I think they'll both do wonders for the Commonwealth.
It's hard not to feel quite a bit of respect for Harry. He's already clocked up one big achievement, with his Invictus Games, and he's probably doing more than any other Royal to support and promote the Commonwealth overseas.
Yes, Harry is now the most popular royal and his choosing to marry a woman of mixed race shows he is fully in tune with the 21st century and also makes the royal family more reflective of the Commonwealth it heads.
Surely the fact that she is a divorced American (shades of Wallis Simpson) and Roman Catholic is far more of an issue than the colour of her skin. Is he not barring himself from the succession (currently 5th in line) by this marriage?
Hence her conversion to Anglicanism.
It is a commoner, and of mixed ethnicity, that makes her most interesting. It is a fundamental modernisation of the basis of Monarchy. Monarchy, like all Aristocracy, is based on bloodline and the explicit idea that inheritance matters. Monarchy is the antithesis of self improvement and meritocracy.
Hence? That law has gone.
I couldn't actually find any restriction on the wife of the monarch being Catholic - it's just those in the succession - anyway. Which suggests this is more about the fact that (in principle) Harry could be head of the Church of England
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
...without significant changes to economic policy - both intervention and redistribution - with which Conservatives would be most uncomfortable. Hence May's near total failure to secure an agenda to pursue her diagnosis. And another reason why the logic of Brexit directs toward a Labour government.
Only if that Labour government continues to commit to end free movement as Corbyn has done.
A very interesting comment piece about the EU trade negotiations - suggesting that we turn them on their head, starting with WTO and adding value, rather than starting with the status quo and subtracting as the EU will want to do. http://commentcentral.co.uk/the-dummies-guide-to-negotiating-with-the-eu/
That is an extremely good article. If we had gone with something along those lines on the afternoon of the day after the vote think how different things would have been by now.
The sort of thing that might have been produced at the right time, had HMG had the good sense to set a lot of people thinking about the matter in advance of getting us to vote on it.
Also a massive misjudgement by Cameron not to have considered that nailing the Leavers down to one version of Brexit, in advance of a referendum, would have been the best way to secure the Remain win that he actually wanted. His mistake was to allow everyone with different visions of the future to coalesce behind one flimsy set of words.
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
Leaving the EU is an economic dislocation and it will take time for the economy to rebalance itself.
(For reference, it took about 20 years for NZ to do the same after it lost access to its key export market when the U.K. joined the Common Market).
London is best placed to re-orient itself because of its skill base and existing networks.
Middlesbrough and Hull: not so much.
Brexit economic guru Patrick Minford predicts that Britain will "mostly eliminate manufacturing" post Brext and suggests winding down Nissan's operations in Sunderland, claiming it is protected by subsidy.
(Nissan is by several orders of magnitude the single largest exporter in the entire North East, btw)
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
Leaving the EU is an economic dislocation and it will take time for the economy to rebalance itself.
(For reference, it took about 20 years for NZ to do the same after it lost access to its key export market when the U.K. joined the Common Market).
London is best placed to re-orient itself because of its skill base and existing networks.
Middlesbrough and Hull: not so much.
Brexit economic guru Patrick Minford predicts that Britain will "mostly eliminate manufacturing" post Brext and suggests winding down Nissan's operations in Sunderland, claiming it is protected by subsidy.
(Nissan is by several orders of magnitude the single largest exporter in the entire North East, btw)
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Except that is precisely the opposite of the effect the FTA May is aiming for will have.
A FTA will benefit manufacturing areas as it will keep largely tariff free goods exports but will not really cover services and still see the City leave the single market.
Once the population of a distinct minority with alien values that wishes to maintain its separateness reaches 5%, it may be perceived by the native population as a threat, and this is much more likely once it reaches 10%. The consequences are potentially dire. The 3 countries with a Muslim population predicted at <0.5% in 2050 have had previous experience of separate alien minorities and it did not work out well - remember what happened in Latvia and Lithuania in the 2nd half of 1941. </p>
It very much depends on what you mean by alien values. Certainly there some rejectionists amongst Muslim Britons, but there are many more who are completely integarated. Sadiq Khan or Sajid Javid for example on the national stage, or TSE here.
Indeed, sitting near me at the football yesterday was a bearded Muslim fellow in traditional dress with two girls, decked out in Leicester City blue headscarves. Visibly different, visibly assimilated and completely comfortable in the crowd. There is some progress in the world.
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
I dont think they were worried about being less poor. Just less foreign
We are all looking forward to that promised doctor's surgery and hospital in the broadcast - the ones with tons of smiling staff and seemingly only a single patient to deal with....
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
Leaving the EU is an economic dislocation and it will take time for the economy to rebalance itself.
(For reference, it took about 20 years for NZ to do the same after it lost access to its key export market when the U.K. joined the Common Market).
London is best placed to re-orient itself because of its skill base and existing networks.
Middlesbrough and Hull: not so much.
Brexit economic guru Patrick Minford predicts that Britain will "mostly eliminate manufacturing" post Brext and suggests winding down Nissan's operations in Sunderland, claiming it is protected by subsidy.
(Nissan is by several orders of magnitude the single largest exporter in the entire North East, btw)
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Yet the part of the economy which has done best since the Referendum is manufacturing ie the part proportionally far more important in Middlesbrough and Hull than in London.
I do not remember any Remain voters predicting this, rather the opposite in fact.
Dr. Foxinsox, very hard to get numbers on integration/isolation, though.
Also, you cite Khan. He's banned images of healthy women in bikinis on the Tube and permitted Al-Quds to march through London.
Research by Trevor Phillips[sp] a year or two ago, presented in a very good Channel 4 programme, revealed high levels of Muslim intolerance for things like gay rights (even to the extent of wishing to criminalise homosexuality, if memory serves), and minority but substantial support for Sharia law.
But because these things are deemed 'sensitive' there's a vast yawning chasm in political discourse about them, which helps create a space for the far right to slowly grow. Those in politics worried about such growth might consider that they're the damned cause. If the mainstream won't address genuine concerns people have about enclaves, integration, and so on, then the electorate, sooner or later, will look elsewhere.
A very interesting comment piece about the EU trade negotiations - suggesting that we turn them on their head, starting with WTO and adding value, rather than starting with the status quo and subtracting as the EU will want to do. http://commentcentral.co.uk/the-dummies-guide-to-negotiating-with-the-eu/
That is an extremely good article. If we had gone with something along those lines on the afternoon of the day after the vote think how different things would have been by now.
Indeed so. I’ve long argued that the EU are fundamentally bad actors, whose playbook is to give the impression of being close to a deal, while running down the clock with the intention of presenting an eleventh-hour one-sided fait accompli which we sign or the planes stop flying. This argument comes from decades of watching EU negotiations, which have always gone down in the same manner.
We need to see it coming, and as several businessmen have said in a letter to the PM today, be prepared to walk and spend time preparing for WTO, rather than watching the time run out and find ourselves boxed into a corner.
Once the population of a distinct minority with alien values that wishes to maintain its separateness reaches 5%, it may be perceived by the native population as a threat, and this is much more likely once it reaches 10%. The consequences are potentially dire. The 3 countries with a Muslim population predicted at <0.5% in 2050 have had previous experience of separate alien minorities and it did not work out well - remember what happened in Latvia and Lithuania in the 2nd half of 1941. </p>
It very much depends on what you mean by alien values. Certainly there some rejectionists amongst Muslim Britons, but there are many more who are completely integarated. Sadiq Khan or Sajid Javid for example on the national stage, or TSE here.
Indeed, sitting near me at the football yesterday was a bearded Muslim fellow in traditional dress with two girls, decked out in Leicester City blue headscarves. Visibly different, visibly assimilated and completely comfortable in the crowd. There is some progress in the world.
+1.
As I have said before on this site, Muslim teenagers who have been born here and educated in a modern school have a different outlook from their parents. Whether many will go the way of much of the Jewish community and 'disappear' as far as their separateness is concerned remains to be seen, but it would be a mistake to simply project forward the numbers and assume the next generation will have the same characteristics in thirty years time as the current one does today.
A very interesting comment piece about the EU trade negotiations - suggesting that we turn them on their head, starting with WTO and adding value, rather than starting with the status quo and subtracting as the EU will want to do. http://commentcentral.co.uk/the-dummies-guide-to-negotiating-with-the-eu/
That is an extremely good article. If we had gone with something along those lines on the afternoon of the day after the vote think how different things would have been by now.
To be fair, the reason this approach was not considered was because of the fact that Remainers have been making out that access to the SM was so critically important that we cannot survive without it, something that they doubled down on after the election. The Government's problem has been in accepting the vastly overstated value of the SM and thus pretending that somehow retaining these 'benefits' was the critical objective. In fact, starting with WTO, getting an agreement on protocols of working with WTO and then trying to build on it (probably after Brexit) would have been the correct approach - but can you imagine the outcry if the Government had suggested this?
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Yet the part of the economy which has done best since the Referendum is manufacturing ie the part proportionally far more important in Middlesbrough and Hull than in London.
I do not remember any Remain voters predicting this, rather the opposite in fact.
I am talking about the long term (i.e. 5-20 years) and you are referring to the short-lived bounce caused by the collapse in the pound.
Hull's exports are not getting more desirable. It's just that we're having a fire sale.
That list of failed favourites is missing the following:
Maudling 1965 Butler (twice) 1957 and 1963 Hailsham 1963 (arguably) Halifax (arguably) 1940 Curzon 1923 Austen Chamberlain (although he was successful later) 1911 Stafford Northcote 1881-85
The favourite has succeeded on the following occasions since Derby in 1846:
Disraeli 1868 Balfour 1902 Austen Chamberlain at the second attempt in 1921 Neville Chamberlain in 1937 Antony Eden in 1955
The latter list have in common that with the partial exception of the first they were all disastrous failures.
In Tory terms, electing the favourite doesn't work.
Macmillan was probably favourite in 1957 though Butler was favourite in 1963, Howard favourite in 2003 (albeit elected unopposed), Maudling may well have done better than Heath.
Agree about Macmilland and Butler. Don’t think Maudling was ever that likely. IIRC there was some sort of scandal......development in the North East/Yorkshire. Paulson. (witrhout checking!)
But the Poulson affair did not come to light until the early 1970s when Maudling was Home Secretary and felt obliged to resign from the Heath Government.
Indeed. You’re quite. Sorry about that. Maudling’s bisness dealings did somewhat compomise earlier, though.
Of course in 1975 Thatcher only ran because Joseph did not and so with Joseph at 7-2 already in the betting then there was clearly awareness the Tory Party may pick a leader with a more right-wing take on economics. The involvement of the membership since 2001 also has influenced things.
That October 2015 poll of Tory members proved to be pretty accurate given May was already the leading candidate of those who actually stood for the leadership in June 2016.
The 50/1 was incredible. She should have been no longer than 20/1.
Is Hunt today the betting Thatcher of 1975?
Yup, the number of Tory Leavers I know who have said they'd back Hunt over someone like JRM and Boris is growing.
I get the feeling you'd back Hunt over those two?
As long as the NHS doesn't fall apart Hunt has a good chance.
While every 'NHS to collapse' scare story which flops boosts his credibility.
