lawson.

Back to this week. Should Morgan have said it? Maybe not, but it is the petulant overreaction by Theresa May (or possibly just her over-promoted assistants) that is the story.

She is a control-freak. That's the problem. The biggest concern for her is immigration, we are led to believe. Guess who presided over the Home Office for the last six years ? The non-EU migration was entirely in her control.

She is basically incompetent. Tries to cover it up with control-freakery.

Sandpit

Morning. I'd say there's more value on the 6/4 than the 1/2, after all he could leave his post as part of a more general reshuffle, and there's always the chance of an election next year if Mrs May finds herself cornered by the small majority and sitting on a massive polling lead. Or it could just be that Boris stays being Boris, and forget's he's supposed to be dimplomatic as FS.

Sandpit

Oh, and if anyone laid the draw in the cricket, now is the time to get out. India are 579/7 at lunch, will probably declare once Yadav gets his ton (he's eight short) but there's only a day and a half for the second innings of both sides.

All moot if England throw themselves away for 100 again, but the draw's definitely a plausible result here.

surbiton

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

Nicky Morgan was not wrong - at the time she said it. Theresa May is pretending she understands the concerns of the JAM's - then shows off part of her expensive wardrobe albeit a hideous pair of leather pants. Lycra may have been more interesting.

You haven't heard the last of this.

surbiton

Sandpit said:

Oh, and if anyone laid the draw in the cricket, now is the time to get out. India are 579/7 at lunch, will probably declare once Yadav gets his ton (he's eight short) but there's only a day and a half for the second innings of both sides.

All moot if England throw themselves away for 100 again, but the draw's definitely a plausible result here.

England could lose TODAY !! Ashwin and Jadeja will make this [same ] pitch talk.

MarqueeMark

TCPoliticalBetting said:

felix said:

A disappointing thread. Really time for TSE to move on from the petty anti-Brexit backbiting at every opportunity. Just all a bit boring - speaking as a 'Remainer' i have no doubt that the biggest dangers to the country now lie with Corbyn's Labour and Farron's LD along with talk of a 'progressive alliance against Brexit. But silly sniping within the party is helping no-one - not least does it demean TSE. As for Bojo, I hope BJWNBPM!

Why do the more vociferous Remainers carry on with these bitter resentments?

Difficult to adjust to being on the wrong side of history...

surbiton

tlg86 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

And with Jeremy Corbyn and his scruffiness.

I think that's slightly different. Perhaps it's unfair, but we have an expectation that our politicians are well presented. FWIW I think the criticism of Michael Foot was unfair, but I think Corbyn's appearance when he first became leader was not of the required standard.

Tight leather trousers are OK, I take it for someone 60 years of age ?

tlg86

surbiton said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

Nicky Morgan was not wrong - at the time she said it. Theresa May is pretending she understands the concerns of the JAM's - then shows off part of her expensive wardrobe albeit a hideous pair of leather pants. Lycra may have been more interesting.

You haven't heard the last of this.

Out of interest, do you think Ed Miliband or any other Labour politician genuinely understands the concerns of the "JAMs"?

TCPoliticalBetting

MarqueeMark said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

felix said:

A disappointing thread. Really time for TSE to move on from the petty anti-Brexit backbiting at every opportunity. Just all a bit boring - speaking as a 'Remainer' i have no doubt that the biggest dangers to the country now lie with Corbyn's Labour and Farron's LD along with talk of a 'progressive alliance against Brexit. But silly sniping within the party is helping no-one - not least does it demean TSE. As for Bojo, I hope BJWNBPM!

Why do the more vociferous Remainers carry on with these bitter resentments?

Difficult to adjust to being on the wrong side of history...

Sad but true.

Sandpit

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Oh, and if anyone laid the draw in the cricket, now is the time to get out. India are 579/7 at lunch, will probably declare once Yadav gets his ton (he's eight short) but there's only a day and a half for the second innings of both sides.

All moot if England throw themselves away for 100 again, but the draw's definitely a plausible result here.

England could lose TODAY !! Ashwin and Jadeja will make this [same ] pitch talk.

Quite easily, at 200 behind there's a reasonable chance of an innings defeat for England! The visitors are now 200 on Betfair!!!

tlg86

surbiton said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

And with Jeremy Corbyn and his scruffiness.

I think that's slightly different. Perhaps it's unfair, but we have an expectation that our politicians are well presented. FWIW I think the criticism of Michael Foot was unfair, but I think Corbyn's appearance when he first became leader was not of the required standard.

Tight leather trousers are OK, I take it for someone 60 years of age ?

They're not tight! I think they look perfectly fine.

