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.
So you’re simultaneously complaining that the nursery care assistant is poorly paid, and that your nursery fees went up this year. Do you think there might be a relationship betweeen the two?
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.
So you’re simultaneously complaining that the nursery care assistant is poorly paid, and that your nursery fees went up this year. Do you think there might be a relationship betweeen the two?
Unless the 10% increase in fees went on pay, then no. Many many nurseries face going out of business despite paying their staff poverty pay. The government promised free childcare but has provided only a fraction of the funding.
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.
So you’re simultaneously complaining that the nursery care assistant is poorly paid, and that your nursery fees went up this year. Do you think there might be a relationship betweeen the two?
No; the nursery fees are going up because rents, rates (or whatever they call them now) are going up. And, to be fair, because the Care Assistant is getting a bit more Minimum Wage. However, the Care Assistant’s wages might be going up 2-3%, but her fuel bills, council tax and rent is going up 5-10%.
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.
So you’re simultaneously complaining that the nursery care assistant is poorly paid, and that your nursery fees went up this year. Do you think there might be a relationship betweeen the two?
It is a problem with the whole structure, not a specific problem to do with wages and fees in nurseries.
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.
So you’re simultaneously complaining that the nursery care assistant is poorly paid, and that your nursery fees went up this year. Do you think there might be a relationship betweeen the two?
Unless the 10% increase in fees went on pay, then no. Many many nurseries face going out of business despite paying their staff poverty pay. The government promised free childcare but has provided only a fraction of the funding.
Minimum wage has gone up above inflation for a while now, and the introduction of the compulsory “National Living Wage” for over 25s last year gave them an additional 10% raise. https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates
NLW at £7.50 is now £300 a week, £15,650 a year. Anyone with a family is also getting tax credits on top.
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.
I agree with you on quite a few of your points. That there are "two worlds" as you say is undeniable, and it's something I'm actually quite uncomfortable with. And you are right that there is a problem that trickle down no longer works, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer - in terms of stagnant wages and declining living standards.
I wouldn't have a problem with paying a slightly higher rate of tax under a social democratic government - I certainly wouldn't be looking at jobs abroad if an Ed Miliband government looked incoming.
But Corbyn and the people he has surrounded himself with are so far from that norm that I am genuinely fearful for the economy should he be elected. A brain drain and capital flight seem inevitable. I actually have friends who are in Momentum (I don't talk politics IRL in general) and what some of them are saying terrifies me.
I would far rather see a sensible, centrist government with liberal economic and social values take the helm and steer us through these troubling times. However we have the choice at the moment between an increasingly authoritarian and statist Conservative party (that doesn't have an adequate answer to the current economic malaise) and an utterly terrifying Labour government led by hard left socialists (that has an entirely wrong, even disastrous attitude to our problems).
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.
It's very quietly establishing itself as a digital economy hub, too. I don't know about the local jobs market, but the cost of living is 50% of London's.
While none of us want to be Venezuela, the problem is that second picture is not particularly attractive either.
But the difference is that we can all have a good laugh at those who’ll wait in line for the latest iPhone or games console.
Those queueing for bread and milk aren’t having a party.
We can show pictures of the food banks in the UK which 1 in 10 families in are now reliant on.
How the likes of Osborne and Cameron used the banking crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally reform the state to suit their Thatcherite wet dream is criminal.They are the ones to blame for Brexit and Corbyn. And to see the likes of TSE constantly extol their virtues on the basis that they won a majority for the Tories quite frankly "Che fai mi cacci"....a wonderfully coarse Italian insult......
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?
Better than any ad the Conservatives came up with during GE2017. This is the sort of message that needs sending - not "Corbyn has some dodgy friends in Ireland, you know".
I agree that the cognitive dissonance of people who are angry at not being able to get on the property ladder voting for Corbyn is astounding. Just as the cognitive dissonance of some of my europhile friends being pro freedom of movement yet wondering why they are living in eight person house shares is just as baffling.
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. .
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.
I agree with you on quite a few of your points. That there are "two worlds" as you say is undeniable, and it's something I'm actually quite uncomfortable with. And you are right that there is a problem that trickle down no longer works, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer - in terms of stagnant wages and declining living standards.
