Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The inter-generational gap: The Pinch and the Punch

1356

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    What we need to do is the same thing we've needed to do for years.

    And that's rebalance the economy so that endless billions don't flow out of the country.

    This person said it well in 2010:

    ' And at the moment we borrow money from the Chinese in order to buy the things that the Chinese make for us. '

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8489984.stm

    And in 2010 the UK had a current account deficit of £60bn, by 2016 that had increased to £115bn.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/hbop/pnbp

    Overseas holders of UK government debt comes in at 27%.

    http://www.dmo.gov.uk/documentview.aspx?docname=publications/quarterly/apr-jun17.pdf&page=Quarterly_Review
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited October 2017
    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.
    Ithink the Spanish goverment think if Catolonia was to achieve independace then who next, the Basque Region, Galacia even Valencia (unlikely imo) the shadow of Franco still lingers and infuences decisions be it a fear of it returning or as an excuse to make it happen.
    Oh I agree and the shadow of the Spanish Civil War does indeed still linger over the country, not least because there was no reckoning for so many people because of the way in which all the atrocities of the period were concreted over both during Franco's reign and after the restoration of democracy.

    But the bottom line is that that is no excuse for this sort of behaviour. I do believe the right of self determination is one of the most important features of real democracy and that if a region wishes to break away they should be allowed to do so. Obviously the same principle applies to Scotland but it would equally apply to Cornwall or Brittany.

    The Spanish Government at the moment are managing to do just about every single thing wrong both morally and practically and the states of the EU should be condemning rather than condoning.
    I do believe it would have been a better approach if they had said "have your referendum but unless those voting yes amounted to more than 50% of the ecetrorate we will ignore it"
    They could even have gone further than that and said they would ignore it no matter what the result as it was illegal. I would not agree with them but it would have been a valid response and one to be fought out through courts and public opinion. The use of force to prevent an expression of public opinion is simply wrong on every level.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Eye, dissolution of nation states would be taken as a reason to centralise power and try to foster a European sense of nationhood. It'd help, rather than harm, EU ideologues, I think.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.
    Ithink the Spanish goverment think if Catolonia was to achieve independace then who next, the Basque Region, Galacia even Valencia (unlikely imo) the shadow of Franco still lingers and infuences decisions be it a fear of it returning or as an excuse to make it happen.
    Oh I agree and the shadow of the Spanish Civil War does indeed still linger over the country, not least because there was no reckoning for so many people because of the way in which all the atrocities of the period were concreted over both during Franco's reign and after the restoration of democracy.

    But the bottom line is that that is no excuse for this sort of behaviour. I do believe the right of self determination is one of the most important features of real democracy and that if a region wishes to break away they should be allowed to do so. Obviously the same principle applies to Scotland but it would equally apply to Cornwall or Brittany.

    The Spanish Government at the moment are managing to do just about every single thing wrong both morally and practically and the states of the EU should be condemning rather than condoning.
    I do believe it would have been a better approach if they had said "have your referendum but unless those voting yes amounted to more than 50% of the ecetrorate we will ignore it"
    If they had said - " You can have your referendum but we will totally ignore it" then it would have got little publicity and probably a low turnout.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    edited October 2017

    kle4 said:


    If the numbers are not large why is foreign ownership being a thing a problem?

    Because at the margin, you have locals competing with bottomless pockets from abroad (often money from dubious sources).

    Foreign investment in London housing does us no particular favours, unlike other forms of FDI. It simply puts us in hock to rentiers from abroad.
    Take the point that selling flats to foreigners (who can and do keep some empty as buy to leave) isn't exactly a great way of helping the housing problem. However, if a flat is rented it's still plus one to the supply - but a negative on the balance of payments of course.

    However, also to bear in mind-

    Those advocating confiscating flats and houses in the Grenfell area ( not suggesting you are) need to be mindful that if some of those are foreign owned we will be adding "international incident" to a tragedy.

    Taking fresh air and putting bricks and glass around it and flogging it for half a million to foreigners is a pretty neat way of financing a trade deficit (while it lasts).
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    kle4 said:

    My impression - I wouldn't claim it's scientifically based - is that it's a mistake to think that younger voters can be appeased by some improvements to housing policy or cuts in tuition fees. The insurgency of the 18-50 generations is more a attitudinal phenomenon - they are just tired of bleak austerity with no end in sight, and want a government that seems to offer some hope of what they feel would be a better society.

    That's why attacks on the affordability of Labour's student fee policy don't really cut through - people appreciate the intention, and have priced in that it might need to be phased in etc.

    Have students appreciated this? What's the evidence.

    Every party in Opposition (Tories, Labour, LibDems) believed in free tuition fees.

    In Government, every party has failed to deliver this. And false promises on this destroyed Nick Clegg.

    I think you're wrong. This is Jeremy's signature policy. It will have to be delivered. Or Jeremy will go the way of Clegg.
    Yes, but to politicians the risk of that is worth it in order to get in in the first place. They always assume something will co e up and future them will figure it out.
    I understand that. But, I think the reputational damage to Jeremy if he doesn't deliver free tuition fees in the first few months of his administration will be enormous.

    He'll be though of as "just another lying politician, like all the rest".

    His brand will be trashed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    In Catalonia the Spanish state is doing exactly as the Catalan separatists had hoped. The pig-headed, obstinate stupidity of the Spanish nationalist PP will deliver Catalan independence:
    https://twitter.com/mstothard/status/914385341917876224

    These are not great graphics are they? Catalan support for independence will be much higher after today.

    I am not too sure about that. But what the pictures will do is move international opinion. And for the separatists that is what really matters right now.

    Now reports of rubber bullets being fired at people trying to vote in Barca.
    Imagine if David Cameron had refused to allow a Scottish independence refererendum and ordered the police to fire rubber bullets at Yes and SNP supporters in Glasgow in 2014 and that is the equivalent of what the Spanish government are doing this morning in Barcelona
    Yes, I have thought of that and the conclusion I came to was that even I, one of the staunchest Unionists on these boards, would not want to be a part of a country that behaves like that. I suspect that until today a significant percentage of Catalans were not that motivated one way or another. By the end of today that may well have changed.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,721
    OchEye said:

    nichomar said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.
    Ithink the Spanish goverment think if Catolonia was to achieve independace then who next, the Basque Region, Galacia even Valencia (unlikely imo) the shadow of Franco still lingers and infuences decisions be it a fear of it returning or as an excuse to make it happen.
    The regions of France, Italy, Netherlands, the Landers of Germany and others would be encouraged to try and secede. The administration of the now 27 is difficult enough - how much more "fun" would it be for a hundred or so.....
    IIRC the late Anthony Sampson wrote a book (?The New Europeans) which proposed a Europe of the Regions, with the EU organised on just that basis. It included the ancient kingdoms of England as well, plus of course, Wales Scotland and N. Ireland.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited October 2017

    My impression - I wouldn't claim it's scientifically based - is that it's a mistake to think that younger voters can be appeased by some improvements to housing policy or cuts in tuition fees. The insurgency of the 18-50 generations is more a attitudinal phenomenon - they are just tired of bleak austerity with no end in sight, and want a government that seems to offer some hope of what they feel would be a better society.

    That's why attacks on the affordability of Labour's student fee policy don't really cut through - people appreciate the intention, and have priced in that it might need to be phased in etc.

    I agree if the Tories are to win next time it will be narrowly and mainly by winning back the 40 to 50 demographic and adding a slim lead with that age group while holding the big lead with the over 50s and pensioners they had in June.

    I cannot see Corbyn failing to win the under 40 vote next time whatever the Tories do on fees and housing
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    My impression - I wouldn't claim it's scientifically based - is that it's a mistake to think that younger voters can be appeased by some improvements to housing policy or cuts in tuition fees. The insurgency of the 18-50 generations is more a attitudinal phenomenon - they are just tired of bleak austerity with no end in sight, and want a government that seems to offer some hope of what they feel would be a better society.

    That's why attacks on the affordability of Labour's student fee policy don't really cut through - people appreciate the intention, and have priced in that it might need to be phased in etc.

    Sounds about right to me.

    Indeed, I doubt anyone under, say 35 or 40, is even listening now to word the Tory Cabinet says on anything.

    One of Callaghan's sea changes is happening I suspect and unless something turns up in the next two or three years then the Tories will be washed away when the tide finally comes in.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    My impression - I wouldn't claim it's scientifically based - is that it's a mistake to think that younger voters can be appeased by some improvements to housing policy or cuts in tuition fees. The insurgency of the 18-50 generations is more a attitudinal phenomenon - they are just tired of bleak austerity with no end in sight, and want a government that seems to offer some hope of what they feel would be a better society.

    That's why attacks on the affordability of Labour's student fee policy don't really cut through - people appreciate the intention, and have priced in that it might need to be phased in etc.

    I think this correct. The promise of housing and personal student debt is not going down well.

    Ultimately the problem is the increasing dependency ratio of the country. The working age population even with current levels of immigration is not forecast to alter much over the next 15 years. The increase of several millions is in the over 65's. The young will have to pay for this one way or another, the rest is just quibbling about methods.

    Stoking up government debt to do so just adds to the burden on the young. There needs to either be strong economic growth or higher taxes to pay for it all, paid by those who benefited under the old system. Brexit has done for the first, and the Tories would not consider the srcond. That is why this generational angst will do for them.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    edited October 2017
    One thing that interests me in the Housing Debate is Corbyn's proposal to hand a veto to existing residents in estates with subsidised rents, which will stop part of his Council House Revolution plans in their tracks at least for a period of years.

    Corbyn shooting his own unthinking feet off in pursuit of immediate votes is not a surprise, but he'll have some fun implementing *that* policy.

    AFAIK (cannot find exact numbers) a significant number of new social homes in London is coming from the redevelopment of modern low density estates.


  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.

    This has very little to do with the EU. It's not as if other governments elsewhere are backing Catalan UDI. What we have in Spain is a right wing, nationalist government, with its roots in Francoism, doing everything in its power to turn what had been a minority cause in Catalonia into a majority one. Today's violence will now see a major shift in international opinion. The separatists have won.