TheScreamingEagles

14 Very Real Superpowers All Northerners Have

We're basically grittier X-Men.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/KarlMercer/15-superpowers-all-northerners-have

CarlottaVance

surbiton said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

And with Jeremy Corbyn and his scruffiness.

I think that's slightly different. Perhaps it's unfair, but we have an expectation that our politicians are well presented. FWIW I think the criticism of Michael Foot was unfair, but I think Corbyn's appearance when he first became leader was not of the required standard.

Tight leather trousers are OK, I take it for someone 60 years of age ?

Why wouldn't they be?

Ask Mick Jagger.....he's 73.....

rkrkrk

JosiasJessop said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

Link please.

From 2009:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/6291362/The-curious-case-of-David-Camerons-suit.html

From 2015:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910707/2k-suit-tailor-helping-PM-beat-squeeze-Speculation-fresh-cuts-Cameron-s-wardrobe-suit-maker-seen-entering-Number-10.html

etc, etc.

ISTR many conversations on here about Cameron's hair, and whether a parting meant he was trying to hide hair loss. Or something like that. It seemed to matter to some people to a rather odd degree.

Fair enough- clearly they do write about it for David Cameron.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

14 Very Real Superpowers All Northerners Have

We're basically grittier X-Men.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/KarlMercer/15-superpowers-all-northerners-have

That, and the power to comprehend AV? You have been truly blessed, sir!

peter_from_putney

TSE - Far and away your best written thread header for quite some time and it's good to see you back on the betting front, where once you were very active .... it's how PB.com first developed and still what it does best.

Sandpit

tlg86 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

And with Jeremy Corbyn and his scruffiness.

I think that's slightly different. Perhaps it's unfair, but we have an expectation that our politicians are well presented. FWIW I think the criticism of Michael Foot was unfair, but I think Corbyn's appearance when he first became leader was not of the required standard.

It's a bit like the comments about senior govt ministers and their red boxes travelling first class on the train. Well of course they should, and of course the PM should be getting his or her suits from Saville Row.

Corbyn still needs a severe dragging through a decent tailor, although getting him as far as M&S for a suit was quite an achievement for his staff.

DecrepitJohnL

On-topic: is 2018 a typo by Hills and do they mean 2017 ?

The market closes at the end of 2016 which suggests 2017 was intended.

MarqueeMark

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

14 Very Real Superpowers All Northerners Have

We're basically grittier X-Men.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/KarlMercer/15-superpowers-all-northerners-have

That, and the power to comprehend AV? You have been truly blessed, sir!

But Northerners have a marked reluctance to share that particular super-power....

OldKingCole

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Charles

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

The lack of discipline among MPs is extraordinary.

No one benefited from that interview except Nicky Morgan feeling important and the Sun getting a cheap front page.

Why do politicians feel the need to big themselves up: they should be there to serve their constituents and the country, not make bitchy remarks about colleagues in search of a headline

JosiasJessop

rkrkrk said:

JosiasJessop said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

Link please.

From 2009:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/6291362/The-curious-case-of-David-Camerons-suit.html

From 2015:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910707/2k-suit-tailor-helping-PM-beat-squeeze-Speculation-fresh-cuts-Cameron-s-wardrobe-suit-maker-seen-entering-Number-10.html

etc, etc.

ISTR many conversations on here about Cameron's hair, and whether a parting meant he was trying to hide hair loss. Or something like that. It seemed to matter to some people to a rather odd degree.

Fair enough- clearly they do write about it for David Cameron.

It's typical of the sneering comments that prominent people are subject to, whatever their gender or position. A pop star has a small bump - OMG! is she getting fat or is she just pregnant! A politician has a different hairstyle - OMG! is he losing his hair, and are you aware there's been no bald PM since 1832?

etc, etc.

The stories rarely, if ever, have any substance of note to anyone other than the target.

And yes, I do it as well at times. Sadly.

CarlottaVance

felix said:

A disappointing thread. Really time for TSE to move on from the petty anti-Brexit backbiting at every opportunity. Just all a bit boring - speaking as a 'Remainer' i have no doubt that the biggest dangers to the country now lie with Corbyn's Labour and Farron's LD along with talk of a 'progressive alliance against Brexit. But silly sniping within the party is helping no-one - not least does it demean TSE. As for Bojo, I hope BJWNBPM!

Disagree.

While TSE's anti-May line has worn more than a little bit thin, the relationship of the PM with her Foreign Secretary - and recent stories suggesting significant strains - make this a more than worthy topic for a thread.

I also agree with TSE - May & Johnson need each other - so no doubt will soldier on - Boris does not strike me as a drama queen a la Heseltine, so no storming off in a huff.

May does need to rein in her aides.