I wouldn't have a problem with paying a slightly higher rate of tax under a social democratic government - I certainly wouldn't be looking at jobs abroad if an Ed Miliband government looked incoming.
But Corbyn and the people he has surrounded himself with are so far from that norm that I am genuinely fearful for the economy should he be elected. A brain drain and capital flight seem inevitable. I actually have friends who are in Momentum (I don't talk politics IRL in general) and what some of them are saying terrifies me.
I would far rather see a sensible, centrist government with liberal economic and social values take the helm and steer us through these troubling times. However we have the choice at the moment between an increasingly authoritarian and statist Conservative party (that doesn't have an adequate answer to the current economic malaise) and an utterly terrifying Labour government led by hard left socialists (that has an entirely wrong, even disastrous attitude to our problems).
Every party has its nutters. Constrained by its parliamentary party, public opinion, the civil service, and either a coalition partner or a small majority, as well as the realities of office, Corbyn won't be able to be nearly as radical as his supporters might wish. Indeed his biggest challenge will be managing their disappointment.
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
I agree with you on quite a few of your points. That there are "two worlds" as you say is undeniable, and it's something I'm actually quite uncomfortable with. And you are right that there is a problem that trickle down no longer works, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer - in terms of stagnant wages and declining living standards.
I wouldn't have a problem with paying a slightly higher rate of tax under a social democratic government - I certainly wouldn't be looking at jobs abroad if an Ed Miliband government looked incoming.
But Corbyn and the people he has surrounded himself with are so far from that norm that I am genuinely fearful for the economy should he be elected. A brain drain and capital flight seem inevitable. I actually have friends who are in Momentum (I don't talk politics IRL in general) and what some of them are saying terrifies me.
I would far rather see a sensible, centrist government with liberal economic and social values take the helm and steer us through these troubling times. However we have the choice at the moment between an increasingly authoritarian and statist Conservative party (that doesn't have an adequate answer to the current economic malaise) and an utterly terrifying Labour government led by hard left socialists (that has an entirely wrong, even disastrous attitude to our problems).
I think that you exagerate the consequences of Corbynism. There will certainly be a bit of panic in the City, but the reality is that any budget has to be supported by a fairly broad based group of Labour MPs. It will be fairly slow to take effect, and indeed the spending injection will be quite an economic stimulus. It is towards the end of the term the chickens will be coming home to roost.
Even the most catastrophic economic management takes time to crash an economy. Neither Zimbabwe nor Venezuela were destroyed in a day.
Post Brexit, I am planning to spend longer out of the country. I have had enough of annual real terms pay cuts, and have maxed my pension. I will keep a base here as I have family responsibilities, but fancy some extended periods in warmer climes, a mix probably of well paid locums and unpaid work in Africa suits me. After 30 years in the NHS, I think that I have done my bit here.
I agree with you on quite a few of your points. That there are "two worlds" as you say is undeniable, and it's something I'm actually quite uncomfortable with. And you are right that there is a problem that trickle down no longer works, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer - in terms of stagnant wages and declining living standards.
I wouldn't have a problem with paying a slightly higher rate of tax under a social democratic government - I certainly wouldn't be looking at jobs abroad if an Ed Miliband government looked incoming.
But Corbyn and the people he has surrounded himself with are so far from that norm that I am genuinely fearful for the economy should he be elected. A brain drain and capital flight seem inevitable. I actually have friends who are in Momentum (I don't talk politics IRL in general) and what some of them are saying terrifies me.
I would far rather see a sensible, centrist government with liberal economic and social values take the helm and steer us through these troubling times. However we have the choice at the moment between an increasingly authoritarian and statist Conservative party (that doesn't have an adequate answer to the current economic malaise) and an utterly terrifying Labour government led by hard left socialists (that has an entirely wrong, even disastrous attitude to our problems).
I largely agree with your analysis of the 2 main parties, although I am not that pessimistic about a Corbyn led government.
The problem that I think we have is that people expect this 'sensible, centrist government' to appear but I see no basis for it to happen. The lib dems are discredited by their association with the tories, and moderates within both main parties are quitting en masse. Ironically our system is likely to deliver more and more extreme and polarising governments.