    However if it splits Spain and sees Catalonia join the EU after many EU nations might start to think about whether they want their countries potentially all split into regions of an EU superstate
    An independent Catalonia will never be a member of the EU. Spain will veto it all day and every day.
    Which would also mean they would have to veto claims of a hypothetical independent Scotland to join the EU all day every day if Scotland ever had a second independence referendum which passed
    Why? What is this obsession with consistency?
  • Charles said:

    PClipp said:

    In passing, just as well Mr Bell was not elected! He seems a bit confused....

    The triple lock on pensions was brought into being by the Lib Dems when we had a Coalition Government.

    Current Tory policy seems to be to undo or undermine all the good things that the Lib Dems did in 2010-2015. Very foolish and short-sighted of them. No wonder they are losing support.

    You have a very irritating habit of claiming all of what you think are the good bits for the LibDems and blaming the Tories for all of the bad bits regardless of who originated the policy, who advocated it, who pushed it through or who was the minister responsible.

    It was a Coalition government. Both parties are responsible for all of it.
    Considering what a damaging policy triple lock pensions are I wouldn't have thought anyone would want to claim ownership.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,886

    My impression - I wouldn't claim it's scientifically based - is that it's a mistake to think that younger voters can be appeased by some improvements to housing policy or cuts in tuition fees. The insurgency of the 18-50 generations is more a attitudinal phenomenon - they are just tired of bleak austerity with no end in sight, and want a government that seems to offer some hope of what they feel would be a better society.

    That's why attacks on the affordability of Labour's student fee policy don't really cut through - people appreciate the intention, and have priced in that it might need to be phased in etc.

    I think this correct. The promise of housing and personal student debt is not going down well.

    Ultimately the problem is tr the srcond. That is why this generational angst will do for them.
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    In Catalonia the Spanish state is doing exactly as the Catalan separatists had hoped. The pig-headed, obstinate stupidity of the Spanish nationalist PP will deliver Catalan independence:
    https://twitter.com/mstothard/status/914385341917876224

    These are not great graphics are they? Catalan support for independence will be much higher after today.

    I am not too sure about that. But what the pictures will do is move international opinion. And for the separatists that is what really matters right now.

    Now reports of rubber bullets being fired at people trying to vote in Barca.
    Imagine if David Cameron had refused to allow a Scottish independence refererendum and ordered the police to fire rubber bullets at Yes and SNP supporters in Glasgow in 2014 and that is the equivalent of what the Spanish government are doing this morning in Barcelona
    Yes, I have thought of that and the conclusion I came to was that even I, one of the staunchest Unionists on these boards, would not want to be a part of a country that behaves like that. I suspect that until today a significant percentage of Catalans were not that motivated one way or another. By the end of today that may well have changed.
    If there wasn't a majority for independence a week ago, there certainly will be one now.
  • HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Surely the other key question is why it costs £9000 a year for a history degree with 10 hours a week (over about 30 weeks) of contact time?

    It doesn't. Usually it costs about £2-3,000.

    However, it can cost up to £30,000 to train a science graduate, and since they can't charge full fees for that, they need to recruit as many cheaper students in history, English, politics, business, art etc to make up the shortfall.

    The other elephant in the room is Education - strangely, that's one of the more expensive degrees because of fees paid to schools. Which is of course why the DfE are frantically closing down education departments and moving to SCITT routes, even though they know this is a less effective way of training on the whole.
    Which is why arts degree fees should be cut given they are both cheaper to run and have a lower graduate earnings premium and Hammond is sensibly looking at this while subsidising STEM courses which would still charge £9000
    Yes, but despite all that many students still prefer to study history, literature etc. They can quite rightly object to their choices being used to cross-subsidise STEM subjects.
    They can object but it wouldn't be 'quite rightly'. Why should the tax payer subsidise students studying courses that will bring only marginal benefit to the country rather than those which have real practical benefits. If we were not short of STEM graduates you would perhaps have a point but when both money and those with the right skills are lacking it is surely the job of the Government to target the taxpayer's money to where it would best benefit the country.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Tory retail offer: Save £360 a year on paying back your tuition fees.

    Labour offer: University to be free.


    Hmmm.... I wonder which one the kids will go for?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited October 2017

    kle4 said:

    My impression - I wouldn't claim it's scientifically based - is that it's a mistake to think that younger voters can be appeased by some improvements to housing policy or cuts in tuition fees. The insurgency of the 18-50 generations is more a attitudinal phenomenon - they are just tired of bleak austerity with no end in sight, and want a government that seems to offer some hope of what they feel would be a better society.

    That's why attacks on the affordability of Labour's student fee policy don't really cut through - people appreciate the intention, and have priced in that it might need to be phased in etc.

    Have students appreciated this? What's the evidence.

    Every party in Opposition (Tories, Ladeliver this. And false promises on this destroyed Nick Clegg.

    I think you're wrong. This is Jeremy's signature policy. It will have to be delivered. Or Jeremy will go the way of Clegg.
    Yes, but to politicians the risk of that is worth it in order to get in in the first place. They always assume something will co e up and future them will figure it out.
    I understand that. But, I think the reputational damage to Jeremy if he doesn't deliver free tuition fees in the first few months of his administration will be enormous.

    He'll be though of as "just another lying politician, like all the rest".

    His brand will be trashed.
    It'd be nice if that happened before he was PM, frankly.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,886

    nichomar said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.
    Ithink the Spanish goverment think if Catolonia was to achieve independace then who next, the Basque Region, Galacia even Valencia (unlikely imo) the shadow of Franco still lingers and infuences decisions be it a fear of it returning or as an excuse to make it happen.
    Interesting thing about Valencia is that Catalan is also spoken there, but known locally as "Valencian". It is to all intents and purposes Catalan.
    Valencian independence is very unlikely, the more realistic prospect would be them joining Catalonia.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:



    ydoethur said:
    Needs not wants. Anyway, a lot of it is about poverty of imagination. Courtyard blocks are common across much of Europe, use space very efficiently and can be very stylish.
    Agree with this. I grew up in such a home in Italy and it was great. Well built mansion blocks, particularly if you "green" them with roof terraces and balconies, can be a good alternative and make a sensible use of the space we already have within cities.

    The key is to build them well rather than the shoddy gimcrack flats that too many large houses have been turned into.
    I live on the first floor of a five storey mansion block in Barnes. It was built in 1908. Very solid and soundproof. We have a balcony with table and chairs where I smoke a cigar, sipping my cognac surveying the Barnes scene. It has a rather nice entrance and staircase at the front and a more scruffy servant staircase at the back that our porter uses. It is multinational with young and old. Our frequent parties in the communal gardens are spent moaning about Brexit (as well as drinking). I know all my neighbours and it has the feel of a grand Cambridge college staircase. Highly recommended. About £1 million per apartment.
    I have a 4 bedroom detached house with front and back gardens, a garage, a study, a conservatory with views of the hills and a drive way big enough for 3 cars. Nice neighbours too. £300K on a good day.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840

    It is yet again worth pointing out that housing remains very affordable in most of the country.

    The problems are largely confined to the South East.

    In fact, some parts of the country are de-populating. & that means there are empty homes. despite the huge increase in UK population over the last fifty years, some parts of the country have nonetheless seen their populations decline.

    There are many, many companies & organisations based in London who just do not need to be there and should move out.

    +1

    Absolutely.

    I would only add that there are many people working in London who could do their jobs cheaper and more efficiently from a cheaper home outside London. How many daily commuters actually, physically need to be there?
    We need to prioritise home working as an aspect of this problem
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    edited October 2017

    Charles said:

    PClipp said:

    In passing, just as well Mr Bell was not elected! He seems a bit confused....

    The triple lock on pensions was brought into being by the Lib Dems when we had a Coalition Government.

    Current Tory policy seems to be to undo or undermine all the good things that the Lib Dems did in 2010-2015. Very foolish and short-sighted of them. No wonder they are losing support.

    You have a very irritating habit of claiming all of what you think are the good bits for the LibDems and blaming the Tories for all of the bad bits regardless of who originated the policy, who advocated it, who pushed it through or who was the minister responsible.

    It was a Coalition government. Both parties are responsible for all of it.
    Considering what a damaging policy triple lock pensions are I wouldn't have thought anyone would want to claim ownership.
    Given it's now political kryptonite to alter this, the only "out" left to square the maths that will inexorably demand to be addressed, will be to increase the age at which state pensions can be claimed more quickly than otherwise would've been the case.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    PClipp said:

    In passing, just as well Mr Bell was not elected! He seems a bit confused....

    The triple lock on pensions was brought into being by the Lib Dems when we had a Coalition Government.

    Current Tory policy seems to be to undo or undermine all the good things that the Lib Dems did in 2010-2015. Very foolish and short-sighted of them. No wonder they are losing support.

    You have a very irritating habit of claiming all of what you think are the good bits for the LibDems and blaming the Tories for all of the bad bits regardless of who originated the policy, who advocated it, who pushed it through or who was the minister responsible.

    It was a Coalition government. Both parties are responsible for all of it.
    Considering what a damaging policy triple lock pensions are I wouldn't have thought anyone would want to claim ownership.
    That's why I edited my post to read "what you think are the good bits" instead of "the good bits"!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited October 2017

    Tory retail offer: Save £360 a year on paying back your tuition fees.

    Labour offer: University to be free.


    Hmmm.... I wonder which one the kids will go for?

    The latter but if the Tories even only win over a few that is better than none at all.

    Of course given the Tories won their highest voteshare with skilled working class C2s last time in class terms, even more than upper middle class ABs, they cannot afford to scrap fees altogether and make mainly non graduate Tory voting C2s pay higher taxes to scrap tuition fees for young middle class Labour voting students and graduates
  • We should all be very proud how Scotland was enabled to hold it's referendum and also David Cameron's role in it.

    How on earth has Spain descended into firing rubber bullets and confiscating ballot papers to peoples who want to vote on their independence. This will cause generations of ill will against the Spanish government in something that was so avoidable.

    On another subject Austria is going to the polls today with forecasts the far right will gain seats in their Parliament. I do not know anything about Austrian politics but the move to the right seems to be taking hold within the EU
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.