Except that is precisely the opposite of the effect the FTA May is aiming for will have.
A FTA will benefit manufacturing areas as it will keep largely tariff free goods exports but will not really cover services and still see the City leave the single market.
If May is actually aiming for that sort of FTA she is more of an idiot than we thought. WHY would you care about tariff free exports if you (a) have to pay 50bn to get them and (b) import masses more than you export? It makes no sense whatsoever to have a FTA in this scenario, unless it covers services. The whole point of an FTA is to get access to areas where you have a competitive advantage (eg services) in return for allowing people who have competitive advantage in other areas access to your market. There is no benefit in simply agreeing tariff free access for the sake of it.
Except that is precisely the opposite of the effect the FTA May is aiming for will have.
A FTA will benefit manufacturing areas as it will keep largely tariff free goods exports but will not really cover services and still see the City leave the single market.
If May is actually aiming for that sort of FTA she is more of an idiot than we thought. WHY would you care about tariff free exports if you (a) have to pay 50bn to get them and (b) import masses more than you export? It makes no sense whatsoever to have a FTA in this scenario, unless it covers services. The whole point of an FTA is to get access to areas where you have a competitive advantage (eg services) in return for allowing people who have competitive advantage in other areas access to your market. There is no benefit in simply agreeing tariff free access for the sake of it.
Nevertheless he is right that this is what we shall get.
Dr. Foxinsox, very hard to get numbers on integration/isolation, though.
Also, you cite Khan. He's banned images of healthy women in bikinis on the Tube and permitted Al-Quds to march through London.
Research by Trevor Phillips[sp] a year or two ago, presented in a very good Channel 4 programme, revealed high levels of Muslim intolerance for things like gay rights (even to the extent of wishing to criminalise homosexuality, if memory serves), and minority but substantial support for Sharia law.
But because these things are deemed 'sensitive' there's a vast yawning chasm in political discourse about them, which helps create a space for the far right to slowly grow. Those in politics worried about such growth might consider that they're the damned cause. If the mainstream won't address genuine concerns people have about enclaves, integration, and so on, then the electorate, sooner or later, will look elsewhere.
Re Al Quds, you're perpetuating a far right myth about Sadiq Khan
'Sadiq Khan ‘does not have the power’ to ban Al-Quds Day march'
Farage on Marr. I think he should mention the fact that the BBC allowed someone in Harlow to say that Farage had blood on his hands over the murder of the Polish man there.
Shocking. I think there's blood from more obvious candidates that Nigel 'without a single bullet being fired' Farage should be worrying about.
I am British, so it should not come as a surprise that i refer to Britain as 'we' or 'our'. It is more of a surprise when Remainers do it.
No, I don't pass the cricket test. I still support England (God knows why) not really because I cannot transfer allegiances, but because the Australian cricket team are so unlikeable, something that most Australians also concede. But, as I am not an Australian citizen, I still get to choose.
Yes it's much more surprising that Remainers who live and pay their taxes here refer to Britain as "we" or "our" than Leave voters who have f**cked off abroad to live.
Several of PB's staunchest Leavers have, err, Left...
I expect if Corbyn gets in many more Tory Leavers will follow, far better to comment on Corbyn's Premiership and post Brexit UK from a sunny tax haven like Singapore, the UAE or Bermuda, Belize or the Bahamas rather than to actually live through it.
I think that @RCS1000 is correct in forecasting at least one year of net emigration. The question will be whether the Citizens of Nowhere are those fleeing Corbynism or those fleeing Moggism.
It's a good prediction.
The prospect of a Corbyn government means I'm now very seriously looking at leaving the country. I started making discreet enquiries about jobs overseas after GE2017. Moreover I've advised some expat family members - far more wealthy than I - not to return.
Labour said nobody earning less than 80k would pay more tax, which is something I don't believe for an instant. Coincidentally 2017 was the first year I earned more than 80k, but the things that really frighten me are less being taxed to death and more the wholesale destruction of the economy caused by capital flight.
Corbyn's 'banks are right to fear us' interview this week coupled with McDonnell's ominous 'we have a plan in place to deal with capital flight' do not look good. Aside from Seamus Milne, effectively a Stalinite, probably being one of the most powerful people in a Corbyn government, the fact is that Corbyn has spoken approvingly of property seizure (post Grenfell) and McDonnell has spoken approvingly of street protest (the so called 'day of rage) to oust a democratically elected government.
A Corbyn government won't be a normal, centre left government. It will be a disaster in which ham fisted attempts to redistribute wealth lead to capital flight and subsequent controls that will devastate the economy. Getting out before that happens seems a very sensible idea.
Except that is precisely the opposite of the effect the FTA May is aiming for will have.
A FTA will benefit manufacturing areas as it will keep largely tariff free goods exports but will not really cover services and still see the City leave the single market.
If May is actually aiming for that sort of FTA she is more of an idiot than we thought. WHY would you care about tariff free exports if you (a) have to pay 50bn to get them and (b) import masses more than you export? It makes no sense whatsoever to have a FTA in this scenario, unless it covers services. The whole point of an FTA is to get access to areas where you have a competitive advantage (eg services) in return for allowing people who have competitive advantage in other areas access to your market. There is no benefit in simply agreeing tariff free access for the sake of it.
Nevertheless he is right that this is what we shall get.
I agree - May is determined to sell us out. But lets not pretend that any deal is a good deal - this deal will be far worse for the UK than WTO, before we even add on the restrictions on our ability to compete with the EU that are going to be bolted on to such a deal.
Of course in 1975 Thatcher only ran because Joseph did not and so with Joseph at 7-2 already in the betting then there was clearly awareness the Tory Party may pick a leader with a more right-wing take on economics. The involvement of the membership since 2001 also has influenced things.
That October 2015 poll of Tory members proved to be pretty accurate given May was already the leading candidate of those who actually stood for the leadership in June 2016.
The 50/1 was incredible. She should have been no longer than 20/1.
Is Hunt today the betting Thatcher of 1975?
Yup, the number of Tory Leavers I know who have said they'd back Hunt over someone like JRM and Boris is growing.
I get the feeling you'd back Hunt over those two?
Agreed. Hunt is winning my straw poll too.
Against that, the argument for "having held a difficult senior post for ages, so will make a good PM" took a hell of a knock with former long-term Home Secretary Theresa May......
Farage on Marr. I think he should mention the fact that the BBC allowed someone in Harlow to say that Farage had blood on his hands over the murder of the Polish man there.
Shocking. I think there's blood from more obvious candidates that Nigel 'without a single bullet being fired' Farage should be worrying about.
An interesting argument from Farage; He was responsible for keeping the Nazis out of the UK by being a little less Nazi.
Emigrating due to Corbyn or Brexit is stupid. If you don't like the political situation, stand your ground, and try to change it. Nothing lasts forever.
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Yet the part of the economy which has done best since the Referendum is manufacturing ie the part proportionally far more important in Middlesbrough and Hull than in London.
I do not remember any Remain voters predicting this, rather the opposite in fact.
I am talking about the long term (i.e. 5-20 years) and you are referring to the short-lived bounce caused by the collapse in the pound.
Hull's exports are not getting more desirable. It's just that we're having a fire sale.
In which case the EU is fcked and we're better off out of it.
Of course the 'London, ra-ra-ra' boys never mention the collapse in levels of home ownership there. So even if it is the place with the bright future an ever decreasing number of people will benefit from it.
Though whether London does have this great future is rather debateable - after all what's to stop high cost financial services steadily relocating to somewhere cheaper and/or more automated over the next generation.
Emigrating due to Corbyn or Brexit is stupid. If you don't like the political situation, stand your ground, and try to change it. Nothing lasts forever.
It works with Corbyn but not with Brexit and that's the point
Except that is precisely the opposite of the effect the FTA May is aiming for will have.
A FTA will benefit manufacturing areas as it will keep largely tariff free goods exports but will not really cover services and still see the City leave the single market.
If May is actually aiming for that sort of FTA she is more of an idiot than we thought. WHY would you care about tariff free exports if you (a) have to pay 50bn to get them and (b) import masses more than you export? It makes no sense whatsoever to have a FTA in this scenario, unless it covers services. The whole point of an FTA is to get access to areas where you have a competitive advantage (eg services) in return for allowing people who have competitive advantage in other areas access to your market. There is no benefit in simply agreeing tariff free access for the sake of it.
There is for those working class Leavers who work on manufacturing and for whom a FTA that ends free movement is the ideal solution.
Dr. Foxinsox, very hard to get numbers on integration/isolation, though.
Also, you cite Khan. He's banned images of healthy women in bikinis on the Tube and permitted Al-Quds to march through London.
Research by Trevor Phillips[sp] a year or two ago, presented in a very good Channel 4 programme, revealed high levels of Muslim intolerance for things like gay rights (even to the extent of wishing to criminalise homosexuality, if memory serves), and minority but substantial support for Sharia law.
But because these things are deemed 'sensitive' there's a vast yawning chasm in political discourse about them, which helps create a space for the far right to slowly grow. Those in politics worried about such growth might consider that they're the damned cause. If the mainstream won't address genuine concerns people have about enclaves, integration, and so on, then the electorate, sooner or later, will look elsewhere.
Surveys also show that while lagging other Britons, younger muslims are far more accepting of gay rights and similar issues than older generations. This is a pattern found across multiple migrant communities.
Only 50% of European muslims ever go to a mosque or pray:
Indeed perceiving the secularisation of their community is a spur to radicalisation for a subset of muslims. Mosque attendance is dropping amongst the young in MENA countries too. In Saudi as many decribe themselves as athiests as in the USA, despite it being illegal.
Islamism is in many ways best thought of as a reaction to the secularisation, consumerism and globilisation impacting on communities and cultures.
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Yet the part of the economy which has done best since the Referendum is manufacturing ie the part proportionally far more important in Middlesbrough and Hull than in London.
I do not remember any Remain voters predicting this, rather the opposite in fact.
I am talking about the long term (i.e. 5-20 years) and you are referring to the short-lived bounce caused by the collapse in the pound.
Hull's exports are not getting more desirable. It's just that we're having a fire sale.
In which case the EU is fcked and we're better off out of it.
Of course the 'London, ra-ra-ra' boys never mention the collapse in levels of home ownership there. So even if it is the place with the bright future an ever decreasing number of people will benefit from it.
Though whether London does have this great future is rather debateable - after all what's to stop high cost financial services steadily relocating to somewhere cheaper and/or more automated over the next generation.
My point is that Brexit makes all of our existing problems - social mobility, regional divides - that much harder chiefly because it imposes an economic dislocation on us that is likely to be felt more durably by the have nots than the haves.
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
Leaving the EU is an economic dislocation and it will take time for the economy to rebalance itself.
(For reference, it took about 20 years for NZ to do the same after it lost access to its key export market when the U.K. joined the Common Market).
London is best placed to re-orient itself because of its skill base and existing networks.
Middlesbrough and Hull: not so much.
Brexit economic guru Patrick Minford predicts that Britain will "mostly eliminate manufacturing" post Brext and suggests winding down Nissan's operations in Sunderland, claiming it is protected by subsidy.
(Nissan is by several orders of magnitude the single largest exporter in the entire North East, btw)
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Except that is precisely the opposite of the effect the FTA May is aiming for will have.