O/T...I wonder if Cameron's recent intervention on dementia is related to his age. This generation of politicians is now coming face to face with their parents and friends ailing health through old age and they realise that something has to be done.
While none of us want to be Venezuela, the problem is that second picture is not particularly attractive either.
But the difference is that we can all have a good laugh at those who’ll wait in line for the latest iPhone or games console.
Those queueing for bread and milk aren’t having a party.
We can show pictures of the food banks in the UK which 1 in 10 families in are now reliant on.
How the likes of Osborne and Cameron used the banking crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally reform the state to suit their Thatcherite wet dream is criminal.They are the ones to blame for Brexit and Corbyn. And to see the likes of TSE constantly extol their virtues on the basis that they won a majority for the Tories quite frankly "Che fai mi cacci"....a wonderfully coarse Italian insult......
Do you have a source for the “1 in 10 families reliant on food banks” stat? I know TCO messed up the universal credit rollout but is it genuinely that bad?
But Corbyn and the people he has surrounded himself with are so far from that norm that I am genuinely fearful for the economy should he be elected. A brain drain and capital flight seem inevitable. I actually have friends who are in Momentum (I don't talk politics IRL in general) and what some of them are saying terrifies me.
I would far rather see a sensible, centrist government with liberal economic and social values take the helm and steer us through these troubling times. However we have the choice at the moment between an increasingly authoritarian and statist Conservative party (that doesn't have an adequate answer to the current economic malaise) and an utterly terrifying Labour government led by hard left socialists (that has an entirely wrong, even disastrous attitude to our problems).
I think that you exagerate the consequences of Corbynism. There will certainly be a bit of panic in the City, but the reality is that any budget has to be supported by a fairly broad based group of Labour MPs. It will be fairly slow to take effect, and indeed the spending injection will be quite an economic stimulus. It is towards the end of the term the chickens will be coming home to roost.
Even the most catastrophic economic management takes time to crash an economy. Neither Zimbabwe nor Venezuela were destroyed in a day.
Post Brexit, I am planning to spend longer out of the country. I have had enough of annual real terms pay cuts, and have maxed my pension. I will keep a base here as I have family responsibilities, but fancy some extended periods in warmer climes, a mix probably of well paid locums and unpaid work in Africa suits me. After 30 years in the NHS, I think that I have done my bit here.
Much of it depends on how effective Momentum are at deselecting / converting standing Labour MP's prior to any election resulting in a labour government. And also, how large their majority is (or who they depend on for support in a hung parliament).
I think that once they control the NEC, they will bring in rule changes that make deselection easier.
The other side of the coin is that once Momentum control the party they will push for election losing policies: scrapping Trident, open borders, prison abolition (check out recent stuff on Guido) to name but a few.
Are you still planning to perhaps re-locate to Norwich? I don't see DyedWoolie here anymore, but after watching The Divine Comedy last night at the union I am still as loved up as ever with the place.
Not at all. I think that MEP pensions are far too high, but the time for arguing that was several decades ago. We are where we are.
Pensions is IMO the only genuine commitment the UK should be paying to the EU as we leave, much as I detest the likes of Kinnock(s), Mandleson and Cathy Ashton continuing to earn be paid obscene amounts of money for jobs they did decades ago. Preferable would be that the UK Eurocrats’ pensions are transferred to a UK-administered scheme, at least that way we’d get 40% of it back in tax.
While none of us want to be Venezuela, the problem is that second picture is not particularly attractive either.
But the difference is that we can all have a good laugh at those who’ll wait in line for the latest iPhone or games console.
Those queueing for bread and milk aren’t having a party.
We can show pictures of the food banks in the UK which 1 in 10 families in are now reliant on.
How the likes of Osborne and Cameron used the banking crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally reform the state to suit their Thatcherite wet dream is criminal.They are the ones to blame for Brexit and Corbyn. And to see the likes of TSE constantly extol their virtues on the basis that they won a majority for the Tories quite frankly "Che fai mi cacci"....a wonderfully coarse Italian insult......
Do you have a source for the “1 in 10 families reliant on food banks” stat? I know TCO messed up the universal credit rollout but is it genuinely that bad?