Morgan is an over-promoted dimwit with a grossly inflated sense of her own importance.

JosiasJessop

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

The lack of discipline among MPs is extraordinary.

No one benefited from that interview except Nicky Morgan feeling important and the Sun getting a cheap front page.

Why do politicians feel the need to big themselves up: they should be there to serve their constituents and the country, not make bitchy remarks about colleagues in search of a headline

Why does anyone big themselves up; it's a trait that's hardly reserved for politicians.

Perhaps it is healthy for politicians to speak freely about things and how they feel: at the very least, such free talking showed the country the real Leadsom and prevented that loathsome individual (*) from becoming PM.

For that reason alone, such interviews are to be commended.

(*) For the sake of some posters' blood pressure, I refrained from using the word 'witch' in connection with her.

Sandpit

Yadav out for 104, but India carry on. They're obviously playing for the innings defeat now. 611/8, 211 ahead.

tlg86

JosiasJessop said:

rkrkrk said:

JosiasJessop said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

But @rkrkrk is quite right to point out the sexism angle. Nobody mentions how much a male politician's suit costs, do they?

They do. Did it with Dave and his poshness

Link please.

From 2009:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/6291362/The-curious-case-of-David-Camerons-suit.html

From 2015:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910707/2k-suit-tailor-helping-PM-beat-squeeze-Speculation-fresh-cuts-Cameron-s-wardrobe-suit-maker-seen-entering-Number-10.html

etc, etc.

ISTR many conversations on here about Cameron's hair, and whether a parting meant he was trying to hide hair loss. Or something like that. It seemed to matter to some people to a rather odd degree.

Fair enough- clearly they do write about it for David Cameron.

It's typical of the sneering comments that prominent people are subject to, whatever their gender or position. A pop star has a small bump - OMG! is she getting fat or is she just pregnant! A politician has a different hairstyle - OMG! is he losing his hair, and are you aware there's been no bald PM since 1832?

etc, etc.

The stories rarely, if ever, have any substance of note to anyone other than the target.

And yes, I do it as well at times. Sadly.

But MPs shouldn't be the ones gossiping!

CarlottaVance

Nick Cohen on May:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/11/nick-cohen-theresa-may-interview-brexit?CMP=soc_3156

TheScreamingEagles

DecrepitJohnL said:

On-topic: is 2018 a typo by Hills and do they mean 2017 ?

The market closes at the end of 2016 which suggests 2017 was intended.

Definitely 2018 they tweeted it as such.

https://twitter.com/sharpeangle/status/807558116854431745

tlg86

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Interesting, thank you. I suppose what the author doesn't mention is that this is, primarily, a London issue. To a certain extent it's symptom of London being a global city. The Guardian might not like to talk about it, but immigration is adding to the pressure on housing, as is the fact that people are living longer.

rkrkrk

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.
I did not realise tax rates were so low back then. Seems like that generation had low taxes and then high social spending once they got old!

Sandpit

Sandpit said:

Yadav out for 104, but India carry on. They're obviously playing for the innings defeat now. 611/8, 211 ahead.

Kholi finally out for 235 - England are going to have to do a lot of batting to save this one from here.

ydoethur

This looks like one of those awkward pitches to get in on. Cook, Pujara and Ali all had middling scores, but two were out shortly after breaks. Everyone else has either failed or cashed in.

So if England's batsmen can get in, they will salvage a draw.

And if pigs could fly, we'd all be carrying reinforced umbrellas.

Sandpit

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Interesting, thank you. I suppose what the author doesn't mention is that this is, primarily, a London issue. To a certain extent it's symptom of London being a global city. The Guardian might not like to talk about it, but immigration is adding to the pressure on housing, as is the fact that people are living longer.

I'm waiting for the day the Guardian argues that taxes on the JAMs are too high, that massive house building is required or that immigration levels are unsustainable. I think it will be a long wait.

ydoethur

CarlottaVance said:

Morgan is an over-promoted dimwit with a grossly inflated sense of her own importance.

She is - ironically for someone who bangs on endlessly about sexism - the classic example of someone who got where she was because of her gender. If a man were this useless, he wouldn't even have been selected for a seat. But because Cameron needed more women in Parliament, she was picked up by Loughborough. Sort of like a Diane Abbott, only without the unthinking racism thrown in.

rkrkrk

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Interesting, thank you. I suppose what the author doesn't mention is that this is, primarily, a London issue. To a certain extent it's symptom of London being a global city. The Guardian might not like to talk about it, but immigration is adding to the pressure on housing, as is the fact that people are living longer.

I'm waiting for the day the Guardian argues that taxes on the JAMs are too high, that massive house building is required or that immigration levels are unsustainable. I think it will be a long wait.