A FTA will benefit manufacturing areas as it will keep largely tariff free goods exports but will not really cover services and still see the City leave the single market.
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Give over man. I work in North East manufacturing and we are the most profitable we've ever been.
I rather sense that the biggest fear among the 'London, ra-ra-ra' boys is that other parts of the country might do better than the capital over the next few years.
Though given that London was the only part of Britain with a negative internal migration in 2016 it seems many thousands of people have realised that already:
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Give over man. I work in North East manufacturing and we are the most profitable we've ever been.
I rather sense that the biggest fear among the 'London, ra-ra-ra' boys is that other parts of the country might do better than the capital over the next few years.
Though given that London was the only part of Britain with a negative internal migration in 2016 it seems many thousands of people have realised that already:
London has always had (at least in living memory) negative internal migration as families decide to move out to commuter towns in order to get more space.
They're not leaving the London jobs market.
I'm not sure who the ra-ra boys are. It would be wonderful if the country outside the SE were to actually pay its way - lower taxes for everyone!
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Yet the part of the economy which has done best since the Referendum is manufacturing ie the part proportionally far more important in Middlesbrough and Hull than in London.
I do not remember any Remain voters predicting this, rather the opposite in fact.
I am talking about the long term (i.e. 5-20 years) and you are referring to the short-lived bounce caused by the collapse in the pound.
Hull's exports are not getting more desirable. It's just that we're having a fire sale.
To be fair, it is not only devaluation that is helping our manufacturing exports, it is also the surging economic growth in our main EU markets. As long as we don't screw up access to our major export destination, manufacturing will be fine.
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Yet the part of the economy which has done best since the Referendum is manufacturing ie the part proportionally far more important in Middlesbrough and Hull than in London.
I do not remember any Remain voters predicting this, rather the opposite in fact.
I am talking about the long term (i.e. 5-20 years) and you are referring to the short-lived bounce caused by the collapse in the pound.
Hull's exports are not getting more desirable. It's just that we're having a fire sale.
To be fair, it is not only devaluation that is helping our manufacturing exports, it is also the surging economic growth in our main EU markets. As long as we don't screw up access to our major export destination, manufacturing will be fine.
Not necessarily, since manufacturing itself no longer looks anything like it used to, and is interconnected to our world class service industry (for eg AI, digital technology). A loss of competitiveness in the latter will weigh on the competitiveness and success of the first.
And so the Labour Party inches towards the second referendum... #bbcsp
It's the only logical thing to do.
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
I think it will take a much stronger 3. before they are brave enough to make a stand - their plan is to follow, not lead, and the latest poll is probably driven in part by leavers wanting to express discontent with the deal. The moment to jump is when a clear majority want the second referendum to overturn the deal and remain.
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Yet the part of the economy which has done best since the Referendum is manufacturing ie the part proportionally far more important in Middlesbrough and Hull than in London.
I do not remember any Remain voters predicting this, rather the opposite in fact.
I am talking about the long term (i.e. 5-20 years) and you are referring to the short-lived bounce caused by the collapse in the pound.
Hull's exports are not getting more desirable. It's just that we're having a fire sale.
To be fair, it is not only devaluation that is helping our manufacturing exports, it is also the surging economic growth in our main EU markets. As long as we don't screw up access to our major export destination, manufacturing will be fine.
It seems most western economies are growing strongly, except us. No wonder exports are doing well, particularly at lower prices.
I think it might be for one of the Scottish papers this week.
I've dropped Damian an email asking for an ETA and the client.
Apparently the Sunday Post has a report on some polling to do with EU powers bring devolved to Scotland post Brexit so I presume it is them.
The last Survation Scotland poll was for the Daily Mail - per the last tweet about it from Survation the poll should have already been published !! - I'm sure it must have good news for the Tories.
And so the Labour Party inches towards the second referendum... #bbcsp
It's the only logical thing to do.
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
Re: 2, it's rather unkind to describe Barack Obama as hostile, don't you think? I would prefer "misguided". Or perhaps you were referring to Juncker, in which case, fair point.
And so the Labour Party inches towards the second referendum... #bbcsp
It's the only logical thing to do.
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
I think it will take a much stronger 3. before they are brave enough to make a stand - their plan is to follow, not lead, and the latest poll is probably driven in part by leavers wanting to express discontent with the deal. The moment to jump is when a clear majority want the second referendum to overturn the deal and remain.
Deferring to a second referendum is following disguised as leadership. Or, leadership discussed as following.
I tend to think that, all things being equal, Brexit would win a second referendum. But at least they would do so now with the clear acknowledgement of the challenges of Brexit.
Remainers too would need to adjust their rhetoric to the reality of the last 18 months and what we've learned about the EU over that time.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Give over man. I work in North East manufacturing and we are the most profitable we've ever been.
I rather sense that the biggest fear among the 'London, ra-ra-ra' boys is that other parts of the country might do better than the capital over the next few years.
Though given that London was the only part of Britain with a negative internal migration in 2016 it seems many thousands of people have realised that already:
London has always had (at least in living memory) negative internal migration as families decide to move out to commuter towns in order to get more space.
They're not leaving the London jobs market.
I'm not sure who the ra-ra boys are. It would be wonderful if the country outside the SE were to actually pay its way - lower taxes for everyone!
There is also a steady trend for Londoners to move away around retirement, cashing in on property equity. Compensated for by the capital's relatively high birth rate and in-migration by younger workers.
And so the Labour Party inches towards the second referendum... #bbcsp
It's the only logical thing to do.
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
I think it will take a much stronger 3. before they are brave enough to make a stand - their plan is to follow, not lead, and the latest poll is probably driven in part by leavers wanting to express discontent with the deal. The moment to jump is when a clear majority want the second referendum to overturn the deal and remain.
Deferring to a second referendum is following disguised as leadership. Or, leadership disguised as following.
I tend to think that, all things being equal, Brexit would win a second referendum. But at least they would do so now with the clear acknowledgement of the challenges of Brexit.
Remainers too would need to adjust their rhetoric to the reality of the last 18 months and what we've learned about the EU over that time.
So I see that the headline in the papers is that Brexit won't help the poor people who voted for Brexit to make them less poor.
Quite the reverse. London will be in a much better position to weather the impact than Stoke or Sunderland.
It depends. London's international links, immigrant diasporas, and young educated workforce will do well in a buccaneer free market world, much less so in a neo-Peronist Identitarian Britain. Mid you, in the latter few will do well.
Leaving the EU is an economic dislocation and it will take time for the economy to rebalance itself.
(For reference, it took about 20 years for NZ to do the same after it lost access to its key export market when the U.K. joined the Common Market).
London is best placed to re-orient itself because of its skill base and existing networks.
Middlesbrough and Hull: not so much.
Brexit economic guru Patrick Minford predicts that Britain will "mostly eliminate manufacturing" post Brext and suggests winding down Nissan's operations in Sunderland, claiming it is protected by subsidy.
(Nissan is by several orders of magnitude the single largest exporter in the entire North East, btw)
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
Except that is precisely the opposite of the effect the FTA May is aiming for will have.
A FTA will benefit manufacturing areas as it will keep largely tariff free goods exports but will not really cover services and still see the City leave the single market.
Just talk me through how that will work.
Relative to the City a FTA will benefit manufacturing areas more yes
And so the Labour Party inches towards the second referendum... #bbcsp
It's the only logical thing to do.
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
I think it will take a much stronger 3. before they are brave enough to make a stand - their plan is to follow, not lead, and the latest poll is probably driven in part by leavers wanting to express discontent with the deal. The moment to jump is when a clear majority want the second referendum to overturn the deal and remain.
Deferring to a second referendum is following disguised as leadership. Or, leadership discussed as following.
I tend to think that, all things being equal, Brexit would win a second referendum. But at least they would do so now with the clear acknowledgement of the challenges of Brexit.
Remainers too would need to adjust their rhetoric to the reality of the last 18 months and what we've learned about the EU over that time.
True. But the thing will only happen as and when there is clear demand for an end to Brexit, there being no point in repeating the last charade. As Labour's only way off the fence and Parliament's only legitimate way to depart from the path set down by 2016, I have regarded it as a strong likelihood for some time - and, compared to the slating I got when I first suggested this at the beginning of the year - talk of the possibility at least is slowly growing. Today Labour's most careful spokesman used the phrase "the only circumstances in which I can see a second referendum are...", which is a further creak in the party's tectonic plates.
And so the Labour Party inches towards the second referendum... #bbcsp
It's the only logical thing to do.
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
I think it will take a much stronger 3. before they are brave enough to make a stand - their plan is to follow, not lead, and the latest poll is probably driven in part by leavers wanting to express discontent with the deal. The moment to jump is when a clear majority want the second referendum to overturn the deal and remain.
Deferring to a second referendum is following disguised as leadership. Or, leadership discussed as following.
I tend to think that, all things being equal, Brexit would win a second referendum. But at least they would do so now with the clear acknowledgement of the challenges of Brexit.
Remainers too would need to adjust their rhetoric to the reality of the last 18 months and what we've learned about the EU over that time.
True. But the thing will only happen as and when there is clear demand for an end to Brexit, there being no point in repeating the last charade. As Labour's only way off the fence and Parliament's only legitimate way to depart from the path set down by 2016, I have regarded it as a strong likelihood for some time - and, compared to the slating I got when I first suggested this at the beginning of the year - talk of the possibility at least is slowly growing. Today Labour's most careful spokesman used the phrase "the only circumstances in which I can see a second referendum are...", which is a further creak in the party's tectonic plates.
If you want to support Brexit vote Tory, if you want to reverse Brexit vote LD, if you want socialism vote Labour.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
And so the Labour Party inches towards the second referendum... #bbcsp
It's the only logical thing to do.
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
I think it will take a much stronger 3. before they are brave enough to make a stand - their plan is to follow, not lead, and the latest poll is probably driven in part by leavers wanting to express discontent with the deal. The moment to jump is when a clear majority want the second referendum to overturn the deal and remain.
Deferring to a second referendum is following disguised as leadership. Or, leadership discussed as following.
I tend to think that, all things being equal, Brexit would win a second referendum. But at least they would do so now with the clear acknowledgement of the challenges of Brexit.
Remainers too would need to adjust their rhetoric to the reality of the last 18 months and what we've learned about the EU over that time.
True. But the thing will only happen as and when there is clear demand for an end to Brexit, there being no point in repeating the last charade. As Labour's only way off the fence and Parliament's only legitimate way to depart from the path set down by 2016, I have regarded it as a strong likelihood for some time - and, compared to the slating I got when I first suggested this at the beginning of the year - talk of the possibility at least is slowly growing. Today Labour's most careful spokesman used the phrase "the only circumstances in which I can see a second referendum are...", which is a further creak in the party's tectonic plates.
If you want to support Brexit vote Tory, if you want to reverse Brexit vote LD, if you want socialism vote Labour.
The Tories' problem being that there aren't enough people who want Brexit but don't want socialism.
And so the Labour Party inches towards the second referendum... #bbcsp
It's the only logical thing to do.
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
I think it will take a much stronger 3. before they are brave enough to make a stand - their plan is to follow, not lead, and the latest poll is probably driven in part by leavers wanting to express discontent with the deal. The moment to jump is when a clear majority want the second referendum to overturn the deal and remain.