The estimates from the food bank providers themselves is that there are 1.2 million households receiving food from foodbanks each year. There are almost 28 million households in the UK so no the number Tyson is using is not accurate.
In addition the foodbanks say that on average each of those 1.2 million households visits the foodbank twice a year.
This is not in any way to play down the problem of people being forced to use foodbanks. But Tyson doesn't help anyone by using massively inflated figures.
I think that MEP pensions are far too high, but the time for arguing that was several decades ago.
Pensions is IMO the only genuine commitment the UK should be paying to the EU as we leave, much as I detest the likes of Kinnock(s), Mandleson and Cathy Ashton continuing to earn be paid obscene amounts of money for jobs they did decades ago.
They also get paid ludicrous amounts of public cash lousing off the HoL Gravy train, as well as their inflated HoC's pensions.
I have to say though that politicians are naturally drawn to junkets of any kind. Snouts and troughs and all that.
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?
Better than any ad the Conservatives came up with during GE2017. This is the sort of message that needs sending - not "Corbyn has some dodgy friends in Ireland, you know".
I agree that the cognitive dissonance of people who are angry at not being able to get on the property ladder voting for Corbyn is astounding. Just as the cognitive dissonance of some of my europhile friends being pro freedom of movement yet wondering why they are living in eight person house shares is just as baffling.
That advert if it is ever run will have no effect whatever. All it will do is reinforce the opinion that the Conservatives live in their own world. I draw your attention to just how ineffective project fear was during the referendum campaign.
While none of us want to be Venezuela, the problem is that second picture is not particularly attractive either.
But the difference is that we can all have a good laugh at those who’ll wait in line for the latest iPhone or games console.
Those queueing for bread and milk aren’t having a party.
We can show pictures of the food banks in the UK which 1 in 10 families in are now reliant on.
How the likes of Osborne and Cameron used the banking crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally reform the state to suit their Thatcherite wet dream is criminal.They are the ones to blame for Brexit and Corbyn. And to see the likes of TSE constantly extol their virtues on the basis that they won a majority for the Tories quite frankly "Che fai mi cacci"....a wonderfully coarse Italian insult......
Do you have a source for the “1 in 10 families reliant on food banks” stat? I know TCO messed up the universal credit rollout but is it genuinely that bad?
The estimates from the food bank providers themselves is that there are 1.2 million households receiving food from foodbanks each year. There are almost 28 million households in the UK so no the number Tyson is using is not accurate.
In addition the foodbanks say that on average each of those 1.2 million households visits the foodbank twice a year.
This is not in any way to play down the problem of people being forced to use foodbanks. But Tyson doesn't help anyone by using massively inflated figures.
OK...I think the figure I was alluding too might have been 1 in 10 households with children......
Are you still planning to perhaps re-locate to Norwich? I don't see DyedWoolie here anymore, but after watching The Divine Comedy last night at the union I am still as loved up as ever with the place.
Yes, Will sell up here in Leicester in 2019/20 and downsize to Norwich. I have promised Mrs Fox. All subject to change due to Fox jr, health etc.
I am planning to be on the road much of the year though.
While none of us want to be Venezuela, the problem is that second picture is not particularly attractive either.
But the difference is that we can all have a good laugh at those who’ll wait in line for the latest iPhone or games console.
Those queueing for bread and milk aren’t having a party.
We can show pictures of the food banks in the UK which 1 in 10 families in are now reliant on.
How the likes of Osborne and Cameron used the banking crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally reform the state to suit their Thatcherite wet dream is criminal.They are the ones to blame for Brexit and Corbyn. And to see the likes of TSE constantly extol their virtues on the basis that they won a majority for the Tories quite frankly "Che fai mi cacci"....a wonderfully coarse Italian insult......
Do you have a source for the “1 in 10 families reliant on food banks” stat? I know TCO messed up the universal credit rollout but is it genuinely that bad?
The estimates from the food bank providers themselves is that there are 1.2 million households receiving food from foodbanks each year. There are almost 28 million households in the UK so no the number Tyson is using is not accurate.
In addition the foodbanks say that on average each of those 1.2 million households visits the foodbank twice a year.
This is not in any way to play down the problem of people being forced to use foodbanks. But Tyson doesn't help anyone by using massively inflated figures.