1. I can imagine guardian coming around on.
2. I think they are in favour of massive housebuilding.
3. Not going to happen.

ydoethur

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Intrigued to see in that article that his daughter's 'take home pay' from £25,000 gross is £1600 a month. When I was on £25,000, it was only £1500. Admittedly I had higher student loan costs, but not that much higher.

I'm wondering if she's not paying into a pension. That's the only way I can account for the difference. In which case, there's another time bomb right there.

Sandpit

India 631ao, 231 lead with a day and a half to go. Now do England bat to score or defend for the draw?

Sandpit

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Intrigued to see in that article that his daughter's 'take home pay' from £25,000 gross is £1600 a month. When I was on £25,000, it was only £1500. Admittedly I had higher student loan costs, but not that much higher.

I'm wondering if she's not paying into a pension. That's the only way I can account for the difference. In which case, there's another time bomb right there.

Massive increase in personal allowance since 2010.

ydoethur

India all out for 631.

Autocorrect changed 'all out' to 'all over', which India certainly are with regard to England.

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Intrigued to see in that article that his daughter's 'take home pay' from £25,000 gross is £1600 a month. When I was on £25,000, it was only £1500. Admittedly I had higher student loan costs, but not that much higher.

I'm wondering if she's not paying into a pension. That's the only way I can account for the difference. In which case, there's another time bomb right there.

Massive increase in personal allowance since 2010.

This was no longer ago than July.

CD13

Mr Cole,

"On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking piece in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson."

His father earned £1300 pa in 1963? Very much a well-off middle class person then. The average wage then was between £8 and £10 a week. His salary was the equivalent of £25,000 now? Not the 10,000 pa equivalent most people would have lived on

But in the real world, foreign holidays were unknown, people rode bikes not cars, and kids' clothes were hand-me-downs not designer labels, no one had a phone and the Four Yorkshiremen sketch hadn't been written.

But this was the golden generation supposedly?

OldKingCole

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Interesting, thank you. I suppose what the author doesn't mention is that this is, primarily, a London issue. To a certain extent it's symptom of London being a global city. The Guardian might not like to talk about it, but immigration is adding to the pressure on housing, as is the fact that people are living longer.

I would agree, if by ‘London” you mean much at least of the Home Counties. My grandson (etc) live and work in SE Essex.
Locally, at any rate, immigration doesn’t appear to be adding to pressures, but of course there’s always a ripple effect.

foxinsoxuk

JosiasJessop said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

The lack of discipline among MPs is extraordinary.

No one benefited from that interview except Nicky Morgan feeling important and the Sun getting a cheap front page.

Why do politicians feel the need to big themselves up: they should be there to serve their constituents and the country, not make bitchy remarks about colleagues in search of a headline

Why does anyone big themselves up; it's a trait that's hardly reserved for politicians.

Perhaps it is healthy for politicians to speak freely about things and how they feel: at the very least, such free talking showed the country the real Leadsom and prevented that loathsome individual (*) from becoming PM.

For that reason alone, such interviews are to be commended.

(*) For the sake of some posters' blood pressure, I refrained from using the word 'witch' in connection with her.

Nicky Morgan is a good MP, one of the best of my local ones. She was very much a Cameroon and Remainer.

I do not like May's taste in clothes. Her hunched shoulders and marabou stork*walk mean that clothes hang badly on her. She would benefit from some deportment lessons.

May makes too many enemies in her party and too few friends. Her first cabinet was managed with excessive malice. Morgan and May were at the same cabinet table for years, as was Osborne and Cameron, to whom she owed her position yet did not speak to after becoming PM. A reshuffle was nessecary, but these would all have been useful people for advice. May has been nursing her wrath for years to keep it warm.

rkrkrk

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

When I moved into a flat in London with two friends - all our parents appalled when they saw the ex council small flat costing us c. 25,000/year. We were delighted to have reduced our commute and thought we had a bargain!

tlg86

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Intrigued to see in that article that his daughter's 'take home pay' from £25,000 gross is £1600 a month. When I was on £25,000, it was only £1500. Admittedly I had higher student loan costs, but not that much higher.

I'm wondering if she's not paying into a pension. That's the only way I can account for the difference. In which case, there's another time bomb right there.

Very good spot.

ydoethur

CD13 said:

Mr Cole,

"On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking piece in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson."

His father earned £1300 pa in 1963? Very much a well-off middle class person then. The average wage then was between £8 and £10 a week. His salary was the equivalent of £25,000 now? Not the 10,000 pa equivalent most people would have lived on

But in the real world, foreign holidays were unknown, people rode bikes not cars, and kids' clothes were hand-me-downs not designer labels, no one had a phone and the Four Yorkshiremen sketch hadn't been written.