Deferring to a second referendum is following disguised as leadership. Or, leadership discussed as following.
I tend to think that, all things being equal, Brexit would win a second referendum. But at least they would do so now with the clear acknowledgement of the challenges of Brexit.
Remainers too would need to adjust their rhetoric to the reality of the last 18 months and what we've learned about the EU over that time.
True. But the thing will only happen as and when there is clear demand for an end to Brexit, there being no point in repeating the last charade. As Labour's only way off the fence and Parliament's only legitimate way to depart from the path set down by 2016, I have regarded it as a strong likelihood for some time - and, compared to the slating I got when I first suggested this at the beginning of the year - talk of the possibility at least is slowly growing. Today Labour's most careful spokesman used the phrase "the only circumstances in which I can see a second referendum are...", which is a further creak in the party's tectonic plates.
If you want to support Brexit vote Tory, if you want to reverse Brexit vote LD, if you want socialism vote Labour.
Indeed. We recently had an election where one of the main parties stood on an explicitly reverse Brexit programme and they won 12 seats. Unfortunately that same election also demonstrated the British people seem to have a developing appetite for socialism.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
And so the Labour Party inches towards the second referendum... #bbcsp
It's the only logical thing to do.
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
I think it will take a much stronger 3. before they are brave enough to make a stand - their plan is to follow, not lead, and the latest poll is probably driven in part by leavers wanting to express discontent with the deal. The moment to jump is when a clear majority want the second referendum to overturn the deal and remain.
Deferring to a second referendum is following disguised as leadership. Or, leadership discussed as following.
I tend to think that, all things being equal, Brexit would win a second referendum. But at least they would do so now with the clear acknowledgement of the challenges of Brexit.
Remainers too would need to adjust their rhetoric to the reality of the last 18 months and what we've learned about the EU over that time.
True. But the thing will only happen as and when there is clear demand for an end to Brexit, there being no point in repeating the last charade. As Labour's only way off the fence and Parliament's only legitimate way to depart from the path set down by 2016, I have regarded it as a strong likelihood for some time - and, compared to the slating I got when I first suggested this at the beginning of the year - talk of the possibility at least is slowly growing. Today Labour's most careful spokesman used the phrase "the only circumstances in which I can see a second referendum are...", which is a further creak in the party's tectonic plates.
If you want to support Brexit vote Tory, if you want to reverse Brexit vote LD, if you want socialism vote Labour.
Indeed. We recently had an election where one of the main parties stood on an explicitly reverse Brexit programme and they won 12 seats. Unfortunately that same election also demonstrated the British people seem to have a developing appetite for socialism.
''tis the Liberals' destiny to be loss leaders for policies that subsequently become mainstream....
And so the Labour Party inches towards the second referendum... #bbcsp
It's the only logical thing to do.
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
I think it will take a much stronger 3. before they are brave enough to make a stand - their plan is to follow, not lead, and the latest poll is probably driven in part by leavers wanting to express discontent with the deal. The moment to jump is when a clear majority want the second referendum to overturn the deal and remain.
Deferring to a second referendum is following disguised as leadership. Or, leadership discussed as following.
I tend to think that, all things being equal, Brexit would win a second referendum. But at least they would do so now with the clear acknowledgement of the challenges of Brexit.
Remainers too would need to adjust their rhetoric to the reality of the last 18 months and what we've learned about the EU over that time.
True. But the thing will only happen as and when there is clear demand for an end to Brexit, there being no point in repeating the last charade. As Labour's only way off the fence and Parliament's only legitimate way to depart from the path set down by 2016, I have regarded it as a strong likelihood for some time - and, compared to the slating I got when I first suggested this at the beginning of the year - talk of the possibility at least is slowly growing. Today Labour's most careful spokesman used the phrase "the only circumstances in which I can see a second referendum are...", which is a further creak in the party's tectonic plates.
If you want to support Brexit vote Tory, if you want to reverse Brexit vote LD, if you want socialism vote Labour.
The Tories' problem being that there aren't enough people who want Brexit but don't want socialism.
Most of the 42% they got in June do.
At least a third of Labour voters want socialism and Brexit too.
And so the Labour Party inches towards the second referendum... #bbcsp
It's the only logical thing to do.
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
I think it will take a much stronger 3. before they are brave enough to make a stand - their plan is to follow, not lead, and the latest poll is probably driven in part by leavers wanting to express discontent with the deal. The moment to jump is when a clear majority want the second referendum to overturn the deal and remain.
Deferring to a second referendum is following disguised as leadership. Or, leadership discussed as following.
I tend to think that, all things being equal, Brexit would win a second referendum. But at least they would do so now with the clear acknowledgement of the challenges of Brexit.
Remainers too would need to adjust their rhetoric to the reality of the last 18 months and what we've learned about the EU over that time.
True. But the thing will only happen as and when there is clear demand for an end to Brexit, there being no point in repeating the last charade. As Labour's only way off the fence and Parliament's only legitimate way to depart from the path set down by 2016, I have regarded it as a strong likelihood for some time - and, compared to the slating I got when I first suggested this at the beginning of the year - talk of the possibility at least is slowly growing. Today Labour's most careful spokesman used the phrase "the only circumstances in which I can see a second referendum are...", which is a further creak in the party's tectonic plates.
If you want to support Brexit vote Tory, if you want to reverse Brexit vote LD, if you want socialism vote Labour.
Indeed. We recently had an election where one of the main parties stood on an explicitly reverse Brexit programme and they won 12 seats. Unfortunately that same election also demonstrated the British people seem to have a developing appetite for socialism.
Yes, a socialist Corbyn UK that is out of the EU, whether via soft, hard or FTA fudge Brexit is more likely than the UK actually reversing Brexit completely and rejoining the EU.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
William Keegan (Observer) says Sir Ivan Rogers told him that Mervyn King (Bank of England) urged Blair not to do the phased transition for workers from east european EU joiners: he wanted the impact to keep inflation low.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
They are using the council candidates selections to hone their tactics, including giving members mock ballots with an 'X' by the Momentum approved candidate.
They will then shift to parliamentary selections and MP reselections from next summer after the local elections.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
It is all a bit silly at council level. We should be selecting candidates who are committed to putting the graft in, getting out and about in the community and sorting out the broken street lights, fly tipping and (dare I say it) dog fouling.
Worth noting that at our selection meeting last week all 4 candidates acknowledged that working full time was not compatible with being a councillor.
Several of PB's staunchest Leavers have, err, Left...
Iit.
ng Moggism.
The prospect of a Corbyn government means I'm now very seriously looking at leaving the country. I started making discreet enquiries about jobs overseas after GE2017. Moreover I've advised some expat family members - far more wealthy than I - not to return.
Labour said nobody earning less than 80k would pay more tax, which is something I don't believe for an instant. Coincidentally 2017 was the first year I earned more than 80k, but the things that really frighten me are less being taxed to death and more the wholesale destruction of the economy caused by capital flight.
Corbyn's 'banks are right to fear us' interview this week coupled with McDonnell's ominous 'we have a plan in place to deal with capital flight' do not look good. Aside from Seamus Milne, effectively a Stalinite, probably being one of the most powerful people in a Corbyn government, the fact is that Corbyn has spoken approvingly of property seizure (post Grenfell) and McDonnell has spoken approvingly of street protest (the so called 'day of rage) to oust a democratically elected government.
A Corbyn government won't be a normal, centre left government. It will be a disaster in which ham fisted attempts to redistribute wealth lead to capital flight and subsequent controls that will devastate the economy. Getting out before that happens seems a very sensible idea.
I am completely baffled by your stance on this.
Firstly, you announced that you voted leave because you were concerned about never being able to buy a house or bring up a family in the UK, and the percieved loss of identity/community in London. Understandable reasons which I am sympathetic to, even though I came to a different conclusion in terms of my vote in the referendum.
Yet Corbynism is a direct expression of these forces, bringing together the white working classes and disgruntled priced out young remainers. I don't like it, as I dislike the Nigel Farage/Aaron Banks/ Leave.eu vision, but it is what democracy and our electoral system has delivered.
Now you are planning to leave the country, to essentially try and protect your own capital? You are suddenly going to become a citizen of the world and turn up in some other world city, distorting other housing markets?
The patriotic thing to do is surely to stay and see through Brexit and Corbynism. My instinct is that, if it happens at all, the latter will be hopelessly ineffective and not last very long, and then we will have a very nasty right wing government.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
It is all a bit silly at council level. We should be selecting candidates who are committed to putting the graft in, getting out and about in the community and sorting out the broken street lights, fly tipping and (dare I say it) dog fouling.
Worth noting that at our selection meeting last week all 4 candidates acknowledged that working full time was not compatible with being a councillor.
Disagree, I know several councillors who work full time, both district and town and even a few county councillors who do too.
Though admittedly London local politics is particularly intense.
The prospect of a Corbyn government means I'm now very seriously looking at leaving the country. I started making discreet enquiries about jobs overseas after GE2017. Moreover I've advised some expat family members - far more wealthy than I - not to return.
Labour said nobody earning less than 80k would pay more tax, which is something I don't believe for an instant. Coincidentally 2017 was the first year I earned more than 80k, but the things that really frighten me are less being taxed to death and more the wholesale destruction of the economy caused by capital flight.
Corbyn's 'banks are right to fear us' interview this week coupled with McDonnell's ominous 'we have a plan in place to deal with capital flight' do not look good. Aside from Seamus Milne, effectively a Stalinite, probably being one of the most powerful people in a Corbyn government, the fact is that Corbyn has spoken approvingly of property seizure (post Grenfell) and McDonnell has spoken approvingly of street protest (the so called 'day of rage) to oust a democratically elected government.
A Corbyn government won't be a normal, centre left government. It will be a disaster in which ham fisted attempts to redistribute wealth lead to capital flight and subsequent controls that will devastate the economy. Getting out before that happens seems a very sensible idea.
I am completely baffled by your stance on this.
Firstly, you announced that you voted leave because you were concerned about never being able to buy a house or bring up a family in the UK, and the percieved loss of identity/community in London. Understandable reasons which I am sympathetic to, even though I came to a different conclusion in terms of my vote in the referendum.
Yet Corbynism is a direct expression of these forces, bringing together the white working classes and disgruntled priced out young remainers. I don't like it, as I dislike the Nigel Farage/Aaron Banks/ Leave.eu vision, but it is what democracy and our electoral system has delivered.
Now you are planning to leave the country, to essentially try and protect your own capital? You are suddenly going to become a citizen of the world and turn up in some other world city, distorting other housing markets?
The patriotic thing to do is surely to stay and see through Brexit and Corbynism. My instinct is that, if it happens at all, the latter will be hopelessly ineffective and not last very long, and then we will have a very nasty right wing government.
But impending Corbyn does provide a handy distraction from Allfuckedup Brexit for Leavers, which is nice.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
It is all a bit silly at council level. We should be selecting candidates who are committed to putting the graft in, getting out and about in the community and sorting out the broken street lights, fly tipping and (dare I say it) dog fouling.
Worth noting that at our selection meeting last week all 4 candidates acknowledged that working full time was not compatible with being a councillor.