Those figures are still shocking though, 5% or 1 out of 20 households struggle for food.
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?
Better than any ad the Conservatives came up with during GE2017. This is the sort of message that needs sending - not "Corbyn has some dodgy friends in Ireland, you know".
I agree that the cognitive dissonance of people who are angry at not being able to get on the property ladder voting for Corbyn is astounding. Just as the cognitive dissonance of some of my europhile friends being pro freedom of movement yet wondering why they are living in eight person house shares is just as baffling.
That advert if it is ever run will have no effect whatever. All it will do is reinforce the opinion that the Conservatives live in their own world. I draw your attention to just how ineffective project fear was during the referendum campaign.
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?
Better than any ad the Conservatives came up with during GE2017. This is the sort of message that needs sending - not "Corbyn has some dodgy friends in Ireland, you know".
I agree that the cognitive dissonance of people who are angry at not being able to get on the property ladder voting for Corbyn is astounding. Just as the cognitive dissonance of some of my europhile friends being pro freedom of movement yet wondering why they are living in eight person house shares is just as baffling.
That advert if it is ever run will have no effect whatever. All it will do is reinforce the opinion that the Conservatives live in their own world. I draw your attention to just how ineffective project fear was during the referendum campaign.
This, taken literally, would not be effective as an ad. It's too in-your-face and, as you rightly point out, would reinforce existing opinions. However, the underlying message is the correct one.
At GE2017, Corbyn was able to promise free jam for all and that someone else would pay for it. With an invisible chancellor and a Conservative party in disarray over the Dementia tax, Labour's sums went largely unchecked.
As I've said before, the message the Conservatives need to get across is that the majority will be paying for the free jam, rather than the recipients of it. That point needs to be hammered home, particularly in the marginals and, ironically, among the JAMs themselves.
Notice how one of the things that really achieved cutthrough during the campaign was Diane Abbott's repeated gaffes over numbers. If 1979 gave us "Labour isn't working" 2017 should have been "Labour can't add up".
While none of us want to be Venezuela, the problem is that second picture is not particularly attractive either.
But the difference is that we can all have a good laugh at those who’ll wait in line for the latest iPhone or games console.
Those queueing for bread and milk aren’t having a party.
We can show pictures of the food banks in the UK which 1 in 10 families in are now reliant on.
How the likes of Osborne and Cameron used the banking crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally reform the state to suit their Thatcherite wet dream is criminal.They are the ones to blame for Brexit and Corbyn. And to see the likes of TSE constantly extol their virtues on the basis that they won a majority for the Tories quite frankly "Che fai mi cacci"....a wonderfully coarse Italian insult......
Do you have a source for the “1 in 10 families reliant on food banks” stat? I know TCO messed up the universal credit rollout but is it genuinely that bad?
The estimates from the food bank providers themselves is that there are 1.2 million households receiving food from foodbanks each year. There are almost 28 million households in the UK so no the number Tyson is using is not accurate.
In addition the foodbanks say that on average each of those 1.2 million households visits the foodbank twice a year.
This is not in any way to play down the problem of people being forced to use foodbanks. But Tyson doesn't help anyone by using massively inflated figures.
OK...I think the figure I was alluding too might have been 1 in 10 households with children......
My issue with food bank stats is that thier numbers have massively increased in number over the last few years. Families stuck between jobs or benefit cheques a decade ago went to the pawn shop or friends for money instead. Or to the guys with friends with baseball bats.
The expansion of food banks in this context is actually a good thing, David Cameron called it The Big Society and was widely ridiculed for it, but if it means that there’s fewer baseball bats being used then that’s a good thing.
It’s something I’m genuinely interested in, and disappointed by politicians’ use of “relative poverty” statistics that meant the number dropped massively in 2009 because there were fewer bankers around.
Iain Duncan Smith and Frank Field have spent decades working on this, and I hope that the UC rollout can go more smoothly than it has so far.
Are you still planning to perhaps re-locate to Norwich? I don't see DyedWoolie here anymore, but after watching The Divine Comedy last night at the union I am still as loved up as ever with the place.