But this was the golden generation supposedly?

It's intriguing to note as well that if I plug those numbers into Measuring Worth (which is a fantastic website I use a lot for teaching) I come up with a real wage equivalent of £54k, not 25.

In other words, his point is somewhat undermined by the fact that while prices have rocketed, real wages have halved.

tlg86

OldKingCole said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Interesting, thank you. I suppose what the author doesn't mention is that this is, primarily, a London issue. To a certain extent it's symptom of London being a global city. The Guardian might not like to talk about it, but immigration is adding to the pressure on housing, as is the fact that people are living longer.

I would agree, if by ‘London” you mean much at least of the Home Counties. My grandson (etc) live and work in SE Essex.
Locally, at any rate, immigration doesn’t appear to be adding to pressures, but of course there’s always a ripple effect.

In some respects Essex is the final frontier as it's one of the more affordable areas around London. It may only be anecdotal at the moment, but the shambles on Southern Rail is starting to hurt house prices in Sussex.

DecrepitJohnL

ydoethur said:

CD13 said:

Mr Cole,

"On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking piece in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson."

His father earned £1300 pa in 1963? Very much a well-off middle class person then. The average wage then was between £8 and £10 a week. His salary was the equivalent of £25,000 now? Not the 10,000 pa equivalent most people would have lived on

But in the real world, foreign holidays were unknown, people rode bikes not cars, and kids' clothes were hand-me-downs not designer labels, no one had a phone and the Four Yorkshiremen sketch hadn't been written.

But this was the golden generation supposedly?

It's intriguing to note as well that if I plug those numbers into Measuring Worth (which is a fantastic website I use a lot for teaching) I come up with a real wage equivalent of £54k, not 25.

In other words, his point is somewhat undermined by the fact that while prices have rocketed, real wages have halved.

Surely that is his point?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I detest auto-play video/audio ads.

Might Boris resign? If he thinks he can find a noble cause, he might try that.

AlastairMeeks

If Theresa May intends to keep alienating colleagues she needs a bigger majority. So the rumour that she might be considering a snap election makes sense.

tlg86

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

CD13 said:

Mr Cole,

"On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking piece in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson."

His father earned £1300 pa in 1963? Very much a well-off middle class person then. The average wage then was between £8 and £10 a week. His salary was the equivalent of £25,000 now? Not the 10,000 pa equivalent most people would have lived on

But in the real world, foreign holidays were unknown, people rode bikes not cars, and kids' clothes were hand-me-downs not designer labels, no one had a phone and the Four Yorkshiremen sketch hadn't been written.

But this was the golden generation supposedly?

It's intriguing to note as well that if I plug those numbers into Measuring Worth (which is a fantastic website I use a lot for teaching) I come up with a real wage equivalent of £54k, not 25.

In other words, his point is somewhat undermined by the fact that while prices have rocketed, real wages have halved.

Surely that is his point?

I thought the author's point was that on a modest wage the father could buy a property. Today, he wouldn't be able to. Perhaps a better measure would be where that puts you in percentile terms?

OldKingCole

rkrkrk said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

When I moved into a flat in London with two friends - all our parents appalled when they saw the ex council small flat costing us c. 25,000/year. We were delighted to have reduced our commute and thought we had a bargain!

When I first got married in the early 60’s we lived in a small flat over and behind a corner shop just outside Rochdale. The rent was £2 per week, inclusive, and apparently the landlord, who lived next door and ran the corner shop was happy.
Our first house in SE Essex afew yars later cost £3000.

Sandpit

rkrkrk said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Interesting, thank you. I suppose what the author doesn't mention is that this is, primarily, a London issue. To a certain extent it's symptom of London being a global city. The Guardian might not like to talk about it, but immigration is adding to the pressure on housing, as is the fact that people are living longer.

I'm waiting for the day the Guardian argues that taxes on the JAMs are too high, that massive house building is required or that immigration levels are unsustainable. I think it will be a long wait.

1. I can imagine guardian coming around on.
2. I think they are in favour of massive housebuilding.
3. Not going to happen.

Having thought about this for a bit, it will be an interesting intellectual exercise to wonder who the Guardian actually think of as JAMs, as opposed to who the government sees in that group.

Mrs May won't see young single graduates in London in that category at all, she's targeting Middle England with families and jobs, who have housing but struggle for any more than the basics and the occasional luxury or holiday.

Neither give a rat's arse about the Daily Mail caricature, of the family on £150k paying out school fees and agonising about whether they can afford Christmas in Dubai as well as half term in Courcheval this year!