Disagree, I know several councillors who work full time, both district and town and even a few county councillors who do too.
Though admittedly London local politics is particularly intense.
I've never been a councillor but I think it depends a lot on your ward.
I could quite happily be a councillor for a suburban housing estate, it would be the occasional planning issue here and there, parking, burglaries. The people would be mostly affluent and would be less likely to use your time.
On the other hand, being a councillor in an inner city area is going to be much harder, mainly because you have many more issues to deal with. Any ward with a high proportion of poor or vulnerable people is going to place greater demands on your time.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
It is all a bit silly at council level. We should be selecting candidates who are committed to putting the graft in, getting out and about in the community and sorting out the broken street lights, fly tipping and (dare I say it) dog fouling.
Worth noting that at our selection meeting last week all 4 candidates acknowledged that working full time was not compatible with being a councillor.
Disagree, I know several councillors who work full time, both district and town and even a few county councillors who do too.
Though admittedly London local politics is particularly intense.
I was a councillor and worked full time - in a responsible job - in London for many years. Provided the council and committee meetings themselves aren't when you are due to be working it is possible, if you're a back-bencher, provided that you are committed enough to accept that you aren't going to get much time or holiday for anything else. It helps to have some understanding from the employer. Once you get any sort of leadership role on a council, it does then become almost impossible.
Remember also that the purpose of multi-member wards is that councillors can operate as a team. I used to cover more than my fair share of evening commitments with colleagues doing most of the daytime stuff.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
It is all a bit silly at council level. We should be selecting candidates who are committed to putting the graft in, getting out and about in the .
Disagree, I know several councillors who work full time, both district and town and even a few county councillors who do too.
Though admittedly London local politics is particularly intense.
I've never been a councillor but I think it depends a lot on your ward.
I could quite happily be a councillor for a suburban housing estate, it would be the occasional planning issue here and there, parking, burglaries. The people would be mostly affluent and would be less likely to use your time.
On the other hand, being a councillor in an inner city area is going to be much harder, mainly because you have many more issues to deal with. Any ward with a high proportion of poor or vulnerable people is going to place greater demands on your time.
Perhaps, though in a suburban or rural area you are also more likely to have more NIMBYs etc to deal with.
In London it is also probably easier to afford to be a full-time councillor, in Haringey for example councillors get about £11,000 basic allowance and £35,000 allowance if they are on the Cabinet.
Here in Epping Forest councillors get about £4,000 basic allowance and £6,500 if they are on the Cabinet. Even the Leader of the Council gets just under £11,000, the same as the Haringey basic allowance (though Essex County Councillors get a basic allowance of £12,000 about the same as London Borough Councillors with Cabinet Members also getting about £35,000 allowance).
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
It is all a bit silly at council level. We should be selecting candidates who are committed to putting the graft in, getting out and about in the community and sorting out the broken street lights, fly tipping and (dare I say it) dog fouling.
Worth noting that at our selection meeting last week all 4 candidates acknowledged that working full time was not compatible with being a councillor.
Disagree, I know several councillors who work full time, both district and town and even a few county councillors who do too.
Though admittedly London local politics is particularly intense.
I was a councillor and worked full time - in a responsible job - in London for many years. Provided the council and committee meetings themselves aren't when you are due to be working it is possible, if you're a back-bencher, provided that you are committed enough to accept that you aren't going to get much time or holiday for anything else. It helps to have some understanding from the employer. Once you get any sort of leadership role on a council, it does then become almost impossible.
Remember also that the purpose of multi-member wards is that councillors can operate as a team. I used to cover more than my fair share of evening commitments with colleagues doing most of the daytime stuff.
Certainly you can attend meetings in the evening as a backbencher, though yes if you get on the Cabinet on a County or London Borough Council that effectively becomes your full time job.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
It is all a bit silly at council level. We should be selecting candidates who are committed to putting the graft in, getting out and about in the community and sorting out the broken street lights, fly tipping and (dare I say it) dog fouling.
Worth noting that at our selection meeting last week all 4 candidates acknowledged that working full time was not compatible with being a councillor.
Disagree, I know several councillors who work full time, both district and town and even a few county councillors who do too.
Though admittedly London local politics is particularly intense.
I was a councillor and worked full time - in a responsible job - in London for many years. Provided the council and committee meetings themselves aren't when you are due to be working it is possible, if you're a back-bencher, provided that you are committed enough to accept that you aren't going to get much time or holiday for anything else. It helps to have some understanding from the employer. Once you get any sort of leadership role on a council, it does then become almost impossible.
Remember also that the purpose of multi-member wards is that councillors can operate as a team. I used to cover more than my fair share of evening commitments with colleagues doing most of the daytime stuff.
Certainly you can attend meetings in the evening as a backbencher, though yes if you get on the Cabinet on a County or London Borough Council that effectively becomes your full time job.
I did try and combine both, for a while, until I ran out of holiday.
Then again, there are people in all parties who combine being a councillor with MP, MEP or HoL. Certainly there's some synergy, and the experience and info gained from one role will be useful to the other, but in terms of workload my impression is that their council work is mostly carried by their colleagues.
Firstly, you announced that you voted leave because you were concerned about never being able to buy a house or bring up a family in the UK, and the percieved loss of identity/community in London. Understandable reasons which I am sympathetic to, even though I came to a different conclusion in terms of my vote in the referendum.
Yet Corbynism is a direct expression of these forces, bringing together the white working classes and disgruntled priced out young remainers. I don't like it, as I dislike the Nigel Farage/Aaron Banks/ Leave.eu vision, but it is what democracy and our electoral system has delivered.
Now you are planning to leave the country, to essentially try and protect your own capital? You are suddenly going to become a citizen of the world and turn up in some other world city, distorting other housing markets?
The patriotic thing to do is surely to stay and see through Brexit and Corbynism. My instinct is that, if it happens at all, the latter will be hopelessly ineffective and not last very long, and then we will have a very nasty right wing government.
A few things. Firstly, I've never been fond of London - it's needlessly expensive, the quality of life is poor, but it is the only city in the UK where my job exists, something I've stated several times. If I want to afford a family sized home, it means either earning a lot more money in London (which I don't think would be possible under a Corbyn government) or leaving the country. Or else giving up my career, which I'm not prepared to do.
Seccondly, protecting your own capital is entirely rational. Corbynism is the most anti-aspirational, greedy, politics-of-envy movement I have seen in my lifetime. It is not about doing well for yourself, it is about seeing other people who have done well and taking it away from them. As far as I'm concerned, socialism of the kind Corbyn espouses is a far more greedy ideology than seeking to protect one's own capital. My own ideology may be *selfish* but it is not greedy. I seek to *make* not take.
As for patriotism, while I'm proud of my culture and my heritage, that is very different to needlessly haemhorraging money to a socialist government. Indeed, depriving the exchequer of my tax revenue is a far more effective form of protest than waving a placard on the street.
I completely understand why people are turning to Corbynism, just as I understand why so many people voted Brexit. And if it is the will of the people that we get a Corbyn government, then so be it. But that doesn't mean I have to put up with it, any more than remainers who believe the country is going to hell in a hand cart have to stick it out just because 52% of the population wanted it.
Personally, I don't believe that Brexit will be that damaging to the economy. But I believe Corbynism will. Therefore my choices are entirely consistent.
Firstly, you announced that you voted leave because you were concerned about never being able to buy a house or bring up a family in the UK, and the percieved loss of identity/community in London. Understandable reasons which I am sympathetic to, even though I came to a different you are planning to leave the country, to essentially try and protect your own capital? You are suddenly going to become a citizen of the world and turn up in some other world city, distorting other housing markets?
The patriotic thing to do is surely to stay and see through Brexit and Corbynism. My instinct is that, if it happens at all, the latter will be hopelessly ineffective and not last very long, and then we will have a very nasty right wing government.
A few things. Firstly, I've never been fond of London - it's needlessly expensive, the quality of life is poor, but it is the only city in the UK where my job exists, something I've stated several times. If I want to afford a family sized home, it means either earning a lot more money in London (which I don't think would be possible under a Corbyn government) or leaving the country. Or else giving up my career, which I'm not prepared to do.
Seccondly, protecting your own capital is entirely rational. Corbynism is the most anti-aspirational, greedy, politics-of-envy movement I have seen in my lifetime. It is not about doing well for yourself, it is about seeing other people who have done well and taking it away from them. As far as I'm concerned, socialism of the kind Corbyn espouses is a far more greedy ideology than seeking to protect one's own capital. My own ideology may be *selfish* but it is not greedy. I seek to *make* not take.
As for patriotism, while I'm proud of my culture and my heritage, that is very different to needlessly haemhorraging money to a socialist government. Indeed, depriving the exchequer of my tax revenue is a far more effective form of protest than waving a placard on the street.
I completely understand why people are turning to Corbynism, just as I understand why so many people voted Brexit. And if it is the will of the people that we get a Corbyn government, then so be it. But that doesn't mean I have to put up with it, any more than remainers who believe the country is going to hell in a hand cart have to stick it out just because 52% of the population wanted it.
Personally, I don't believe that Brexit will be that damaging to the economy. But I believe Corbynism will. Therefore my choices are entirely consistent.
Don't worry, living well away from all of the effects of Brexit yet being eager to tell the rest of us what we need to do is very fashionable on PB nowadays.
With the loony right in the Tory party laying down more and more impossible red lines, and the DUP holding up a mirror to the "don't worry about Ireland" mess, I am increasingly convinced that we face a period of no working government.
The Tories increasingly look unable to agree on the basics of what the UK is negotiating for never mind able to successfully negotiate anything. The DUP look set to pull the plug, the party able to put the IRA I to office in Stormont apparently less afraid of Corbyn as portrayed by some on here.
But that leaves us with neither the Tories nor Labout capable of having a working majority in this parliament. But unless Tory MPs vote for an early election in which many of them would lose their seats, it will limp on regardless, a bunch of ferrets righting in a sack as it is swept over the Brexit waterfall into the rocks below.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
It is all a bit silly at council level. We should be selecting candidates who are committed to putting the graft in, getting out and about in the community and sorting out the broken street lights, fly tipping and (dare I say it) dog fouling.
Worth noting that at our selection meeting last week all 4 candidates acknowledged that working full time was not compatible with being a councillor.
Disagree, I know several councillors who work full time, both district and town and even a few county councillors who do too.
Though admittedly London local politics is particularly intense.
I was a councillor and almost impossible.
Remember also that the purpose of multi-member wards is that councillors can operate as a team. I used to cover more than my fair share of evening commitments with colleagues doing most of the daytime stuff.
Certainly you can attend meetings in the evening as a backbencher, though yes if you get on the Cabinet on a County or London Borough Council that effectively becomes your full time job.
I did try and combine both, for a while, until I ran out of holiday.
Then again, there are people in all parties who combine being a councillor with MP, MEP or HoL. Certainly there's some synergy, and the experience and info gained from one role will be useful to the other, but in terms of workload my impression is that their council work is mostly carried by their colleagues.
I think more people tend to use being a councillor as a springboard to being a parliamentary candidate or MP, once they become an MP they tend to give up their role on the council as being an MP certainly is a full time job.