Yes, Will sell up here in Leicester in 2019/20 and downsize to Norwich. I have promised Mrs Fox. All subject to change due to Fox jr, health etc.
I am planning to be on the road much of the year though.
International air communications from Norwich not good, unless flying via Amsterdam.
While none of us want to be Venezuela, the problem is that second picture is not particularly attractive either.
But the difference is that we can all have a good laugh at those who’ll wait in line for the latest iPhone or games console.
Those queueing for bread and milk aren’t having a party.
We can show pictures of the food banks in the UK which 1 in 10 families in are now reliant on.
How the likes of Osborne and Cameron used the banking crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally reform the state to suit their Thatcherite wet dream is criminal.They are the ones to blame for Brexit and Corbyn. And to see the likes of TSE constantly extol their virtues on the basis that they won a majority for the Tories quite frankly "Che fai mi cacci"....a wonderfully coarse Italian insult......
Do you have a source for the “1 in 10 families reliant on food banks” stat? I know TCO messed up the universal credit rollout but is it genuinely that bad?
The estimates from the food bank providers themselves is that there are 1.2 million households receiving food from foodbanks each year. There are almost 28 million households in the UK so no the number Tyson is using is not accurate.
In addition the foodbanks say that on average each of those 1.2 million households visits the foodbank twice a year.
This is not in any way to play down the problem of people being forced to use foodbanks. But Tyson doesn't help anyone by using massively inflated figures.
Those figures are still shocking though, 5% or 1 out of 20 households struggle for food.
Yet we also have obeseity at record levels and that too seems to be concentrated among the more deprived communities.
Are you still planning to perhaps re-locate to Norwich? I don't see DyedWoolie here anymore, but after watching The Divine Comedy last night at the union I am still as loved up as ever with the place.
Yes, Will sell up here in Leicester in 2019/20 and downsize to Norwich. I have promised Mrs Fox. All subject to change due to Fox jr, health etc.
I am planning to be on the road much of the year though.
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.
So you’re simultaneously complaining that the nursery care assistant is poorly paid, and that your nursery fees went up this year. Do you think there might be a relationship betweeen the two?
Well, being that the majority of nurseries are privately owned and privately run most will conclude that the "free market" in that sense does not work - for them and the nursery assistant on minimum wage.
Neilh is bang on I think in explaining the reasons for corbynism. The Tories tinkering around the edges is woeful.
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?
Better than any ad the Conservatives came up with during GE2017. This is the sort of message that needs sending - not "Corbyn has some dodgy friends in Ireland, you know".
I agree that the cognitive dissonance of people who are angry at not being able to get on the property ladder voting for Corbyn is astounding. Just as the cognitive dissonance of some of my europhile friends being pro freedom of movement yet wondering why they are living in eight person house shares is just as baffling.
That advert if it is ever run will have no effect whatever. All it will do is reinforce the opinion that the Conservatives live in their own world. I draw your attention to just how ineffective project fear was during the referendum campaign.
This, taken literally, would not be effective as an ad. It's too in-your-face and, as you rightly point out, would reinforce existing opinions. However, the underlying message is the correct one.
At GE2017, Corbyn was able to promise free jam for all and that someone else would pay for it. With an invisible chancellor and a Conservative party in disarray over the Dementia tax, Labour's sums went largely unchecked.
As I've said before, the message the Conservatives need to get across is that the majority will be paying for the free jam, rather than the recipients of it. That point needs to be hammered home, particularly in the marginals and, ironically, among the JAMs themselves.
Notice how one of the things that really achieved cutthrough during the campaign was Diane Abbott's repeated gaffes over numbers. If 1979 gave us "Labour isn't working" 2017 should have been "Labour can't add up".
Diane A wasn’t well. Whether she should continue on the front bench is a matter for doubt.
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?
Better than any ad the Conservatives came up with during GE2017. This is the sort of message that needs sending - not "Corbyn has some dodgy friends in Ireland, you know".
I agree that the cognitive dissonance of people who are angry at not being able to get on the property ladder voting for Corbyn is astounding. Just as the cognitive dissonance of some of my europhile friends being pro freedom of movement yet wondering why they are living in eight person house shares is just as baffling.