    This has very little to do with the EU. It's not as if other governments elsewhere are backing Catalan UDI. What we have in Spain is a right wing, nationalist government, with its roots in Francoism, doing everything in its power to turn what had been a minority cause in Catalonia into a majority one. Today's violence will now see a major shift in international opinion. The separatists have won.

    However if it splits Spain and sees Catalonia join the EU after many EU nations might start to think about whether they want their countries potentially all split into regions of an EU superstate
    An independent Catalonia will never be a member of the EU. Spain will veto it all day and every day.
    Which would also mean they would have to veto claims of a hypothetical independent Scotland to join the EU all day every day if Scotland ever had a second independence referendum which passed
    See repeated references passim that Spain treat the two situations completely differently.

    A Scotland UDIing they would veto without a moment's hesitation. Independence through legal channels is different.
  • DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:



    ydoethur said:
    Needs not wants. Anyway, a lot of it is about poverty of imagination. Courtyard blocks are common across much of Europe, use space very efficiently and can be very stylish.
    Agree with this. I grew up in such a home in Italy and it was great. Well built mansion blocks, particularly if you "green" them with roof terraces and balconies, can be a good alternative and make a sensible use of the space we already have within cities.

    The key is to build them well rather than the shoddy gimcrack flats that too many large houses have been turned into.
    I live on the first floor of a five storey mansion block in Barnes. It was built in 1908. Very solid and soundproof. We have a balcony with table and chairs where I smoke a cigar, sipping my cognac surveying the Barnes scene. It has a rather nice entrance and staircase at the front and a more scruffy servant staircase at the back that our porter uses. It is multinational with young and old. Our frequent parties in the communal gardens are spent moaning about Brexit (as well as drinking). I know all my neighbours and it has the feel of a grand Cambridge college staircase. Highly recommended. About £1 million per apartment.
    I have a 4 bedroom detached house with front and back gardens, a garage, a study, a conservatory with views of the hills and a drive way big enough for 3 cars. Nice neighbours too. £300K on a good day.
    As do I and with sea views - similar price
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Surely the other key question is why it costs £9000 a year for a history degree with 10 hours a week (over about 30 weeks) of contact time?

    It doesn't. Usually it costs about £2-3,000.

    However, it can cost up to £30,000 to train a science graduate, and since they can't charge full fees for that, they need to recruit as many cheaper students in history, English, politics, business, art etc to make up the shortfall.

    The other elephant in the room is Education - strangely, that's one of the more expensive degrees because of fees paid to schools. Which is of course why the DfE are frantically closing down education departments and moving to SCITT routes, even though they know this is a less effective way of training on the whole.
    Which is why arts degree fees should be cut given they are both cheaper to run and have a lower graduate earnings premium and Hammond is sensibly looking at this while subsidising STEM courses which would still charge £9000
    Yes, but despite all that many students still prefer to study history, literature etc. They can quite rightly object to their choices being used to cross-subsidise STEM subjects.
    They can object but it wouldn't be 'quite rightly'. Why should the tax payer subsidise students studying courses that will bring only marginal benefit to the country rather than those which have real practical benefits. If we were not short of STEM graduates you would perhaps have a point but when both money and those with the right skills are lacking it is surely the job of the Government to target the taxpayer's money to where it would best benefit the country.
    The Government no longer funds places on humanities courses, whereas it still does provide funding for places on STEM courses. The logic of the marketisation of HE (which incidentally I don't support) is that universities should be able to offer places on low cost courses such as English literature and history for much less than £9,250 a year.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    tlg86 said:

    Theresa May facing tough questions from Marr

    For a brief moment I was actually quite impressed by her. She showed some fighting spirit talking about a run on the pound under Labour.
    She is under colossal pressure and you have to wonder how most anyone would just not walk away, no matter one's opinion of her she must have amazing fortitude and determination - she is at least a serious politician
    More like a stubborn fool G, out of her depth but too pig headed to take the principled decision.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    MattW said:

    One thing that interests me in the Housing Debate is Corbyn's proposal to hand a veto to existing residents in estates with subsidised rents, which will stop part of his Council House Revolution plans in their tracks at least for a period of years.

    Corbyn shooting his own unthinking feet off in pursuit of immediate votes is not a surprise, but he'll have some fun implementing *that* policy.

    AFAIK (cannot find exact numbers) a significant number of new social homes in London is coming from the redevelopment of modern low density estates.


    It's deranged. A significant part of densification must come from council housing redevelopment.

    In Zone 1 London, from Hoxton to Lisson Grove, and from Bermondsey to Lambeth, is a massive ring of social housing. It is not overly dense, and with investment much it would be very desirable - for social housing and private owners/tenants alike.

    And don't get me started on the Thames Gateway...acre upon acre of desolation.

    Those who say we need to build in the green belt need to spend more time looking at maps.


  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    Many interesting points and counterpoints this morning from different political angles, and without much venom flying around.

    Shows how complex Housing is.

    "Sort out the Housing Problem" and all will be well....it obviously ain't easy.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. NorthWales, assuming no villages have 150% turnout...
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Some aspects of trouble pre-dates Spanish Civil War, look up details of Tragic Week in Barcelona 1909 (heady mix of republicanism, anti-clericalism, socialism, anarchism & nationalism),, riots against Monarchy's wars in Morocco, put down by force.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    HYUFD said:

    Tory retail offer: Save £360 a year on paying back your tuition fees.

    Labour offer: University to be free.


    Hmmm.... I wonder which one the kids will go for?

    The latter but if the Tories even only win over a few that is better than none at all.

    Of course given the Tories won their highest voteshare with skilled working class C2s last time in class terms, even more than upper middle class ABs, they cannot afford to scrap fees altogether and make mainly non graduate Tory voting C2s pay higher taxes to scrap tuition fees for young middle class Labour voting students and graduates
    I agree it is, to the say the least, a difficult conundrum.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Theresa May facing tough questions from Marr

    For a brief moment I was actually quite impressed by her. She showed some fighting spirit talking about a run on the pound under Labour.
    She is under colossal pressure and you have to wonder how most anyone would just not walk away, no matter one's opinion of her she must have amazing fortitude and determination - she is at least a serious politician
    More like a stubborn fool G, out of her depth but too pig headed to take the principled decision.
    She's saving us from a Johnson premiership though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.

    This has very little to do with the EU. It's not as if other governments elsewhere are backing Catalan UDI. What we have in Spain is a right wing, nationalist government, with its roots in Francoism, doing everything in its power to turn what had been a minority cause in Catalonia into a majority one. Today's violence will now see a major shift in international opinion. The separatists have won.

    However if it splits Spain and sees Catalonia join the EU after many EU nations might start to think about whether they want their countries potentially all split into regions of an EU superstate
    An independent Catalonia will never be a member of the EU. Spain will veto it all day and every day.
    Which would also mean they would have to veto claims of a hypothetical independent Scotland to join the EU all day every day if Scotland ever had a second independence referendum which passed
    Why? What is this obsession with consistency?
    If an independent Scotland joined the EU it would be almost impossible for Catalonia not to be able to argue it should also be able to join which is why Spain would veto both membership applications and has previously made clear it opposes EU membership for a hypothetical independent Scotland
  • welshowl said:

    Charles said:

    PClipp said:

    In passing, just as well Mr Bell was not elected! He seems a bit confused....

    The triple lock on pensions was brought into being by the Lib Dems when we had a Coalition Government.

    Current Tory policy seems to be to undo or undermine all the good things that the Lib Dems did in 2010-2015. Very foolish and short-sighted of them. No wonder they are losing support.

    You have a very irritating habit of claiming all of what you think are the good bits for the LibDems and blaming the Tories for all of the bad bits regardless of who originated the policy, who advocated it, who pushed it through or who was the minister responsible.

    It was a Coalition government. Both parties are responsible for all of it.
    Considering what a damaging policy triple lock pensions are I wouldn't have thought anyone would want to claim ownership.
    Given it's now political kryptonite to alter this, the only "out" left to square the maths that will inexorably demand to be addressed, will be to increase the age at which state pensions can be claimed more quickly than otherwise would've been the case.
    And it has already happened:

    ' Six million men and women will have to wait a year longer than they expected to get their state pension, the government has announced.

    The rise in the pension age to 68 will now be phased in between 2037 and 2039, rather than from 2044 as was originally proposed.

    Those affected are currently between the ages of 39 and 47. '

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40658774

    And does anyone not expect it to be increased again ?
  • HYUFD said:

    Tory retail offer: Save £360 a year on paying back your tuition fees.

    Labour offer: University to be free.


    Hmmm.... I wonder which one the kids will go for?

    The latter but if the Tories even only win over a few that is better than none at all.

    Of course given the Tories won their highest voteshare with skilled working class C2s last time in class terms, even more than upper middle class ABs, they cannot afford to scrap fees altogether and make mainly non graduate Tory voting C2s pay higher taxes to scrap tuition fees for young middle class Labour voting students and graduates
    The announcement also includes a review of the whole system of tuition fees and looking at the re-instatement of the EMA
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Chameleon said:

    nichomar said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.
    Ithink the Spanish goverment think if Catolonia was to achieve independace then who next, the Basque Region, Galacia even Valencia (unlikely imo) the shadow of Franco still lingers and infuences decisions be it a fear of it returning or as an excuse to make it happen.
    Interesting thing about Valencia is that Catalan is also spoken there, but known locally as "Valencian". It is to all intents and purposes Catalan.
    Valencian independence is very unlikely, the more realistic prospect would be them joining Catalonia.
    In my part of Alicante there is no Valencian spoken even though the schools are forcing it upon an unwilling population. They are Spanish here and proud to be so. The parents see the teaching in anything other than castilian or English is a waste of time and damaging.
  • Sajid Javid on Sky backing TM to lead into 2022 election.

    Looks like Boris has united the party behind TM
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited October 2017

    My impression - I wouldn't claim it's scientifically based - is that it's a mistake to think that younger voters can be appeased by some improvements to housing policy or cuts in tuition fees. The insurgency of the 18-50 generations is more a attitudinal phenomenon - they are just tired of bleak austerity with no end in sight, and want a government that seems to offer some hope of what they feel would be a better society.