Firstly, you announced that you voted leave because you were concerned about never being able to buy a house or bring up a family in the UK, and the percieved loss of identity/community in London. Understandable reasons which I am sympathetic to, even though I came to a different conclusion in terms of my vote in the referendum.
Yet Corbynism is a direct expression of these forces, bringing together the white working classes and disgruntled priced out young remainers. I don't like it, as I dislike the Nigel Farage/Aaron Banks/ Leave.eu vision, but it is what democracy and our electoral system has delivered.
Now you are planning to leave the be hopelessly ineffective and not last very long, and then we will have a very nasty right wing government.
A few things. Firstly, I've never been fond of London - it's needlessly expensive, the quality of life is poor, but it is the only city in the UK where my job exists, something I've stated several times. If I want to afford a family sized home, it means either earning a lot more money in London (which I don't think would be possible under a Corbyn government) or leaving the country. Or else giving up my career, which I'm not prepared to do.
Seccondly, protecting your own capital is entirely rational. Corbynism is the most anti-aspirational, greedy, politics-of-envy movement I have seen in my lifetime. It is not about doing well for yourself, it is about seeing other people who have done well and taking it away from them. As far as I'm concerned, socialism of the kind Corbyn espouses is a far more greedy ideology than seeking to protect one's own capital. My own ideology may be *selfish* but it is not greedy. I seek to *make* not take.
As for patriotism, while I'm proud of my culture and my heritage, that is very different to needlessly haemhorraging money to a socialist government. Indeed, depriving the exchequer of my tax revenue is a far more effective form of protest than waving a placard on the street.
I completely understand why people are turning to Corbynism, just as I understand why so many people voted Brexit. And if it is the will of the people that we get a Corbyn government, then so be it. But that doesn't mean I have to put up with it, any more than remainers who believe the country is going to hell in a hand cart have to stick it out just because 52% of the population wanted it.
Personally, I don't believe that Brexit will be that damaging to the economy. But I believe Corbynism will. Therefore my choices are entirely consistent.
Or you could commute from the Home Counties if you want a bigger family home.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
It is all a bit silly at council level. We should be selecting candidates who are committed to putting the graft in, getting out and about in the community and sorting out the broken street lights, fly tipping and (dare I say it) dog fouling.
Worth noting that at our selection meeting last week all 4 candidates acknowledged that working full time was not compatible with being a councillor.
Disagree, I know several councillors who work full time, both district and town and even a few county councillors who do too.
Though admittedly London local politics is particularly intense.
I was a councillor and almost impossible.
Remember also that the purpose of multi-member wards is that councillors can operate as a team. I used to cover more than my fair share of evening commitments with colleagues doing most of the daytime stuff.
Certainly you can attend meetings in the evening as a backbencher, though yes if you get on the Cabinet on a County or London Borough Council that effectively becomes your full time job.
I did try and combine both, for a while, until I ran out of holiday.
Then again, there are people in all parties who combine being a councillor with MP, MEP or HoL. Certainly there's some synergy, and the experience and info gained from one role will be useful to the other, but in terms of workload my impression is that their council work is mostly carried by their colleagues.
I think more people tend to use being a councillor as a springboard to being a parliamentary candidate or MP, once they become an MP they tend to give up their role on the council as being an MP certainly is a full time job.
Very many MPs - particularly in your party - don't seem to think so.
I think they'll both do wonders for the Commonwealth.
It's hard not to feel quite a bit of respect for Harry. He's already clocked up one big achievement, with his Invictus Games, and he's probably doing more than any other Royal to support and promote the Commonwealth overseas.
Yes, Harry is now the most popular royal and his choosing to marry a woman of mixed race shows he is fully in tune with the 21st century and also makes the royal family more reflective of the Commonwealth it heads.
Surely the fact that she is a divorced American (shades of Wallis Simpson) and Roman Catholic is far more of an issue than the colour of her skin. Is he not barring himself from the succession (currently 5th in line) by this marriage?
She's being baptised and confirmed in the Anglican faith before the wedding
Firstly, you announced that you voted leave because you were concerned about never being able to buy a house or bring up a family in the UK, and the percieved loss of identity/community in London. Understandable reasons which I am sympathetic to, even though I came to a different you are planning to leave the country, to essentially try and protect your own capital? You are suddenly going to become a citizen of the world and turn up in some other world city, distorting other housing markets?
The patriotic thing to do is surely to stay and see through Brexit and Corbynism. My instinct is that, if it happens at all, the latter will be hopelessly ineffective and not last very long, and then we will have a very nasty right wing government.
A few things. Firstly, I've never been fond of London - it's needlessly expensive, the quality of life is poor, but it is the only city in the UK where my job exists, something I've stated several times. If I want to afford a family sized home, it means either earning a lot more money in London (which I don't think would be possible under a Corbyn government) or leaving the country. Or else giving up my career, which I'm not prepared to do.
Seccondly, protecting your own capital is entirely rational. Corbynism is the most anti-aspirational, greedy, politics-of-envy movement I have seen in my lifetime. It is not about doing well for yourself, it is about seeing other people who have done well and taking it away from them. As far as I'm concerned, socialism of the kind Corbyn espouses is a far more greedy ideology than seeking to protect one's own capital. My own ideology may be *selfish* but it is not greedy. I seek to *make* not take.
As for patriotism, while I'm proud of my culture and my heritage, that is very different to needlessly haemhorraging money to a socialist government. Indeed, depriving the exchequer of my tax revenue is a far more effective form of protest than waving a placard on the street.
I completely understand why people are turning to Corbynism, just as I understand why so many people voted Brexit. And if it is the will of the people that we get a Corbyn government, then so be it. But that doesn't mean I have to put up with it, any more than remainers who believe the country is going to hell in a hand cart have to stick it out just because 52% of the population wanted it.
Personally, I don't believe that Brexit will be that damaging to the economy. But I believe Corbynism will. Therefore my choices are entirely consistent.
Don't worry, living well away from all of the effects of Brexit yet being eager to tell the rest of us what we need to do is very fashionable on PB nowadays.
His unminced words seem to have been deleted from twitter?
I think what he said was that the public are being fed a pack of lies. I don't think there has been much lying since the referendum, though. The general vibe I get is that the best (not the most likely) result is if we end up not actually being third world, and nobody is seriously pretending different.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
It is all a bit silly at council level. We should be selecting candidates who are committed to putting the graft in, getting out and about in the community and sorting out the broken street lights, fly tipping and (dare I say it) dog fouling.
Worth noting that at our selection meeting last week all 4 candidates acknowledged that working full time was not compatible with being a councillor.
Disagree, I know several councillors who work full time, both district and town and even a few county councillors who do too.
Though admittedly London local politics is particularly intense.
I was a councillor and almost impossible.
Remember also that the purpose of multi-member wards is that councillors can operate as a team. I used to cover more than my fair share of evening commitments with colleagues doing most of the daytime stuff.
Certainly you can attend meetings in the evening as a backbencher, though yes if you get on the Cabinet on a County or London Borough Council that effectively becomes your full time job.
I did try and combine both, for a .
I think more people tend to use being a councillor as a springboard to being a parliamentary candidate or MP, once they become an MP they tend to give up their role on the council as being an MP certainly is a full time job.
Very many MPs - particularly in your party - don't seem to think so.
I don't think there are that many Tory MPs who are also councillors and while some may still keep a hand in with their business they still attend all the sessions in Parliament eg JRM sometimes goes to his firm's office in the morning, then attends Parliament in the afternoon and early evening and is back in the constituency on Friday afternoon and at the weekend where he does his surgeries and attends events.
His unminced words seem to have been deleted from twitter?
I think what he said was that the public are being fed a pack of lies. I don't think there has been much lying since the referendum, though. The general vibe I get is that the best (not the most likely) result is if we end up not actually being third world, and nobody is seriously pretending different.
Firstly, you announced that you voted leave because you were concerned about never being able to buy a house or bring up a family in the UK, and the percieved loss of identity/community in London. Understandable reasons which I am sympathetic to, even though I came to a different conclusion in terms of my vote in the referendum.
Yet Corbynism is a direct expression of these forces, bringing together the white working classes and disgruntled priced out young remainers. I don't like it, as I dislike the Nigel Farage/Aaron Banks/ Leave.eu vision, but it is what democracy and our electoral system has delivered.
Now you are planning to leave the be hopelessly ineffective and not last very long, and then we will have a very nasty right wing government.
Personally, I don't believe that Brexit will be that damaging to the economy. But I believe Corbynism will. Therefore my choices are entirely consistent.
Or you could commute from the Home Counties if you want a bigger family home.
Globalisation has, all things being equal, grossly inflated the cost of those few cities where the future is being made. London, Paris, San Fran, New York --- even Auckland.
Best bet is to try to find a middle sized city that punches above its weight economically, has future-focused industry, but has somehow kept housing prices stable.
Seattle and Portland both look good. In Europe, Amsterdam or Antwerp.
I think they'll both do wonders for the Commonwealth.
It's hard not to feel quite a bit of respect for Harry. He's already clocked up one big achievement, with his Invictus Games, and he's probably doing more than any other Royal to support and promote the Commonwealth overseas.
Yes, Harry is now the most popular royal and his choosing to marry a woman of mixed race shows he is fully in tune with the 21st century and also makes the royal family more reflective of the Commonwealth it heads.
Surely the fact that she is a divorced American (shades of Wallis Simpson) and Roman Catholic is far more of an issue than the colour of her skin. Is he not barring himself from the succession (currently 5th in line) by this marriage?
She's being baptised and confirmed in the Anglican faith before the wedding
His unminced words seem to have been deleted from twitter?
I think what he said was that the public are being fed a pack of lies. I don't think there has been much lying since the referendum, though. The general vibe I get is that the best (not the most likely) result is if we end up not actually being third world, and nobody is seriously pretending different.
Firstly, you announced that you voted leave because you were concerned about never being able to buy a house or bring up a family in the UK, and the percieved loss of identity/community in London. Understandable reasons which I am sympathetic to, even though I came to a different conclusion in terms of my vote in the referendum.
Yet Corbynism is a direct expression of these forces, bringing together the white working classes and disgruntled priced out young remainers. I don't like it, as I dislike the Nigel Farage/Aaron Banks/ Leave.eu vision, but it is what democracy and our electoral system has delivered.
Now you are planning to leave the be hopelessly ineffective and not last very long, and then we will have a very nasty right wing government.
Personally, I don't believe that Brexit will be that damaging to the economy. But I believe Corbynism will. Therefore my choices are entirely consistent.
Or you could commute from the Home Counties if you want a bigger family home.
Globalisation has, all things being equal, grossly inflated the cost of those few cities where the future is being made. London, Paris, San Fran, New York --- even Auckland.
Best bet is to try to find a middle sized city that punches above its weight economically, has future-focused industry, but has somehow kept housing prices stable.
Seattle and Portland both look good. In Europe, Amsterdam or Antwerp.
Yes, I have friends who live in Amsterdam who are home from their desks in fifteen minutes. There are far healthier places than London to live. Unfortunately none of the ones that would allow me to keep my career are in the UK.
One of the standard things I see amongst older (and wealthier) colleagues is to keep a flat in London and have a family home further afield where you spend weekends with your kids. My own father was absent from much of my childhood due to work, and I don't want to be that kind of person myself.