That advert if it is ever run will have no effect whatever. All it will do is reinforce the opinion that the Conservatives live in their own world. I draw your attention to just how ineffective project fear was during the referendum campaign.
This, taken literally, would not be effective as an ad. It's too in-your-face and, as you rightly point out, would reinforce existing opinions. However, the underlying message is the correct one.
At GE2017, Corbyn was able to promise free jam for all and that someone else would pay for it. With an invisible chancellor and a Conservative party in disarray over the Dementia tax, Labour's sums went largely unchecked.
As I've said before, the message the Conservatives need to get across is that the majority will be paying for the free jam, rather than the recipients of it. That point needs to be hammered home, particularly in the marginals and, ironically, among the JAMs themselves.
Notice how one of the things that really achieved cutthrough during the campaign was Diane Abbott's repeated gaffes over numbers. If 1979 gave us "Labour isn't working" 2017 should have been "Labour can't add up".
The Conservative reputation for economic competence is their strongest card, but it isn't as widely believed as some of their supporters would like to think. Labour is well aware it is a weak area too. I wouldn't count on getting more open goals next time around.
Are you still planning to perhaps re-locate to Norwich? I don't see DyedWoolie here anymore, but after watching The Divine Comedy last night at the union I am still as loved up as ever with the place.
Yes, Will sell up here in Leicester in 2019/20 and downsize to Norwich. I have promised Mrs Fox. All subject to change due to Fox jr, health etc.
I am planning to be on the road much of the year though.
I've had quite enough of being on the road and am more than happy to get some stability back...that said I have only been in Norwich for a matter of weeks in total such are our commitments still in Italy and elsewhere.
I've been left to my own devices for a few days so will probably go to the pub for a late lunch and catch the City match. This record is very apt for those middle aged fellas who are temporarily abandoned by their partners
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?
Better than any ad the Conservatives came up with during GE2017. This is the sort of message that needs sending - not "Corbyn has some dodgy friends in Ireland, you know".
I agree that the cognitive dissonance of people who are angry at not being able to get on the property ladder voting for Corbyn is astounding. Just as the cognitive dissonance of some of my europhile friends being pro freedom of movement yet wondering why they are living in eight person house shares is just as baffling.
That advert if it is ever run will have no effect whatever. All it will do is reinforce the opinion that the Conservatives live in their own world. I draw your attention to just how ineffective project fear was during the referendum campaign.
This, taken literally, would not be effective as an ad. It's too in-your-face and, as you rightly point out, would reinforce existing opinions. However, the underlying message is the correct one.
At GE2017, Corbyn was able to promise free jam for all and that someone else would pay for it. With an invisible chancellor and a Conservative party in disarray over the Dementia tax, Labour's sums went largely unchecked.
As I've said before, the message the Conservatives need to get across is that the majority will be paying for the free jam, rather than the recipients of it. That point needs to be hammered home, particularly in the marginals and, ironically, among the JAMs themselves.
Notice how one of the things that really achieved cutthrough during the campaign was Diane Abbott's repeated gaffes over numbers. If 1979 gave us "Labour isn't working" 2017 should have been "Labour can't add up".
Labour's manifesto sums were checked by the IFS, who did take issue with some of the numbers but it was margin of error stuff. It is the Conservative manifesto which was largely a number-free zone (and since the Conservatives wanted to raise taxes, it is unsurprising the Chancellor was locked in a cupboard).
While none of us want to be Venezuela, the problem is that second picture is not particularly attractive either.
But the difference is that we can all have a good laugh at those who’ll wait in line for the latest iPhone or games console.
Those queueing for bread and milk aren’t having a party.
We can show pictures of the food banks in the UK which 1 in 10 families in are now reliant on.
How the likes of Osborne and Cameron used the banking crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally reform the state to suit their Thatcherite wet dream is criminal.They are the ones to blame for Brexit and Corbyn. And to see the likes of TSE constantly extol their virtues on the basis that they won a majority for the Tories quite frankly "Che fai mi cacci"....a wonderfully coarse Italian insult......
Do you have a source for the “1 in 10 families reliant on food banks” stat? I know TCO messed up the universal credit rollout but is it genuinely that bad?