    That's why attacks on the affordability of Labour's student fee policy don't really cut through - people appreciate the intention, and have priced in that it might need to be phased in etc.

    Sounds about right to me.

    Indeed, I doubt anyone under, say 35 or 40, is even listening now to word the Tory Cabinet says on anything.

    One of Callaghan's sea changes is happening I suspect and unless something turns up in the next two or three years then the Tories will be washed away when the tide finally comes in.
    The Tories won most seats last time despite losing most voters under 47, given I expect a general election in 2 or 3 years the demographics will not have changed that much and the Tories could even win a small majority despite losing most voters under 45
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,886

    Mr. NorthWales, assuming no villages have 150% turnout...

    From what I understand it is done on a Catalonia database, so people can vote in whichever polling station they want to. Given the trouble in the urban areas, people will be heading into the country.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    edited October 2017

    welshowl said:

    Charles said:

    PClipp said:

    In passing, just as well Mr Bell was not elected! He seems a bit confused....

    The triple lock on pensions was brought into being by the Lib Dems when we had a Coalition Government.

    Current Tory policy seems to be to undo or undermine all the good things that the Lib Dems did in 2010-2015. Very foolish and short-sighted of them. No wonder they are losing support.

    You have a very irritating habit of claiming all of what you think are the good bits for the LibDems and blaming the Tories for all of the bad bits regardless of who originated the policy, who advocated it, who pushed it through or who was the minister responsible.

    It was a Coalition government. Both parties are responsible for all of it.
    Considering what a damaging policy triple lock pensions are I wouldn't have thought anyone would want to claim ownership.
    Given it's now political kryptonite to alter this, the only "out" left to square the maths that will inexorably demand to be addressed, will be to increase the age at which state pensions can be claimed more quickly than otherwise would've been the case.
    And it has already happened:

    ' Six million men and women will have to wait a year longer than they expected to get their state pension, the government has announced.

    The rise in the pension age to 68 will now be phased in between 2037 and 2039, rather than from 2044 as was originally proposed.

    Those affected are currently between the ages of 39 and 47. '

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40658774

    And does anyone not expect it to be increased again ?
    Nope it's heading to 70 and beyond as it's one of the few things we can do which really does save the squillions we need to fix things like housing, pensions, and care in old age. You increase the workforce and tax take, at the same time as reducing the dependency ratio and help ease the pension maths.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:



    ydoethur said:
    Needs not wants. Anyway, a lot of it is about poverty of imagination. Courtyard blocks are common across much of Europe, use space very efficiently and can be very stylish.
    Agree with this. I grew up in such a home in Italy and it was great. Well built mansion blocks, particularly if you "green" them with roof terraces and balconies, can be a good alternative and make a sensible use of the space we already have within cities.

    The key is to build them well rather than the shoddy gimcrack flats that too many large houses have been turned into.
    I live on the first floor of a five storey mansion block in Barnes. It was built in 1908. Very solid and soundproof. We have a balcony with table and chairs where I smoke a cigar, sipping my cognac surveying the Barnes scene. It has a rather nice entrance and staircase at the front and a more scruffy servant staircase at the back that our porter uses. It is multinational with young and old. Our frequent parties in the communal gardens are spent moaning about Brexit (as well as drinking). I know all my neighbours and it has the feel of a grand Cambridge college staircase. Highly recommended. About £1 million per apartment.
    I have a 4 bedroom detached house with front and back gardens, a garage, a study, a conservatory with views of the hills and a drive way big enough for 3 cars. Nice neighbours too. £300K on a good day.
    As do I and with sea views - similar price
    Insanely unaffordable prices is a London/parts of the SE problem and it is wrong to therefore focus on price as the key to a solution. It certainly is a problem there and more supply is the answer but in other parts of the country it is the lack of appreciation in house prices that makes builders, mortgage lenders and even potential purchasers unenthusiastic. This is why it is indeed a complex problem.
  • franklynfranklyn Posts: 297
    The idea that raising the threshold for student loan repayment to £25K will save students £350 per year is pure fantasy. It will increase their debt so that when they do start earning a decent amount, they will eventually pay back an even larger amount than at present. They take the public for fools
  • malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Theresa May facing tough questions from Marr

    For a brief moment I was actually quite impressed by her. She showed some fighting spirit talking about a run on the pound under Labour.
    She is under colossal pressure and you have to wonder how most anyone would just not walk away, no matter one's opinion of her she must have amazing fortitude and determination - she is at least a serious politician
    More like a stubborn fool G, out of her depth but too pig headed to take the principled decision.
    Morning Malc - genuine question - who would you like to be PM
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    In Catalonia the Spanish state is doing exactly as the Catalan separatists had hoped. The pig-headed, obstinate stupidity of the Spanish nationalist PP will deliver Catalan independence:
    https://twitter.com/mstothard/status/914385341917876224

    These are not great graphics are they? Catalan support for independence will be much higher after today.

    I am not too sure about that. But what the pictures will do is move international opinion. And for the separatists that is what really matters right now.

    Now reports of rubber bullets being fired at people trying to vote in Barca.
    Imagine if David Cameron had refused to allow a Scottish independence refererendum and ordered the police to fire rubber bullets at Yes and SNP supporters in Glasgow in 2014 and that is the equivalent of what the Spanish government are doing this morning in Barcelona
    Yes, I have thought of that and the conclusion I came to was that even I, one of the staunchest Unionists on these boards, would not want to be a part of a country that behaves like that. I suspect that until today a significant percentage of Catalans were not that motivated one way or another. By the end of today that may well have changed.
    Quite possibly
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    welshowl said:

    Charles said:

    PClipp said:

    In passing, just as well Mr Bell was not elected! He seems a bit confused....

    The triple lock on pensions was brought into being by the Lib Dems when we had a Coalition Government.

    Current Tory policy seems to be to undo or undermine all the good things that the Lib Dems did in 2010-2015. Very foolish and short-sighted of them. No wonder they are losing support.

    You have a very irritating habit of claiming all of what you think are the good bits for the LibDems and blaming the Tories for all of the bad bits regardless of who originated the policy, who advocated it, who pushed it through or who was the minister responsible.

    It was a Coalition government. Both parties are responsible for all of it.
    Considering what a damaging policy triple lock pensions are I wouldn't have thought anyone would want to claim ownership.
    Given it's now political kryptonite to alter this, the only "out" left to square the maths that will inexorably demand to be addressed, will be to increase the age at which state pensions can be claimed more quickly than otherwise would've been the case.
    And it has already happened:

    ' Six million men and women will have to wait a year longer than they expected to get their state pension, the government has announced.

    The rise in the pension age to 68 will now be phased in between 2037 and 2039, rather than from 2044 as was originally proposed.

    Those affected are currently between the ages of 39 and 47. '

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40658774

    And does anyone not expect it to be increased again ?
    Nope, but it makes total sense.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Surely the other key question is why it costs £9000 a year for a history degree with 10 hours a week (over about 30 weeks) of contact time?

    It doesn't. Usually it costs about £2-3,000.

    However, it can cost up to £30,000 to train a science graduate, and since they can't charge full fees for that, they need to recruit as many cheaper students in history, English, politics, business, art etc to make up the shortfall.

    The other elephant in the room is Education - strangely, that's one of the more expensive degrees because of fees paid to schools. Which is of course why the DfE are frantically closing down education departments and moving to SCITT routes, even though they know this is a less effective way of training on the whole.
    Which is why arts degree fees should be cut given they are both cheaper to run and have a lower graduate earnings premium and Hammond is sensibly looking at this while subsidising STEM courses which would still charge £9000
    Yes, but despite all that many students still prefer to study history, literature etc. They can quite rightly object to their choices being used to cross-subsidise STEM subjects.
    They can object but it wouldn't be 'quite rightly'. Why should the tax payer subsidise students studying courses that will bring only marginal benefit to the country rather than those which have real practical benefits. If we were not short of STEM graduates you would perhaps have a point but when both money and those with the right skills are lacking it is surely the job of the Government to target the taxpayer's money to where it would best benefit the country.
    The Government no longer funds places on humanities courses, whereas it still does provide funding for places on STEM courses. The logic of the marketisation of HE (which incidentally I don't support) is that universities should be able to offer places on low cost courses such as English literature and history for much less than £9,250 a year.
    Isn't a better solution then to remove the cap, but provide Government support to students to pay for the more expensive courses? Albeit with the support linked to the course, not necessarily just how expensive it is (eg. if the best universities with the best employment prospects charged a premium then the Government wouldn't assist in those cases. But would, say, pay up front for eg. 50% of any engineering course).



  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.

    This has very little to do with the EU. It's not as if other governments elsewhere are backing Catalan UDI. What we have in Spain is a right wing, nationalist government, with its roots in Francoism, doing everything in its power to turn what had been a minority cause in Catalonia into a majority one. Today's violence will now see a major shift in international opinion. The separatists have won.

    However if it splits Spain and sees Catalonia join the EU after many EU nations might start to think about whether they want their countries potentially all split into regions of an EU superstate
    An independent Catalonia will never be a member of the EU. Spain will veto it all day and every day.
    Which would also mean they would have to veto claims of a hypothetical independent Scotland to join the EU all day every day if Scotland ever had a second independence referendum which passed
    Why? What is this obsession with consistency?
    If an independent Scotland joined the EU it would be almost impossible for Catalonia not to be able to argue it should also be able to join which is why Spain would veto both membership applications and has previously made clear it opposes EU membership for a hypothetical independent Scotland
    It could find a way to argue the two situations are different. This is Europe, political fudge is our meal of choice.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.

    This has very little to do with the EU. It's not as if other governments elsewhere are backing Catalan UDI. What we have in Spain is a right wing, nationalist government, with its roots in Francoism, doing everything in its power to turn what had been a minority cause in Catalonia into a majority one. Today's violence will now see a major shift in international opinion. The separatists have won.