Web Design company owner and Corbyn supporter Richard Barber says austerity can be ended by reversing tax cuts for corporations and the rich on the Daily Politics.
Momentum are getting better at PR. Web design company owner sounds better than hipster who knows a bit of HTML.
They are good at PR to their target audience and starting to be good at deselecting Labour moderates too
At council candidate level they are already doing a 'good' job, at least in London. Unseating MPs however is a lot more difficult.
It is all a bit silly at council level. We should be selecting with being a councillor.
Disagree, I know several councillors who work full time, both district and town and even a few county councillors who do too.
Though admittedly London local politics is particularly intense.
I was a councillor and almost impossible.
Remember also that the purpose of multi-member wards is that councillors can operate as a team. I used to cover more than my fair share of evening commitments with colleagues doing most of the daytime stuff.
Certainly you can attend meetings in the evening as a backbencher, though yes if you get on the Cabinet on a County or London Borough Council that effectively becomes your full time job.
I did try and combine both, for a .
I think more people tend to use being a councillor as a springboard to being a parliamentary candidate or MP, once they become an MP they tend to give up their role on the council as being an MP certainly is a full time job.
Very many MPs - particularly in your party - don't seem to think so.
I don't think there are that many Tory MPs who are also councillors and while some may still keep a hand in with their business they still attend all the sessions in Parliament eg JRM sometimes goes to his firm's office in the morning, then attends Parliament in the afternoon and early evening and is back in the constituency on Friday afternoon and at the weekend where he does his surgeries and attends events.
There are plenty of Tory MPs who are effectively part-time, because they continue to pursue other lines of employment whilst supposedly representing their constituents (and claiming full-time parliamentary salary for so doing).
Personally, I don't believe that Brexit will be that damaging to the economy. But I believe Corbynism will. Therefore my choices are entirely consistent.
I cannot agree with you about Corbynism. It may be misguided, but is only drawing attention to a structural deficit which everyone should be concerned by. And, it has already transformational effect on our politics which I only see as a good thing.
I am convinced that there are basically two worlds - one with people who work in Finance, Insurance and Real estate and the spin off industries who can command the sort of salary that you (and many other posters on here) can; and everyone else.
The fact that a nursery care assistant - someone who I entrust my childs life to every day - is earning little more than the minimum wage and cannot ever afford to buy a house is, in my view, a moral disaster. But in seeking to move abroad, what you are effectively doing is preserve a status quo whereby your work is worth four times the nursery care assistant. The same status quo also maintains the position whereby half the nursery care assistants wage goes to a landlord, someone who has "done well" , mainly by being in the right industry (real estate) and having access to capital.
Up until now, the system worked because of something akin to trickle down, even though inequality increases, everyone is getting richer, so it is sort of okay. But now, the percieved losers far outnumber the percieved winners. My energy bills are going up 15%, the nursery fees are going up 10% this year, but my pay is going up 1%, maybe. Its not sustainable. Hence Leave, hence Corbyn.
Of course, Corbynism isn't going to solve any of this, and neither is leaving the EU. But the answer for anyone on the right, is surely to stick around and to try and change the system, to make it work better. Its easier to flee than to fight.
Firstly, you announced that you voted leave because you were concerned about never being able to buy a house or bring up a family in the UK, and the percieved loss of identity/community in London. Understandable reasons which I am sympathetic to, even though I came to a different conclusion in terms of my vote in the referendum.
Yet Corbynism is a direct expression of these forces, bringing together the white working classes and disgruntled priced out young remainers. I don't like it, as I dislike the Nigel Farage/Aaron Banks/ Leave.eu vision, but it is what democracy and our electoral system has delivered.
Now you are planning to leave the be hopelessly ineffective and not last very long, and then we will have a very nasty right wing government.
Personally, I don't believe that Brexit will be that damaging to the economy. But I believe Corbynism will. Therefore my choices are entirely consistent.
Or you could commute from the Home Counties if you want a bigger family home.
Globalisation has, all things being equal, grossly inflated the cost of those few cities where the future is being made. London, Paris, San Fran, New York --- even Auckland.
Best bet is to try to find a middle sized city that punches above its weight economically, has future-focused industry, but has somehow kept housing prices stable.
Seattle and Portland both look good. In Europe, Amsterdam or Antwerp.
I recently visited Lisbon, and was struck by how prosperous it now is. Multi-cultural and forward looking , it's a very attractive place.
Personally, I don't believe that Brexit will be that damaging to the economy. But I believe Corbynism will. Therefore my choices are entirely consistent.
I cannot agree with you about Corbynism. It may be misguided, but is only drawing attention to a structural deficit which everyone should be concerned by. And, it has already transformational effect on our politics which I only see as a good thing.
I am convinced that there are basically two worlds - one with people who work in Finance, Insurance and Real estate and the spin off industries who can command the sort of salary that you (and many other posters on here) can; and everyone else.
The fact that a nursery care assistant - someone who I entrust my childs life to every day - is earning little more than the minimum wage and cannot ever afford to buy a house is, in my view, a moral disaster. But in seeking to move abroad, what you are effectively doing is preserve a status quo whereby your work is worth four times the nursery care assistant. The same status quo also maintains the position whereby half the nursery care assistants wage goes to a landlord, someone who has "done well" , mainly by being in the right industry (real estate) and having access to capital.
Up until now, the system worked because of something akin to trickle down, even though inequality increases, everyone is getting richer, so it is sort of okay. But now, the percieved losers far outnumber the percieved winners. My energy bills are going up 15%, the nursery fees are going up 10% this year, but my pay is going up 1%, maybe. Its not sustainable. Hence Leave, hence Corbyn.
Of course, Corbynism isn't going to solve any of this, and neither is leaving the EU. But the answer for anyone on the right, is surely to stick around and to try and change the system, to make it work better. Its easier to flee than to fight.
Personally, I don't believe that Brexit will be that damaging to the economy. But I believe Corbynism will. Therefore my choices are entirely consistent.
I cannot agree with you about Corbynism. It may be misguided, but is only drawing attention to a structural deficit which everyone should be concerned by. And, it has already transformational effect on our politics which I only see as a good thing.
I am convinced that there are basically two worlds - one with people who work in Finance, Insurance and Real estate and the spin off industries who can command the sort of salary that you (and many other posters on here) can; and everyone else.
The fact that a nursery care assistant - someone who I entrust my childs life to every day - is earning little more than the minimum wage and cannot ever afford to buy a house is, in my view, a moral disaster. But in seeking to move abroad, what you are effectively doing is preserve a status quo whereby your work is worth four times the nursery care assistant. The same status quo also maintains the position whereby half the nursery care assistants wage goes to a landlord, someone who has "done well" , mainly by being in the right industry (real estate) and having access to capital.
Up until now, the system worked because of something akin to trickle down, even though inequality increases, everyone is getting richer, so it is sort of okay. But now, the percieved losers far outnumber the percieved winners. My energy bills are going up 15%, the nursery fees are going up 10% this year, but my pay is going up 1%, maybe. Its not sustainable. Hence Leave, hence Corbyn.
Of course, Corbynism isn't going to solve any of this, and neither is leaving the EU. But the answer for anyone on the right, is surely to stick around and to try and change the system, to make it work better. Its easier to flee than to fight.
+1
+1
People can post logical rants against Corbynism as much as they like (and I am no Labour supporter myself), but the bottom line is that if the status quo isn't working, people will be attracted to a radical alternative without troubling themselves too much about its potential shortcomings. The biggest news for some time is the mass resignation of May's social mobility commission, which is a damning condemnation of her failure to progress the agenda she committed herself to when first elected PM.
I expect if Corbyn gets in many more Tory Leavers will follow, far better to comment on Corbyn's Premiership and post Brexit UK from a sunny tax haven like Singapore, the UAE or Bermuda, Belize or the Bahamas rather than to actually live through it.
I think that @RCS1000 is correct in forecasting at least one year of net emigration. The question will be whether the Citizens of Nowhere are those fleeing Corbynism or those fleeing Moggism.
It's a good prediction.
The prospect of a Corbyn government means I'm now very seriously looking at leaving the country. I started making discreet enquiries about jobs overseas after GE2017. Moreover I've advised some expat family members - far more wealthy than I - not to return.
Labour said nobody earning less than 80k would pay more tax, which is something I don't believe for an instant. Coincidentally 2017 was the first year I earned more than 80k, but the things that really frighten me are less being taxed to death and more the wholesale destruction of the economy caused by capital flight.
Corbyn's 'banks are right to fear us' interview this week coupled with McDonnell's ominous 'we have a plan in place to deal with capital flight' do not look good. Aside from Seamus Milne, effectively a Stalinite, probably being one of the most powerful people in a Corbyn government, the fact is that Corbyn has spoken approvingly of property seizure (post Grenfell) and McDonnell has spoken approvingly of street protest (the so called 'day of rage) to oust a democratically elected government.
A Corbyn government won't be a normal, centre left government. It will be a disaster in which ham fisted attempts to redistribute wealth lead to capital flight and subsequent controls that will devastate the economy. Getting out before that happens seems a very sensible idea.
The answer to the £80k question is clear in my mind, which is that after five years of Corbynomics, the cumulative effect of inflation and devaluation will put £80k a year somewhere around the minimum wage.
Of all the reasons to vote for the man, the one I really can’t fathom is that he’ll make it easier to buy a house. Do people seriously think that a man who doesn’t believe in private property is going to help you buy a house rather than have the state allocate you one, and do they think that rapidly falling house prices will make it easier for banks to lend or that they will increase both interest rates and deposit requirements?
Globalisation has, all things being equal, grossly inflated the cost of those few cities where the future is being made. London, Paris, San Fran, New York --- even Auckland.
Best bet is to try to find a middle sized city that punches above its weight economically, has future-focused industry, but has somehow kept housing prices stable.
Seattle and Portland both look good. In Europe, Amsterdam or Antwerp.
You only get serious housing shortages when cities inflict it on themselves, by banning people from building things. Otherwise demand will push up prices a bit but then supply will grow to fill it.
Comments
Also a massive misjudgement by Cameron not to have considered that nailing the Leavers down to one version of Brexit, in advance of a referendum, would have been the best way to secure the Remain win that he actually wanted. His mistake was to allow everyone with different visions of the future to coalesce behind one flimsy set of words.
(For reference, it took about 20 years for NZ to do the same after it lost access to its key export market when the U.K. joined the Common Market).
London is best placed to re-orient itself because of its skill base and existing networks.
Middlesbrough and Hull: not so much.
Brexit economic guru Patrick Minford predicts that Britain will "mostly eliminate manufacturing" post Brext and suggests winding down Nissan's operations in Sunderland, claiming it is protected by subsidy.
(Nissan is by several orders of magnitude the single largest exporter in the entire North East, btw)
In short, if you are under the age of 45, and reading this North of the Watford Gap, you should be considering emigration.
A FTA will benefit manufacturing areas as it will keep largely tariff free goods exports but will not really cover services and still see the City leave the single market.
Indeed, sitting near me at the football yesterday was a bearded Muslim fellow in traditional dress with two girls, decked out in Leicester City blue headscarves. Visibly different, visibly assimilated and completely comfortable in the crowd. There is some progress in the world.