Morris_Dancer

F1: intriguing suggestion Lowe might go from Mercedes to Williams:
https://twitter.com/LauraLeslie23/status/807681809504997377

Could help their prospects in 2018 onwards (too late to do much to do the 2017 car, I suspect).

Sandpit

Jennings you muppet. Quack, quack.

AlastairMeeks

The Guardian journalist elides the point that his father was in his late 30s in 1963 while his daughter is now 25.

rkrkrk

OldKingCole said:

rkrkrk said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

When I moved into a flat in London with two friends - all our parents appalled when they saw the ex council small flat costing us c. 25,000/year. We were delighted to have reduced our commute and thought we had a bargain!

When I first got married in the early 60’s we lived in a small flat over and behind a corner shop just outside Rochdale. The rent was £2 per week, inclusive, and apparently the landlord, who lived next door and ran the corner shop was happy.
Our first house in SE Essex afew yars later cost £3000.

I met a colleague in rural Wales whose mortgage was the same as my share of rent. About 700/month i think. Except he had a four bedroom house.

tlg86

Sandpit said:

Jennings you muppet. Quack, quack.

Very South African today!

Sandpit

tlg86 said:

Sandpit said:

Jennings you muppet. Quack, quack.

Very South African today!

Hopefully Cook and Root can see out this session and look to build a decent partnership into the evening. If at least one of this pair can't put on a good score, England are screwed.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, depends. Conservative MPs may think that disunity will diminish the next electoral result, and possibly cost them (individually) seats. Plus, the departure from the EU will be a difficult process politically.

Some may prefer May to take the pain of that, get a good result over Chairman Corbyn, then throw her overboard right after the next election.

Not that I'm suggesting the Conservative Party's approach to leadership is akin to 4th century Macedon's approach to kingship...

Edited extra bit: 4th century BC*, of course.

Innocent_Abroad

AlastairMeeks said:

If Theresa May intends to keep alienating colleagues she needs a bigger majority. So the rumour that she might be considering a snap election makes sense.

She needs her own mandate.

foxinsoxuk

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Interesting, thank you. I suppose what the author doesn't mention is that this is, primarily, a London issue. To a certain extent it's symptom of London being a global city. The Guardian might not like to talk about it, but immigration is adding to the pressure on housing, as is the fact that people are living longer.

I'm waiting for the day the Guardian argues that taxes on the JAMs are too high, that massive house building is required or that immigration levels are unsustainable. I think it will be a long wait.

1. I can imagine guardian coming around on.
2. I think they are in favour of massive housebuilding.
3. Not going to happen.

Having thought about this for a bit, it will be an interesting intellectual exercise to wonder who the Guardian actually think of as JAMs, as opposed to who the government sees in that group.

Mrs May won't see young single graduates in London in that category at all, she's targeting Middle England with families and jobs, who have housing but struggle for any more than the basics and the occasional luxury or holiday.

Neither give a rat's arse about the Daily Mail caricature, of the family on £150k paying out school fees and agonising about whether they can afford Christmas in Dubai as well as half term in Courcheval this year!

Middle England is Sleaford, rather than the Great Wen. Houses are quite affordable there:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION^1216&numberOfPropertiesPerPage=24&radius=0.0&sortType=1&index=0&viewType=LIST&areaSizeUnit=sqft&currencyCode=GBP

That is where the JAMs are, in Leaverstan rather than Remania, and certainly not in a taxfree Gulf Emirate.

Worth noting too that the seminal film about the housing crisis in London was made in the Sixties- "Cathy Come Home". There are plenty of rose tinted glasses about this morning.

My parents bought their first house (Kent 1967) 7 years after getting married. In their first flat in London in 1960, they lived on the 4th floor without stairs and a tea chest and orange boxes for table and chairs. When they moved into their new house all their worldly possessions fitted in three tea chests. Standards of living and possessions were very different then.

ydoethur

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

CD13 said:

Mr Cole,

"On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking piece in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson."

His father earned £1300 pa in 1963? Very much a well-off middle class person then. The average wage then was between £8 and £10 a week. His salary was the equivalent of £25,000 now? Not the 10,000 pa equivalent most people would have lived on

But in the real world, foreign holidays were unknown, people rode bikes not cars, and kids' clothes were hand-me-downs not designer labels, no one had a phone and the Four Yorkshiremen sketch hadn't been written.

But this was the golden generation supposedly?

It's intriguing to note as well that if I plug those numbers into Measuring Worth (which is a fantastic website I use a lot for teaching) I come up with a real wage equivalent of £54k, not 25.

In other words, his point is somewhat undermined by the fact that while prices have rocketed, real wages have halved.

Surely that is his point?