    However if it splits Spain and sees Catalonia join the EU after many EU nations might start to think about whether they want their countries potentially all split into regions of an EU superstate
    An independent Catalonia will never be a member of the EU. Spain will veto it all day and every day.
    Which would also mean they would have to veto claims of a hypothetical independent Scotland to join the EU all day every day if Scotland ever had a second independence referendum which passed
    Why? What is this obsession with consistency?
    If an independent Scotland joined the EU it would be almost impossible for Catalonia not to be able to argue it should also be able to join which is why Spain would veto both membership applications and has previously made clear it opposes EU membership for a hypothetical independent Scotland
    Spain doesn't have to justify its veto. If it does, it's not a veto. You can argue how much of a veto second rank EU countries have in practice as opposed to theory but the theory remains.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    I'm at Conference and on a mobile so not able to comment at length but thank you all for the constructive engagement in the comments.

    Alastair and others are of course right to point out that the housing issue is concentrated in the South East and we need policies to address that specifically - though of course some of them can take the form of boosting the Midlands and North as places to do business.

    That said, we need to avoid responding to our electoral setbacks in the capital by indulging in London-bashing - the city is a colossal national asset.

    Only if you are a Tory or live there. For me it is just a blood sucking canker, wrecking the fabric of the rest of the country.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    edited October 2017
    alex. said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Surely the other key question is why it costs £9000 a year for a history degree with 10 hours a week (over about 30 weeks) of contact time?

    It doesn't. Usually it costs about £2-3,000.

    However, it can cost up to £30,000 to train a science graduate, and since they can't charge full fees for that, they need to recruit as many cheaper students in history, English, politics, business, art etc to make up the shortfall.

    The other elephant in the room is Education - strangely, that's one of the more expensive degrees because of fees paid to schools. Which is of course why the DfE are frantically closing down education departments and moving to SCITT routes, even though they know this is a less effective way of training on the whole.
    Which is why arts degree fees should be cut given they are both cheaper to run and have a lower graduate earnings premium and Hammond is sensibly looking at this while subsidising STEM courses which would still charge £9000
    Yes, but despite all that many students still prefer to study history, literature etc. They can quite rightly object to their choices being used to cross-subsidise STEM subjects.
    They can object but it wouldn't be 'quite rightly'. Why should the tax payer subsidise students studying courses that will bring only marginal benefit to the country rather than those which have real practical benefits. If we were not short of STEM graduates you would perhaps have a point but when both money and those with the right skills are lacking it is surely the job of the Government to target the taxpayer's money to where it would best benefit the country.
    The Government no longer funds places on humanities courses, whereas it still does provide funding for places on STEM courses. The logic of the marketisation of HE (which incidentally I don't support) is that universities should be able to offer places on low cost courses such as English literature and history for much less than £9,250 a year.
    Isn't a better solution then to remove the cap, but provide Government support to students to pay for the more expensive courses? Albeit with the support linked to the course, not necessarily just how expensive it is (eg. if the best universities with the best employment prospects charged a premium then the Government wouldn't assist in those cases. But would, say, pay up front for eg. 50% of any engineering course).



    Yes, that's a better alternative to the present unholy mess, but then most of the alternatives are ...
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697

    Sajid Javid on Sky backing TM to lead into 2022 election.

    Looks like Boris has united the party behind TM

    If they did go into the 2022 election with Theresa May still Con leader they will be looking at a catastrophic defeat to Jezza IMO.
  • International Observers confirming rubber bullets fired with intent to hurt. This is going to damage Spain internationally
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094

    I'd free local authorities to hoover up BTL homes being sold cheap by landlords who decided there wasn't enough profit in it. Borrowing to buy a cheap asset makes sense as an investment especially when it fulfils a community purpose.

    We can't keep on building more and more and more houses. The developers charter the Tories brought in already means that residents and councils and planning officers can do little to stop developers building the wrong kinds of houses in the wrong locations. Scrap the NPPF is another good step.

    Can you identify any BTL property being sold cheaply by a landlord who says there is no profit in it. A large majority of BTL landlords are in it for the long term as an investment sometimes as a pension fund
    Yes. They are everywhere, but there is no reason why Estate Agents should identify them as such unless they are sales with tenant in situ - which reduces the potential market.

    Hardy a surprise since a significant minority of Private LLs ,make losses, and many are people with 1 or 2 houses that wouldn't sell in the recession or afterwards, or who have them because they moved jobs or are keeping it in case new relationships fail.
  • GIN1138 said:

    Sajid Javid on Sky backing TM to lead into 2022 election.

    Looks like Boris has united the party behind TM

    If they did go into the 2022 election with Theresa May still Con leader they will be looking at a catastrophic defeat to Jezza IMO.
    Probably but who knows what these days in politics (excuse my bad English)
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    dixiedean said:

    It is yet again worth pointing out that housing remains very affordable in most of the country.

    The problems are largely confined to the South East.

    In fact, some parts of the country are de-populating. & that means there are empty homes. despite the huge increase in UK population over the last fifty years, some parts of the country have nonetheless seen their populations decline.

    There are many, many companies & organisations based in London who just do not need to be there and should move out.

    +1

    Absolutely.

    I would only add that there are many people working in London who could do their jobs cheaper and more efficiently from a cheaper home outside London. How many daily commuters actually, physically need to be there?
    We need to prioritise home working as an aspect of this problem
    To develop this further, you can have a world-class University in a town or village (Princeton in New Jersey is an example).

    There is no need for Imperial College, UCL and Queen Mary to be in London.

    They should all move out.

    The land they own in Kensington, Bloomsbury & Mile End is worth a fortune. They could all move out, build new campuses elsewhere and make money in the process.

    They could invigorate small towns that desperately need influxes of new people. And the housing costs of their staff & student would be hugely reduced.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited October 2017
    According to the OECD the Functional Urban Area of London is over 14 million. Take out the commuter belt as part of that and the Greater London Built Up Area is according the the ONS a hair under 10 million in 2011, so probably over that now. That level of dominance cannot be ignored, and given the sheer numbers of people living there, only so much can be done to mitigate its impact on the rest of the country unless you move 5 million people elsewhere. I do not much like London and resulting SE dominance, but I think there's only so much that can realistically be done.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects 43m43 minutes ago
    More
    Londoners // Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 55% (-)
    CON: 30% (-3)
    LDEM: 8% (-1)
    UKIP: 3% (+2)
    GRN: 2% (-)

    via @YouGov, 25 - 29 Sep
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:



    ydoethur said:
    Needs not wants. Anyway, a lot of it is about poverty of imagination. Courtyard blocks are common across much of Europe, use space very efficiently and can be very stylish.
    Agree with this. I grew up in such a home in Italy and it was great. Well built mansion blocks, particularly if you "green" them with roof terraces and balconies, can be a good alternative and make a sensible use of the space we already have within cities.

    The key is to build them well rather than the shoddy gimcrack flats that too many large houses have been turned into.
    I live on the first floor of a five storey mansion block in Barnes. It was built in 1908. Very solid and soundproof. We have a balcony with table and chairs where I smoke a cigar, sipping my cognac surveying the Barnes scene. It has a rather nice entrance and staircase at the front and a more scruffy servant staircase at the back that our porter uses. It is multinational with young and old. Our frequent parties in the communal gardens are spent moaning about Brexit (as well as drinking). I know all my neighbours and it has the feel of a grand Cambridge college staircase. Highly recommended. About £1 million per apartment.
    I have a 4 bedroom detached house with front and back gardens, a garage, a study, a conservatory with views of the hills and a drive way big enough for 3 cars. Nice neighbours too. £300K on a good day.
    Currently trying to buy a 300 k house myself. Ok So it is a leap up the ladder a bit... But it is 180m2 with lapsed planning for a 4 bed house on the garden...
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    GIN1138 said:

    Sajid Javid on Sky backing TM to lead into 2022 election.

    Looks like Boris has united the party behind TM

    If they did go into the 2022 election with Theresa May still Con leader they will be looking at a catastrophic defeat to Jezza IMO.
    Given she is to campaigns as Kenneth Williams was to rugby league I cannot see the 1922 wearing it.
  • HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Surely the other key question is why it costs £9000 a year for a history degree with 10 hours a week (over about 30 weeks) of contact time?

    It doesn't. Usually it costs about £2-3,000.

    However, it can cost up to £30,000 to train a science graduate, and since they can't charge full fees for that, they need to recruit as many cheaper students in history, English, politics, business, art etc to make up the shortfall.

    The other elephant in the room is Education - strangely, that's one of the more expensive degrees because of fees paid to schools. Which is of course why the DfE are frantically closing down education departments and moving to SCITT routes, even though they know this is a less effective way of training on the whole.
    Which is why arts degree fees should be cut given they are both cheaper to run and have a lower graduate earnings premium and Hammond is sensibly looking at this while subsidising STEM courses which would still charge £9000
    Yes, but despite all that many students still prefer to study history, literature etc. They can quite rightly object to their choices being used to cross-subsidise STEM subjects.
    They can object but it wouldn't be 'quite rightly'. Why should the tax payer subsidise students studying courses that will bring only marginal benefit to the country rather than those which have real practical benefits. If we were not short of STEM graduates you would perhaps have a point but when both money and those with the right skills are lacking it is surely the job of the Government to target the taxpayer's money to where it would best benefit the country.
    The Government no longer funds places on humanities courses, whereas it still does provide funding for places on STEM courses. The logic of the marketisation of HE (which incidentally I don't support) is that universities should be able to offer places on low cost courses such as English literature and history for much less than £9,250 a year.
    We were talking hypotheticals I thought rather than the current situation. My hypothetical is that the taxpayer should start funding courses again but only those such as STEM courses and similar which can be shown to have a direct benefit to the country. This of course would cost money but I view it as an investment that would pay back dividends in the long run.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:



    ydoethur said:
    Needs not wants. Anyway, a lot of it is about poverty of imagination. Courtyard blocks are common across much of Europe, use space very efficiently and can be very stylish.
    Agree with this. I grew up in such a home in Italy and it was great. Well built mansion blocks, particularly if you "green" them with roof terraces and balconies, can be a good alternative and make a sensible use of the space we already have within cities.