I do not remember any Remain voters predicting this, rather the opposite in fact.
Also, you cite Khan. He's banned images of healthy women in bikinis on the Tube and permitted Al-Quds to march through London.
Research by Trevor Phillips[sp] a year or two ago, presented in a very good Channel 4 programme, revealed high levels of Muslim intolerance for things like gay rights (even to the extent of wishing to criminalise homosexuality, if memory serves), and minority but substantial support for Sharia law.
But because these things are deemed 'sensitive' there's a vast yawning chasm in political discourse about them, which helps create a space for the far right to slowly grow. Those in politics worried about such growth might consider that they're the damned cause. If the mainstream won't address genuine concerns people have about enclaves, integration, and so on, then the electorate, sooner or later, will look elsewhere.
We need to see it coming, and as several businessmen have said in a letter to the PM today, be prepared to walk and spend time preparing for WTO, rather than watching the time run out and find ourselves boxed into a corner.
As I have said before on this site, Muslim teenagers who have been born here and educated in a modern school have a different outlook from their parents. Whether many will go the way of much of the Jewish community and 'disappear' as far as their separateness is concerned remains to be seen, but it would be a mistake to simply project forward the numbers and assume the next generation will have the same characteristics in thirty years time as the current one does today.
Hull's exports are not getting more desirable. It's just that we're having a fire sale.
While every 'NHS to collapse' scare story which flops boosts his credibility.
'Sadiq Khan ‘does not have the power’ to ban Al-Quds Day march'
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/sadiq-khan-does-have-the-power-to-ban-al-quds-day-march/
I think there's blood from more obvious candidates that Nigel 'without a single bullet being fired' Farage should be worrying about.
The prospect of a Corbyn government means I'm now very seriously looking at leaving the country. I started making discreet enquiries about jobs overseas after GE2017. Moreover I've advised some expat family members - far more wealthy than I - not to return.
Labour said nobody earning less than 80k would pay more tax, which is something I don't believe for an instant. Coincidentally 2017 was the first year I earned more than 80k, but the things that really frighten me are less being taxed to death and more the wholesale destruction of the economy caused by capital flight.
Corbyn's 'banks are right to fear us' interview this week coupled with McDonnell's ominous 'we have a plan in place to deal with capital flight' do not look good. Aside from Seamus Milne, effectively a Stalinite, probably being one of the most powerful people in a Corbyn government, the fact is that Corbyn has spoken approvingly of property seizure (post Grenfell) and McDonnell has spoken approvingly of street protest (the so called 'day of rage) to oust a democratically elected government.
A Corbyn government won't be a normal, centre left government. It will be a disaster in which ham fisted attempts to redistribute wealth lead to capital flight and subsequent controls that will devastate the economy. Getting out before that happens seems a very sensible idea.
Of course the 'London, ra-ra-ra' boys never mention the collapse in levels of home ownership there. So even if it is the place with the bright future an ever decreasing number of people will benefit from it.
Though whether London does have this great future is rather debateable - after all what's to stop high cost financial services steadily relocating to somewhere cheaper and/or more automated over the next generation.
Only 50% of European muslims ever go to a mosque or pray:
http://islamineurope.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/eu-muslims-go-to-mosque-less-often.html?m=1
Indeed perceiving the secularisation of their community is a spur to radicalisation for a subset of muslims. Mosque attendance is dropping amongst the young in MENA countries too. In Saudi as many decribe themselves as athiests as in the USA, despite it being illegal.
Islamism is in many ways best thought of as a reaction to the secularisation, consumerism and globilisation impacting on communities and cultures.
Though given that London was the only part of Britain with a negative internal migration in 2016 it seems many thousands of people have realised that already:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2016#moves-between-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales-similar-to-last-year
They're not leaving the London jobs market.
I'm not sure who the ra-ra boys are. It would be wonderful if the country outside the SE were to actually pay its way - lower taxes for everyone!
1. We know more now what Brexit actually means than the cake and eat it promises of 2016.
2. There is emerging evidence that the first referendum was influenced by the actions of a hostile foreign power.
3. The public supports a second referendum.
https://order-order.com/2017/12/03/mcdonnell-unable-cost-nationalisation-public-sector-pay/
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/934057524181000192
I tend to think that, all things being equal, Brexit would win a second referendum. But at least they would do so now with the clear acknowledgement of the challenges of Brexit.
Remainers too would need to adjust their rhetoric to the reality of the last 18 months and what we've learned about the EU over that time.
When blockquote meets iphone autocorrect...
At least a third of Labour voters want socialism and Brexit too.
William Keegan (Observer) says Sir Ivan Rogers told him that Mervyn King (Bank of England) urged Blair not to do the phased transition for workers from east european EU joiners: he wanted the impact to keep inflation low.
They will then shift to parliamentary selections and MP reselections from next summer after the local elections.
Worth noting that at our selection meeting last week all 4 candidates acknowledged that working full time was not compatible with being a councillor.
Firstly, you announced that you voted leave because you were concerned about never being able to buy a house or bring up a family in the UK, and the percieved loss of identity/community in London. Understandable reasons which I am sympathetic to, even though I came to a different conclusion in terms of my vote in the referendum.
Yet Corbynism is a direct expression of these forces, bringing together the white working classes and disgruntled priced out young remainers. I don't like it, as I dislike the Nigel Farage/Aaron Banks/ Leave.eu vision, but it is what democracy and our electoral system has delivered.
Now you are planning to leave the country, to essentially try and protect your own capital? You are suddenly going to become a citizen of the world and turn up in some other world city, distorting other housing markets?
The patriotic thing to do is surely to stay and see through Brexit and Corbynism. My instinct is that, if it happens at all, the latter will be hopelessly ineffective and not last very long, and then we will have a very nasty right wing government.
Though admittedly London local politics is particularly intense.
I could quite happily be a councillor for a suburban housing estate, it would be the occasional planning issue here and there, parking, burglaries. The people would be mostly affluent and would be less likely to use your time.
On the other hand, being a councillor in an inner city area is going to be much harder, mainly because you have many more issues to deal with. Any ward with a high proportion of poor or vulnerable people is going to place greater demands on your time.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/937294097991258113
Remember also that the purpose of multi-member wards is that councillors can operate as a team. I used to cover more than my fair share of evening commitments with colleagues doing most of the daytime stuff.
https://www.elespanol.com/espana/20171202/266473848_0.html
In London it is also probably easier to afford to be a full-time councillor, in Haringey for example councillors get about £11,000 basic allowance and £35,000 allowance if they are on the Cabinet.
Here in Epping Forest councillors get about £4,000 basic allowance and £6,500 if they are on the Cabinet. Even the Leader of the Council gets just under £11,000, the same as the Haringey basic allowance (though Essex County Councillors get a basic allowance of £12,000 about the same as London Borough Councillors with Cabinet Members also getting about £35,000 allowance).
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/financial_statement_2016_to_2017.pd
f
http://rds.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/documents/s72774/Appendix 1 - Members Allowances Scheme 2017-18 December 2016.pdf
http://www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council/Councillors/Allowances/Pages/Allowances,-Expenses-and-Interests.aspx
This next week is very important and let's see where we are by the end of the year.
Then again, there are people in all parties who combine being a councillor with MP, MEP or HoL. Certainly there's some synergy, and the experience and info gained from one role will be useful to the other, but in terms of workload my impression is that their council work is mostly carried by their colleagues.
Seccondly, protecting your own capital is entirely rational. Corbynism is the most anti-aspirational, greedy, politics-of-envy movement I have seen in my lifetime. It is not about doing well for yourself, it is about seeing other people who have done well and taking it away from them. As far as I'm concerned, socialism of the kind Corbyn espouses is a far more greedy ideology than seeking to protect one's own capital. My own ideology may be *selfish* but it is not greedy. I seek to *make* not take.
As for patriotism, while I'm proud of my culture and my heritage, that is very different to needlessly haemhorraging money to a socialist government. Indeed, depriving the exchequer of my tax revenue is a far more effective form of protest than waving a placard on the street.
I completely understand why people are turning to Corbynism, just as I understand why so many people voted Brexit. And if it is the will of the people that we get a Corbyn government, then so be it. But that doesn't mean I have to put up with it, any more than remainers who believe the country is going to hell in a hand cart have to stick it out just because 52% of the population wanted it.
Personally, I don't believe that Brexit will be that damaging to the economy. But I believe Corbynism will. Therefore my choices are entirely consistent.
The Tories increasingly look unable to agree on the basics of what the UK is negotiating for never mind able to successfully negotiate anything. The DUP look set to pull the plug, the party able to put the IRA I to office in Stormont apparently less afraid of Corbyn as portrayed by some on here.
But that leaves us with neither the Tories nor Labout capable of having a working majority in this parliament. But unless Tory MPs vote for an early election in which many of them would lose their seats, it will limp on regardless, a bunch of ferrets righting in a sack as it is swept over the Brexit waterfall into the rocks below.
Fun times
I think what he said was that the public are being fed a pack of lies. I don't think there has been much lying since the referendum, though. The general vibe I get is that the best (not the most likely) result is if we end up not actually being third world, and nobody is seriously pretending different.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/937298807380779013
That said, it looks like we've had quite a few Ivors in the Diplomatic Service, wonder if we've had any with the surname Biggun?
Best bet is to try to find a middle sized city that punches above its weight economically, has future-focused industry, but has somehow kept housing prices stable.
Seattle and Portland both look good. In Europe, Amsterdam or Antwerp.
One of the standard things I see amongst older (and wealthier) colleagues is to keep a flat in London and have a family home further afield where you spend weekends with your kids. My own father was absent from much of my childhood due to work, and I don't want to be that kind of person myself.
I am convinced that there are basically two worlds - one with people who work in Finance, Insurance and Real estate and the spin off industries who can command the sort of salary that you (and many other posters on here) can; and everyone else.
The fact that a nursery care assistant - someone who I entrust my childs life to every day - is earning little more than the minimum wage and cannot ever afford to buy a house is, in my view, a moral disaster. But in seeking to move abroad, what you are effectively doing is preserve a status quo whereby your work is worth four times the nursery care assistant. The same status quo also maintains the position whereby half the nursery care assistants wage goes to a landlord, someone who has "done well" , mainly by being in the right industry (real estate) and having access to capital.
Up until now, the system worked because of something akin to trickle down, even though inequality increases, everyone is getting richer, so it is sort of okay. But now, the percieved losers far outnumber the percieved winners. My energy bills are going up 15%, the nursery fees are going up 10% this year, but my pay is going up 1%, maybe. Its not sustainable. Hence Leave, hence Corbyn.
Of course, Corbynism isn't going to solve any of this, and neither is leaving the EU. But the answer for anyone on the right, is surely to stick around and to try and change the system, to make it work better. Its easier to flee than to fight.
People can post logical rants against Corbynism as much as they like (and I am no Labour supporter myself), but the bottom line is that if the status quo isn't working, people will be attracted to a radical alternative without troubling themselves too much about its potential shortcomings. The biggest news for some time is the mass resignation of May's social mobility commission, which is a damning condemnation of her failure to progress the agenda she committed herself to when first elected PM.