I may have misunderstood but I thought his point was to compare his father's lifestyle with his daighter's, on the mistaken assumption they were earning equivalent wages. I was pointing out that he was wrong although it depends on exactly what measure you use.

However, as Pagan was pointing out on the last thread, £54k still ain't necessarily enough to live well in London. Although as others have discussed, that's an issue in the SE. Round here, it gets you a very nice lifestyle (because everyone else is flat broke).

Morris_Dancer

Just on 'worse off' as a result of leaving the EU: this isn't an easy thing to measure. Suppose GDP declines 1%, but a majority of people see no change or their circumstances improve*. Does that count as worse off? It's the antithesis of the globalisation problem whereby a nation becomes richer due to higher profits from lower bills via either downward wage pressure from migrants or simply shipping jobs overseas, but ordinary people become worse off for those same reasons.

*I've bracketed those whose circumstances do not change with those who gain on the basis of the wording used (namely those who end up worse off might oppose leaving the EU).

ydoethur

rkrkrk said:

OldKingCole said:

rkrkrk said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

When I moved into a flat in London with two friends - all our parents appalled when they saw the ex council small flat costing us c. 25,000/year. We were delighted to have reduced our commute and thought we had a bargain!

When I first got married in the early 60’s we lived in a small flat over and behind a corner shop just outside Rochdale. The rent was £2 per week, inclusive, and apparently the landlord, who lived next door and ran the corner shop was happy.
Our first house in SE Essex afew yars later cost £3000.

I met a colleague in rural Wales whose mortgage was the same as my share of rent. About 700/month i think. Except he had a four bedroom house.

Llandudno and Llangefni are pockets of affluence in areas of high deprivation.

Why? Because they are county towns and a high proportion of their residents are council workers. They have national pay scales and live in the cheapest parts of the country. What's barely a living wage in London is wealth beyond the dreams of avarice in Anglesey.

The moral of this story is, if you are on a national pay scale (i.e. in the public sector) - work where it's cheap to live.

RochdalePioneers

May won't call an election by choice. She'll call it because she doesn't have a majority. It doesn't matter what her paper majority is or that she can probably call on the DUP. In 15/16 the government struggled to get anything of substance through the Commons.

She has something rather substantial to get through and mass disagreement in her own ranks...

Charles

JosiasJessop said:

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Our current PM is in a very different situation to Mrs T. I'm too young to remember, but I doubt a Tory MP would have been so rude as to talk about how much the PM's clothes cost. But it's a sign of the times that the likes of Morgan feel no inhibitions when it comes to such things. I don't think the Osbornites have quite acclimatised to the new political order and are lashing out at everything they can.

I thought it was pretty outrageous. Fair enough to disagree on policy but why would you make such a remark about your party leader? Seriously petty and just the sort of thing journalists love.

And yes I think it does have a sexism angle - I wonder how much David Cameron's suit cost...

The context was Mrs May had just given an interview about the JAMs and was it wise to do so wearing £995 trousers doing so.

That was Nicky Morgan's point.

As an aside I think Nicky Morgan is wrong, you don't need to put on the sackcloth and ashes when talking about those less fortunate than yourself, it is the petty, childish response from Mrs May and her staff that is so alarming.

The lack of discipline among MPs is extraordinary.

No one benefited from that interview except Nicky Morgan feeling important and the Sun getting a cheap front page.

Why do politicians feel the need to big themselves up: they should be there to serve their constituents and the country, not make bitchy remarks about colleagues in search of a headline

Why does anyone big themselves up; it's a trait that's hardly reserved for politicians.

Perhaps it is healthy for politicians to speak freely about things and how they feel: at the very least, such free talking showed the country the real Leadsom and prevented that loathsome individual (*) from becoming PM.

For that reason alone, such interviews are to be commended.

(*) For the sake of some posters' blood pressure, I refrained from using the word 'witch' in connection with her.

Fine for them to speak about policy and things that are within the scope of her job.

"The PM is a rich woman with a bad taste in trousers" doesn't fall within that category.

AlastairMeeks

Even after a decade of decline, owner occupancy rates were far higher in 2011 than in 1961 (and the opposite for renting):

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/a-century-of-home-ownership-and-renting-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-housing.html

I expect the statistics for 1963 and 2016 would tell the same story.

Charles

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Intrigued to see in that article that his daughter's 'take home pay' from £25,000 gross is £1600 a month. When I was on £25,000, it was only £1500. Admittedly I had higher student loan costs, but not that much higher.

I'm wondering if she's not paying into a pension. That's the only way I can account for the difference. In which case, there's another time bomb right there.