    The key is to build them well rather than the shoddy gimcrack flats that too many large houses have been turned into.
    I live on the first floor of a five storey mansion block in Barnes. It was built in 1908. Very solid and soundproof. We have a balcony with table and chairs where I smoke a cigar, sipping my cognac surveying the Barnes scene. It has a rather nice entrance and staircase at the front and a more scruffy servant staircase at the back that our porter uses. It is multinational with young and old. Our frequent parties in the communal gardens are spent moaning about Brexit (as well as drinking). I know all my neighbours and it has the feel of a grand Cambridge college staircase. Highly recommended. About £1 million per apartment.
    I have a 4 bedroom detached house with front and back gardens, a garage, a study, a conservatory with views of the hills and a drive way big enough for 3 cars. Nice neighbours too. £300K on a good day.
    I have similar , minus conservatory, ensuite , cloakroom and countryside views , will not be much above £200K on a good day. Bet its not as big and palatial as yours though David.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Theresa May facing tough questions from Marr

    For a brief moment I was actually quite impressed by her. She showed some fighting spirit talking about a run on the pound under Labour.
    She is under colossal pressure and you have to wonder how most anyone would just not walk away, no matter one's opinion of her she must have amazing fortitude and determination - she is at least a serious politician
    More like a stubborn fool G, out of her depth but too pig headed to take the principled decision.
    She's saving us from a Johnson premiership though.
    She's saving the Tories from a Johnson premiership. This has nothing to do with saving the country.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    Britain Elects‏ @britainelects 49m49 minutes ago
    More
    Londoners // The decision to revoke Uber's license was the...

    Right decision: 43%
    Wrong decision: 31%
  • dixiedean said:

    It is yet again worth pointing out that housing remains very affordable in most of the country.

    The problems are largely confined to the South East.

    In fact, some parts of the country are de-populating. & that means there are empty homes. despite the huge increase in UK population over the last fifty years, some parts of the country have nonetheless seen their populations decline.

    There are many, many companies & organisations based in London who just do not need to be there and should move out.

    +1

    Absolutely.

    I would only add that there are many people working in London who could do their jobs cheaper and more efficiently from a cheaper home outside London. How many daily commuters actually, physically need to be there?
    We need to prioritise home working as an aspect of this problem
    To develop this further, you can have a world-class University in a town or village (Princeton in New Jersey is an example).

    There is no need for Imperial College, UCL and Queen Mary to be in London.

    They should all move out.

    The land they own in Kensington, Bloomsbury & Mile End is worth a fortune. They could all move out, build new campuses elsewhere and make money in the process.

    They could invigorate small towns that desperately need influxes of new people. And the housing costs of their staff & student would be hugely reduced.

    This.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Theresa May facing tough questions from Marr

    For a brief moment I was actually quite impressed by her. She showed some fighting spirit talking about a run on the pound under Labour.
    She is under colossal pressure and you have to wonder how most anyone would just not walk away, no matter one's opinion of her she must have amazing fortitude and determination - she is at least a serious politician
    More like a stubborn fool G, out of her depth but too pig headed to take the principled decision.
    She's saving us from a Johnson premiership though.
    That buffoon would never get elected
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    International Observers confirming rubber bullets fired with intent to hurt. This is going to damage Spain internationally

    Any wishing to force Gibraltar to change status should note.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Theresa May facing tough questions from Marr

    For a brief moment I was actually quite impressed by her. She showed some fighting spirit talking about a run on the pound under Labour.
    She is under colossal pressure and you have to wonder how most anyone would just not walk away, no matter one's opinion of her she must have amazing fortitude and determination - she is at least a serious politician
    More like a stubborn fool G, out of her depth but too pig headed to take the principled decision.
    She's saving us from a Johnson premiership though.
    That buffoon would never get elected
    You have such faith in Tory MPs and members not to choose him?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:



    ydoethur said:
    Needs not wants. Anyway, a lot of it is about poverty of imagination. Courtyard blocks are common across much of Europe, use space very efficiently and can be very stylish.
    Agree with this. I grew up in such a home in Italy and it was great. Well built mansion blocks, particularly if you "green" them with roof terraces and balconies, can be a good alternative and make a sensible use of the space we already have within cities.

    The key is to build them well rather than the shoddy gimcrack flats that too many large houses have been turned into.
    I live on the first floor of a five storey mansion block in Barnes. It was built in 1908. Very solid and soundproof. We have a balcony with table and chairs where I smoke a cigar, sipping my cognac surveying the Barnes scene. It has a rather nice entrance and staircase at the front and a more scruffy servant staircase at the back that our porter uses. It is multinational with young and old. Our frequent parties in the communal gardens are spent moaning about Brexit (as well as drinking). I know all my neighbours and it has the feel of a grand Cambridge college staircase. Highly recommended. About £1 million per apartment.
    I have a 4 bedroom detached house with front and back gardens, a garage, a study, a conservatory with views of the hills and a drive way big enough for 3 cars. Nice neighbours too. £300K on a good day.
    I have similar , minus conservatory, ensuite , cloakroom and countryside views , will not be much above £200K on a good day. Bet its not as big and palatial as yours though David.
    West Wales, coastal Scotland and the southwest will all head north in value long term as the population ages..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Frank Luntz doing Theresa May and Tory leadership hopefuls with one of his focus groups on Sunday Politics now
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Pbhouses.com xD
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Theresa May facing tough questions from Marr

    For a brief moment I was actually quite impressed by her. She showed some fighting spirit talking about a run on the pound under Labour.
    She is under colossal pressure and you have to wonder how most anyone would just not walk away, no matter one's opinion of her she must have amazing fortitude and determination - she is at least a serious politician
    More like a stubborn fool G, out of her depth but too pig headed to take the principled decision.
    Morning Malc - genuine question - who would you like to be PM
    G, I can honestly say that there is no-one in the front bench teams of any of the major parties that sounds or looks PM material. We have a dearth of serious politicians in this country. The move to Toffs, twats with political degrees , union placemen, political correctness, rampant nepotism, etc has ensured we have a full set of dullards who are happy to vote against their principles at any point on party orders. Westminster is a corrupt cesspit full of grasping nomarks, very little democracy in UK nowadays.
  • welshowl said:

    International Observers confirming rubber bullets fired with intent to hurt. This is going to damage Spain internationally

    Any wishing to force Gibraltar to change status should note.
    Surreal scenes as ballot boxex in bin bags are smuggled through protective crowds before the police confiscate them.


    BBC Europe correspondence says the irony is that the Catalans only wanted their right to vote and recognised they were likely to reject Independence. Today has changed that totally - stupid, stupid Government
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    DavidL said:

    There is a simple solution to the problem of property costs: build far more of them, especially in London where the main problem is. The third dimension is woefully underused in Britain. You don't have to build tower blocks. Five or six storey mansion blocks would be enough.

    There is a massive use of the third dimension on the south bank at the moment but I suspect the prices will not be of much interest to anyone under 40.
    So long as they are occupied they are part of the solution. They will free up other housing that would otherwise have been occupied.
    But how many are just pied-a-terres for the super-wealthy?
    Unless you want to stop the super-wealthy buying pieds-a-terres, they are part of the solution.
    There's no doubt that the demand for second homes drives up the values, often beyond the reach of the young. It's a symptom of increasing wealth inequality in this country.

    The supply of new flats in central London generates demand for second homes that would not necessarily exist if the flats weren't there imo (that couple with the fact that if you have a spare £500k in savings you aren't going to earn anything by keeping it on deposit).
    That’s the key to the housing problem. There’s nothing else making returns with interest rates on the floor, which is why BtL has been so popular over the past decade.

    Signs are that with stock market gains on the back of the Brexit pound devaluation and increased stamp duty this is turning slowly around, but until there’s another easy way to leverage investment with six figure sums then BtL will be popular.

    As an aside, this market in both BtL and house prices generally, is completely different in London compared to the rest of the U.K.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    dixiedean said:

    It is yet again worth pointing out that housing remains very affordable in most of the country.

    The problems are largely confined to the South East.

    In fact, some parts of the country are de-populating. & that means there are empty homes. despite the huge increase in UK population over the last fifty years, some parts of the country have nonetheless seen their populations decline.

    There are many, many companies & organisations based in London who just do not need to be there and should move out.

    +1

    Absolutely.

    I would only add that there are many people working in London who could do their jobs cheaper and more efficiently from a cheaper home outside London. How many daily commuters actually, physically need to be there?
    We need to prioritise home working as an aspect of this problem
    To develop this further, you can have a world-class University in a town or village (Princeton in New Jersey is an example).

    There is no need for Imperial College, UCL and Queen Mary to be in London.

    They should all move out.

    The land they own in Kensington, Bloomsbury & Mile End is worth a fortune. They could all move out, build new campuses elsewhere and make money in the process.

    They could invigorate small towns that desperately need influxes of new people. And the housing costs of their staff & student would be hugely reduced.

    This.
    I doubt the students who come to study in one of the world's great metropolises are going to be enthused if their campus is moved to St Mary Mead.

    Since all the out of London universities are opening campuses in London, the demand to study in London seems buoyant.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Theresa May facing tough questions from Marr

    For a brief moment I was actually quite impressed by her. She showed some fighting spirit talking about a run on the pound under Labour.
    She is under colossal pressure and you have to wonder how most anyone would just not walk away, no matter one's opinion of her she must have amazing fortitude and determination - she is at least a serious politician
    More like a stubborn fool G, out of her depth but too pig headed to take the principled decision.
    She's saving us from a Johnson premiership though.
    That buffoon would never get elected
    Tell that to Ken Livingstone
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Theresa May facing tough questions from Marr

    For a brief moment I was actually quite impressed by her. She showed some fighting spirit talking about a run on the pound under Labour.
    She is under colossal pressure and you have to wonder how most anyone would just not walk away, no matter one's opinion of her she must have amazing fortitude and determination - she is at least a serious politician
    More like a stubborn fool G, out of her depth but too pig headed to take the principled decision.
    She's saving us from a Johnson premiership though.
    That buffoon would never get elected
    Unfortunately, that's what he doesn't think or expect. He believes that he is a reincarnation of Winston Churchill, and too many people think he's right.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Chameleon, ah that's interesting and useful to know (point of order: I was actually referring to turnout in Austria, particularly thinking to their ultra-close presidential election which the far right chap 'lost' because of numerically unorthodox turnout levels in areas that favoured his opponent).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Theresa May facing tough questions from Marr

    For a brief moment I was actually quite impressed by her. She showed some fighting spirit talking about a run on the pound under Labour.
    She is under colossal pressure and you have to wonder how most anyone would just not walk away, no matter one's opinion of her she must have amazing fortitude and determination - she is at least a serious politician
    More like a stubborn fool G, out of her depth but too pig headed to take the principled decision.
    She's saving us from a Johnson premiership though.
    That buffoon would never get elected
    You have such faith in Tory MPs and members not to choose him?
    Unfortunately NO, but would hope any person in the country with more than two brain cells working would NOT vote for the turnip.
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Theresa May facing tough questions from Marr

    For a brief moment I was actually quite impressed by her. She showed some fighting spirit talking about a run on the pound under Labour.
    She is under colossal pressure and you have to wonder how most anyone would just not walk away, no matter one's opinion of her she must have amazing fortitude and determination - she is at least a serious politician
    More like a stubborn fool G, out of her depth but too pig headed to take the principled decision.
    Morning Malc - genuine question - who would you like to be PM
    G, I can honestly say that there is no-one in the front bench teams of any of the major parties that sounds or looks PM material. We have a dearth of serious politicians in this country. The move to Toffs, twats with political degrees , union placemen, political correctness, rampant nepotism, etc has ensured we have a full set of dullards who are happy to vote against their principles at any point on party orders. Westminster is a corrupt cesspit full of grasping nomarks, very little democracy in UK nowadays.
    I actually agree with you though not sure I would be so forthright !!!!!
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited October 2017

    dixiedean said:

    It is yet again worth pointing out that housing remains very affordable in most of the country.

    The problems are largely confined to the South East.

    In fact, some parts of the country are de-populating. & that means there are empty homes. despite the huge increase in UK population over the last fifty years, some parts of the country have nonetheless seen their populations decline.

    There are many, many companies & organisations based in London who just do not need to be there and should move out.

    +1

    Absolutely.

    I would only add that there are many people working in London who could do their jobs cheaper and more efficiently from a cheaper home outside London. How many daily commuters actually, physically need to be there?
    We need to prioritise home working as an aspect of this problem
    To develop this further, you can have a world-class University in a town or village (Princeton in New Jersey is an example).

    There is no need for Imperial College, UCL and Queen Mary to be in London.

    They should all move out.

    The land they own in Kensington, Bloomsbury & Mile End is worth a fortune. They could all move out, build new campuses elsewhere and make money in the process.

    They could invigorate small towns that desperately need influxes of new people. And the housing costs of their staff & student would be hugely reduced.

    This.
    I doubt the students who come to study in one of the world's great metropolises are going to be enthused if their campus is moved to St Mary Mead.

    Since all the out of London universities are opening campuses in London, the demand to study in London seems buoyant.
    If I recollect, you studied in Durham.

    A small town with a great University.

    Exactly my point.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    dixiedean said:

    It is yet again worth pointing out that housing remains very affordable in most of the country.

    The problems are largely confined to the South East.

    In fact, some parts of the country are de-populating. & that means there are empty homes. despite the huge increase in UK population over the last fifty years, some parts of the country have nonetheless seen their populations decline.

    There are many, many companies & organisations based in London who just do not need to be there and should move out.

    +1

    Absolutely.

    I would only add that there are many people working in London who could do their jobs cheaper and more efficiently from a cheaper home outside London. How many daily commuters actually, physically need to be there?
    We need to prioritise home working as an aspect of this problem
    To develop this further, you can have a world-class University in a town or village (Princeton in New Jersey is an example).

    There is no need for Imperial College, UCL and Queen Mary to be in London.

    They should all move out.

    The land they own in Kensington, Bloomsbury & Mile End is worth a fortune. They could all move out, build new campuses elsewhere and make money in the process.

    They could invigorate small towns that desperately need influxes of new people. And the housing costs of their staff & student would be hugely reduced.

    This.
    I doubt the students who come to study in one of the world's great metropolises are going to be enthused if their campus is moved to St Mary Mead.

    Since all the out of London universities are opening campuses in London, the demand to study in London seems buoyant.
    If I recollect, you studied in Durham.

    A small town with great University.

    Exactly my point.
    Yes, I did. I don't make the mistake of thinking that all students are like I was.

    The wave of universities opening in London shows that a lot of students want to study here. They're not going to be tempted by dreaming spires.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    There is a simple solution to the problem of property costs: build far more of them, especially in London where the main problem is. The third dimension is woefully underused in Britain. You don't have to build tower blocks. Five or six storey mansion blocks would be enough.

    There is a massive use of the third dimension on the south bank at the moment but I suspect the prices will not be of much interest to anyone under 40.
    So long as they are occupied they are part of the solution. They will free up other housing that would otherwise have been occupied.
    But how many are just pied-a-terres for the super-wealthy?
    Unless you want to stop the super-wealthy buying pieds-a-terres, they are part of the solution.
    There's no doubt that the demand for second homes drives up the values, often beyond the reach of the young. It's a symptom of increasing wealth inequality in this country.

    The supply of new flats in central London generates demand for second homes that would not necessarily exist if the flats weren't there imo (that couple with the fact that if you have a spare £500k in savings you aren't going to earn anything by keeping it on deposit).
    That’s the key to the housing problem. There’s nothing else making returns with interest rates on the floor, which is why BtL has been so popular over the past decade.

    Signs are that with stock market gains on the back of the Brexit pound devaluation and increased stamp duty this is turning slowly around, but until there’s another easy way to leverage investment with six figure sums then BtL will be popular.

    As an aside, this market in both BtL and house prices generally, is completely different in London compared to the rest of the U.K.
    Insane interest rates. Insane interest rates. Insane interest rates.

    The response to the financial crash avoided huge unemployment 30's style, and negative equity 90's style. But has merely shifted the problem to sky high house prices and collosal pension deficits.

    The BoE fought the last wars, not the present one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Surely the other key question is why it costs £9000 a year for a history degree with 10 hours a week (over about 30 weeks) of contact time?

    It doesn't. Usually it costs about £2-3,000.

    However, it can cost up to £30,000 to train a science graduate, and since they can't charge full fees for that, they need to recruit as many cheaper students in history, English, politics, business, art etc to make up the shortfall.

    The other elephant in the room is Education - strangely, that's one of the more expensive degrees because of fees paid to schools. Which is of course why the DfE are frantically closing down education departments and moving to SCITT routes, even though they know this is a less effective way of training on the whole.
    Which is why arts degree fees should be cut given they are both cheaper to run and have a lower graduate earnings premium and Hammond is sensibly looking at this while subsidising STEM courses which would still charge £9000
    Yes, but despite all that many students still prefer to study history, literature etc. They can quite rightly object to their choices being used to cross-subsidise STEM subjects.
    They can object but it wouldn't be 'quite rightly'. Why should the tax payer subsidise students studying courses that will bring only marginal benefit to the country rather than those which have real practical benefits. If we were not short of STEM graduates you would perhaps have a point but when both money and those with the right skills are lacking it is surely the job of the Government to target the taxpayer's money to where it would best benefit the country.
    The Government no longer funds places on humanities courses, whereas it still does provide funding for places on STEM courses. The logic of the marketisation of HE (which incidentally I don't support) is that universities should be able to offer places on low cost courses such as English literature and history for much less than £9,250 a year.
    The government is proposing fees for humanities courses can be cut
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Cyclefree said:



    ydoethur said:
    Needs not wants. Anyway, a lot of it is about poverty of imagination. Courtyard blocks are common across much of Europe, use space very efficiently and can be very stylish.
    Agree with this. I grew up in such a home in Italy and it was great. Well built mansion blocks, particularly if you "green" them with roof terraces and balconies, can be a good alternative and make a sensible use of the space we already have within cities.

    The key is to build them well rather than the shoddy gimcrack flats that too many large houses have been turned into.
    I live on the first floor of a five storey mansion block in Barnes. It was built in 1908. Very solid and soundproof. We have a balcony with table and chairs where I smoke a cigar, sipping my cognac surveying the Barnes scene. It has a rather nice entrance and staircase at the front and a more scruffy servant staircase at the back that our porter uses. It is multinational with young and old. Our frequent parties in the communal gardens are spent moaning about Brexit (as well as drinking). I know all my neighbours and it has the feel of a grand Cambridge college staircase. Highly recommended. About £1 million per apartment.
    I have a 4 bedroom detached house with front and back gardens, a garage, a study, a conservatory with views of the hills and a drive way big enough for 3 cars. Nice neighbours too. £300K on a good day.
    I have similar , minus conservatory, ensuite , cloakroom and countryside views , will not be much above £200K on a good day. Bet its not as big and palatial as yours though David.
    Nothing palatial about this Malcolm. It's a glorified Betts Box from the early 90s. But house prices are not the problem in Scotland outside the posher parts of Edinburgh. The problem is not enough people earning sufficient to build up deposits and pay the mortgage. At the moment house builders could build plenty more houses on already approved sites if the demand was there.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922

    dixiedean said:

    It is yet again worth pointing out that housing remains very affordable in most of the country.

    The problems are largely confined to the South East.

    In fact, some parts of the country are de-populating. & that means there are empty homes. despite the huge increase in UK population over the last fifty years, some parts of the country have nonetheless seen their populations decline.

    There are many, many companies & organisations based in London who just do not need to be there and should move out.

    +1

    Absolutely.

    I would only add that there are many people working in London who could do their jobs cheaper and more efficiently from a cheaper home outside London. How many daily commuters actually, physically need to be there?
    We need to prioritise home working as an aspect of this problem
    To develop this further, you can have a world-class University in a town or village (Princeton in New Jersey is an example).

    There is no need for Imperial College, UCL and Queen Mary to be in London.

    They should all move out.

    The land they own in Kensington, Bloomsbury & Mile End is worth a fortune. They could all move out, build new campuses elsewhere and make money in the process.

    They could invigorate small towns that desperately need influxes of new people. And the housing costs of their staff & student would be hugely reduced.

    This.
    I doubt the students who come to study in one of the world's great metropolises are going to be enthused if their campus is moved to St Mary Mead.