Higher personal allowance?

tlg86

ydoethur said:

rkrkrk said:

OldKingCole said:

rkrkrk said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

When I moved into a flat in London with two friends - all our parents appalled when they saw the ex council small flat costing us c. 25,000/year. We were delighted to have reduced our commute and thought we had a bargain!

When I first got married in the early 60’s we lived in a small flat over and behind a corner shop just outside Rochdale. The rent was £2 per week, inclusive, and apparently the landlord, who lived next door and ran the corner shop was happy.
Our first house in SE Essex afew yars later cost £3000.

I met a colleague in rural Wales whose mortgage was the same as my share of rent. About 700/month i think. Except he had a four bedroom house.

Llandudno and Llangefni are pockets of affluence in areas of high deprivation.

Why? Because they are county towns and a high proportion of their residents are council workers. They have national pay scales and live in the cheapest parts of the country. What's barely a living wage in London is wealth beyond the dreams of avarice in Anglesey.

The moral of this story is, if you are on a national pay scale (i.e. in the public sector) - work where it's cheap to live.

What's odd is that I'm in the civil service in London and I know people who think their London weighting means that they're earning far more than civil servants in the provinces. Furthermore, you shouldn't underestimate how much people like living in and around London. If I didn't come from Woking, and couldn't live with my parents, I wouldn't voluntarily move to work in London for anything less than £75k a year.

ydoethur

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Intrigued to see in that article that his daughter's 'take home pay' from £25,000 gross is £1600 a month. When I was on £25,000, it was only £1500. Admittedly I had higher student loan costs, but not that much higher.

I'm wondering if she's not paying into a pension. That's the only way I can account for the difference. In which case, there's another time bomb right there.

Higher personal allowance?

Why would she have a higher personal allowance than me? Is there an adjustment for London?

DecrepitJohnL

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

CD13 said:

Mr Cole,

"On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking piece in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson."

His father earned £1300 pa in 1963? Very much a well-off middle class person then. The average wage then was between £8 and £10 a week. His salary was the equivalent of £25,000 now? Not the 10,000 pa equivalent most people would have lived on

But in the real world, foreign holidays were unknown, people rode bikes not cars, and kids' clothes were hand-me-downs not designer labels, no one had a phone and the Four Yorkshiremen sketch hadn't been written.

But this was the golden generation supposedly?

It's intriguing to note as well that if I plug those numbers into Measuring Worth (which is a fantastic website I use a lot for teaching) I come up with a real wage equivalent of £54k, not 25.

In other words, his point is somewhat undermined by the fact that while prices have rocketed, real wages have halved.

Surely that is his point?

I may have misunderstood but I thought his point was to compare his father's lifestyle with his daighter's, on the mistaken assumption they were earning equivalent wages. I was pointing out that he was wrong although it depends on exactly what measure you use.

However, as Pagan was pointing out on the last thread, £54k still ain't necessarily enough to live well in London. Although as others have discussed, that's an issue in the SE. Round here, it gets you a very nice lifestyle (because everyone else is flat broke).

A lot depends on how you compare wages. Inflation is not uniform. His father could afford more houses but his daughter can afford a television in every room. Wandering slightly further off-topic, the Prime Minister was paid £10,000 before the war, which would be around half a million today, so a lot of the headlines that X earns more than the prime minister are due to the PM's salary having dropped markedly. The Cabinet got half that, so even by that measure, today's PM is underpaid.

rkrkrk

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Intrigued to see in that article that his daughter's 'take home pay' from £25,000 gross is £1600 a month. When I was on £25,000, it was only £1500. Admittedly I had higher student loan costs, but not that much higher.

I'm wondering if she's not paying into a pension. That's the only way I can account for the difference. In which case, there's another time bomb right there.

Higher personal allowance?

Why would she have a higher personal allowance than me? Is there an adjustment for London?

Now there's a vote winner!

ydoethur

rkrkrk said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking pice in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson (https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2016/dec/10/sixties-pay-people-earned-less-but-could-afford-more).
Chimes with my own experience and that of my grandson who, with his fiancee is saving for a house.

Collinson makes the point that my grandson, and his partner pay a lot more tax, proportionately, than I did.

Intrigued to see in that article that his daughter's 'take home pay' from £25,000 gross is £1600 a month. When I was on £25,000, it was only £1500. Admittedly I had higher student loan costs, but not that much higher.

I'm wondering if she's not paying into a pension. That's the only way I can account for the difference. In which case, there's another time bomb right there.

Higher personal allowance?

Why would she have a higher personal allowance than me? Is there an adjustment for London?

Now there's a vote winner!

Yes, if Corbyn put that forward, it would unquestionably sway many votes. He'd win every seat in London and the Conservatives would secure the greatest landslide victory since 1931.