    Since all the out of London universities are opening campuses in London, the demand to study in London seems buoyant.
    International students, in particular, want to study in London.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,576

    My impression - I wouldn't claim it's scientifically based - is that it's a mistake to think that younger voters can be appeased by some improvements to housing policy or cuts in tuition fees. The insurgency of the 18-50 generations is more a attitudinal phenomenon - they are just tired of bleak austerity with no end in sight, and want a government that seems to offer some hope of what they feel would be a better society.

    That's why attacks on the affordability of Labour's student fee policy don't really cut through - people appreciate the intention, and have priced in that it might need to be phased in etc.

    I think this correct. The promise of housing and personal student debt is not going down well.

    Ultimately the problem is the increasing dependency ratio of the country. The working age population even with current levels of immigration is not forecast to alter much over the next 15 years. The increase of several millions is in the over 65's. The young will have to pay for this one way or another, the rest is just quibbling about methods.

    Stoking up government debt to do so just adds to the burden on the young. There needs to either be strong economic growth or higher taxes to pay for it all, paid by those who benefited under the old system. Brexit has done for the first, and the Tories would not consider the srcond. That is why this generational angst will do for them.
    But in the case of housing, government can borrow long term exceedingly cheaply, and get a real return on just about anything it builds, surely ?
    The utter failure of the private sector to meet real housing demand is partly down to restrictive planning, but also I think because a restricted housing supply is very good indeed for profit margins. For once, some state competition might be quite useful.

    The housing industry might complain, but a careful review of planning might sugar the pill.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,886

    Mr. Chameleon, ah that's interesting and useful to know (point of order: I was actually referring to turnout in Austria, particularly thinking to their ultra-close presidential election which the far right chap 'lost' because of numerically unorthodox turnout levels in areas that favoured his opponent).

    Ah okay, sorry. Truth be told I wasn't even aware that Austria was having a vote today, which is pretty shameful for a member of PB!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.

    This has very little to do with the EU. It's not as if other governments elsewhere are backing Catalan UDI. What we have in Spain is a right wing, nationalist government, with its roots in Francoism, doing everything in its power to turn what had been a minority cause in Catalonia into a majority one. Today's violence will now see a major shift in international opinion. The separatists have won.

    However if it splits Spain and sees Catalonia join the EU after many EU nations might start to think about whether they want their countries potentially all split into regions of an EU superstate
    An independent Catalonia will never be a member of the EU. Spain will veto it all day and every day.
    Which would also mean they would have to veto claims of a hypothetical independent Scotland to join the EU all day every day if Scotland ever had a second independence referendum which passed
    Why? What is this obsession with consistency?
    If an independent Scotland joined the EU it would be almost impossible for Catalonia not to be able to argue it should also be able to join which is why Spain would veto both membership applications and has previously made clear it opposes EU membership for a hypothetical independent Scotland
    It could find a way to argue the two situations are different. This is Europe, political fudge is our meal of choice.
    Not of course that it seems Spain is going to allow an independent Catalonia anyway though whether Catalonia declares UDI is another matter
  • Fookin hell...it is like scenes from Venezuela

    https://order-order.com/2017/10/01/spanish-police-attack-catalan-voters/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Heseltine claims he was a 'loyal supporter of Mrs Thatcher' until he left the cabinet while Boris is undermining her within it
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    dixiedean said:

    It is yet again worth pointing out that housing remains very affordable in most of the country.

    The problems are largely confined to the South East.

    In fact, some parts of the country are de-populating. & that means there are empty homes. despite the huge increase in UK population over the last fifty years, some parts of the country have nonetheless seen their populations decline.

    There are many, many companies & organisations based in London who just do not need to be there and should move out.

    +1

    Absolutely.

    I would only add that there are many people working in London who could do their jobs cheaper and more efficiently from a cheaper home outside London. How many daily commuters actually, physically need to be there?
    We need to prioritise home working as an aspect of this problem
    To develop this further, you can have a world-class University in a town or village (Princeton in New Jersey is an example).

    There is no need for Imperial College, UCL and Queen Mary to be in London.

    They should all move out.

    The land they own in Kensington, Bloomsbury & Mile End is worth a fortune. They could all move out, build new campuses elsewhere and make money in the process.

    They could invigorate small towns that desperately need influxes of new people. And the housing costs of their staff & student would be hugely reduced.

    You think their students, and all their high paying international students in particular, don't find being in London a significant part of the attraction?

    Well, its a view.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Surely the other key question is why it costs £9000 a year for a history degree with 10 hours a week (over about 30 weeks) of contact time?

    It doesn't. Usually it costs about £2-3,000.

    However, it can cost up to £30,000 to train a science graduate, and since they can't charge full fees for that, they need to recruit as many cheaper students in history, English, politics, business, art etc to make up the shortfall.

    The other elephant in the room is Education - strangely, that's one of the more expensive degrees because of fees paid to schools. Which is of course why the DfE are frantically closing down education departments and moving to SCITT routes, even though they know this is a less effective way of training on the whole.
    Which is why arts degree fees should be cut given they are both cheaper to run and have a lower graduate earnings premium and Hammond is sensibly looking at this while subsidising STEM courses which would still charge £9000
    Yes, but despite all that many students still prefer to study history, literature etc. They can quite rightly object to their choices being used to cross-subsidise STEM subjects.
    They can object but it wouldn't be 'quite rightly'. Why should the tax payer subsidise students studying courses that will bring only marginal benefit to the country rather than those which have real practical benefits. If we were not short of STEM graduates you would perhaps have a point but when both money and those with the right skills are lacking it is surely the job of the Government to target the taxpayer's money to where it would best benefit the country.
    The Government no longer funds places on humanities courses, whereas it still does provide funding for places on STEM courses. The logic of the marketisation of HE (which incidentally I don't support) is that universities should be able to offer places on low cost courses such as English literature and history for much less than £9,250 a year.
    The government is proposing fees for humanities courses can be cut
    Yes, I think the reason universities haven't done this - and probably won't in future (despite market logic suggesting they should) is because most academics still support the ideal of a university with a broad curriculum that embraces all fields of knowledge.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Chameleon, I was unaware too, until someone else mentioned it here.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    It is always a bit awkward given our culture elevates democratic will and mandate above nearly all else - certainly above following the rules, man, as any pop culture tells us - that doing so is intrinsically 'the right thing' even against the rules, it is awkward when we, or in this case Spain, responds so aggressively to an attempt to vote, even if it is indeed against the law and given the disruptions hardly a credible vote.

    Internationally I Think southam is right this nets them more support, but governments are holding firm behind Spain I think?

    Well the EU is holding firm behind them but then the EU has never really had much truck with democracy anyway.

    This has very little to do with the EU. It's not as if other governments elsewhere are backing Catalan UDI. What we have in Spain is a right wing, nationalist government, with its roots in Francoism, doing everything in its power to turn what had been a minority cause in Catalonia into a majority one. Today's violence will now see a major shift in international opinion. The separatists have won.

    However if it splits Spain and sees Catalonia join the EU after many EU nations might start to think about whether they want their countries potentially all split into regions of an EU superstate
    An independent Catalonia will never be a member of the EU. Spain will veto it all day and every day.
    Which would also mean they would have to veto claims of a hypothetical independent Scotland to join the EU all day every day if Scotland ever had a second independence referendum which passed
    Why? What is this obsession with consistency?
    If an independent Scotland joined the EU it would be almost impossible for Catalonia not to be able to argue it should also be able to join which is why Spain would veto both membership applications and has previously made clear it opposes EU membership for a hypothetical independent Scotland
    It could find a way to argue the two situations are different. This is Europe, political fudge is our meal of choice.
    Not of course that it seems Spain is going to allow an independent Catalonia anyway though whether Catalonia declares UDI is another matter
    Well indeed - another reason the heavy handedness is unnecessary.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    There is a simple solution to the problem of property costs: build far more of them, especially in London where the main problem is. The third dimension is woefully underused in Britain. You don't have to build tower blocks. Five or six storey mansion blocks would be enough.

    The Georgians were surprisingly efficient at high urban densities and who (apart from the Victorians) doesn't like their stuff? Its the fake Georgian McMansions that put people off - terraces - that's what we need!
    Wasn't that because they relied on the underclass living 10 to a room?
    Which is exactly what’s happening now, with low-skilled EU immigrants in central London.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    dixiedean said:

    It is yet again worth pointing out that housing remains very affordable in most of the country.

    The problems are largely confined to the South East.

    In fact, some parts of the country are de-populating. & that means there are empty homes. despite the huge increase in UK population over the last fifty years, some parts of the country have nonetheless seen their populations decline.

    There are many, many companies & organisations based in London who just do not need to be there and should move out.

    +1

    Absolutely.

    I would only add that there are many people working in London who could do their jobs cheaper and more efficiently from a cheaper home outside London. How many daily commuters actually, physically need to be there?
    We need to prioritise home working as an aspect of this problem
    To develop this further, you can have a world-class University in a town or village (Princeton in New Jersey is an example).

    There is no need for Imperial College, UCL and Queen Mary to be in London.

    They should all move out.

    The land they own in Kensington, Bloomsbury & Mile End is worth a fortune. They could all move out, build new campuses elsewhere and make money in the process.

    They could invigorate small towns that desperately need influxes of new people. And the housing costs of their staff & student would be hugely reduced.

    This.
    I doubt the students who come to study in one of the world's great metropolises are going to be enthused if their campus is moved to St Mary Mead.

    Since all the out of London universities are opening campuses in London, the demand to study in London seems buoyant.
    If I recollect, you studied in Durham.

    A small town with great University.

    Exactly my point.
    Yes, I did. I don't make the mistake of thinking that all students are like I was.

    The wave of universities opening in London shows that a lot of students want to study here. They're not going to be tempted by dreaming spires.
    You think students prefer to be paying a fortune to live in a hovel ? You think academic staff like to have a long commute to Bloomsbury or Kensington ?

    Most of the academics I know teaching at say UCL live in St Albans. They can't afford to live in Bloomsbury.

    Why not move UCL to St Albans? Still a very nice place. The academics can afford houses. The students get much cheaper rents. London is not that far away if needed.
This discussion has been closed.