The estimates from the food bank providers themselves is that there are 1.2 million households receiving food from foodbanks each year. There are almost 28 million households in the UK so no the number Tyson is using is not accurate.
In addition the foodbanks say that on average each of those 1.2 million households visits the foodbank twice a year.
This is not in any way to play down the problem of people being forced to use foodbanks. But Tyson doesn't help anyone by using massively inflated figures.
Those figures are still shocking though, 5% or 1 out of 20 households struggle for food.
Oh I agree. Like I said I am not playing down the problem but like you anyone with some common decency will think 1 in 20 is horrendous so why use a higher figure which is so easily disproved.
It was exactly the same argument I used against the £350 million a week. It was a completely indefensible number that was instantly disproved when the real number - £288 million a week - is just as shocking but was easily defendable as a realistic measure.
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?
Better than any ad the Conservatives came up with during GE2017. This is the sort of message that needs sending - not "Corbyn has some dodgy friends in Ireland, you know".
I agree that the cognitive dissonance of people who are angry at not being able to get on the property ladder voting for Corbyn is astounding. Just as the cognitive dissonance of some of my europhile friends being pro freedom of movement yet wondering why they are living in eight person house shares is just as baffling.
That advert if it is ever run will have no effect whatever. All it will do is reinforce the opinion that the Conservatives live in their own world. I draw your attention to just how ineffective project fear was during the referendum campaign.
This, taken literally, would not be effective as an ad. It's too in-your-face and, as you rightly point out, would reinforce existing opinions. However, the underlying message is the correct one.
At GE2017, Corbyn was able to promise free jam for all and that someone else would pay for it. With an invisible chancellor and a Conservative party in disarray over the Dementia tax, Labour's sums went largely unchecked.
As I've said before, the message the Conservatives need to get across is that the majority will be paying for the free jam, rather than the recipients of it. That point needs to be hammered home, particularly in the marginals and, ironically, among the JAMs themselves.
Notice how one of the things that really achieved cutthrough during the campaign was Diane Abbott's repeated gaffes over numbers. If 1979 gave us "Labour isn't working" 2017 should have been "Labour can't add up".
Labour's manifesto sums were checked by the IFS ...
Food bank outside the shop in my affluent Sussex village today. Not good.
The opposite, a food bank shows commitment to the local community, there will always be some who need it whether the economy is booming or in recession.
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 politics is particularly intense.
I was a councillor daytime stuff.
Certa.
I did try and combine both, for a .
I think more 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).
It is perfectly possible to keep an interest in your previous occupation, while speaking regularly in Parliament and representing your constituents (Labour MP Jared O'Mara meanwhile seems to do neither and still picks up his full salary).
Food bank outside the shop in my affluent Sussex village today. Not good.
You'd rather we went back to the days of the last Labour Govt., where rather than admit there was food poverty - which there clearly was - the food now dispensed by food banks was tipped in landfill?
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!
I think that London had positive internal migration in the 1980s and 1990s, maybe into the 2000s as well, but at that time housing was affordable in London.
As to the London jobs market - how many people need to live there ? Some in the higher levels of government or finance or law and perhaps one or two other professions. But for the average person with the average job, who wants the average life and to own the average house they would be better off almost anywhere else. There's enough variety of places in Britain for almost anyone to find somewhere suitable for their requirements.
And if you want to boost wealth creation outside London the way to do that is to boost manufacturing - something governments have neglected for twenty years.
Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.
Mr. Mark, food banks first appeared here during Blair's time. Not seen recent stats, but a couple of years ago, there'd been an annual increase, constantly. Through boom, recession, recovery. Rising food bank usage doesn't indicate economic health or anything else, except the progression of time. Until it levels off, we won't be able to assess policy impact on food banks.
The claiming for free things will increase as their availability increases.
Comments
While none of us want to be Venezuela, the problem is that second picture is not particularly attractive either.
Those queueing for bread and milk aren’t having a party.
NLW at £7.50 is now £300 a week, £15,650 a year. Anyone with a family is also getting tax credits on top.
I wouldn't have a problem with paying a slightly higher rate of tax under a social democratic government - I certainly wouldn't be looking at jobs abroad if an Ed Miliband government looked incoming.
But Corbyn and the people he has surrounded himself with are so far from that norm that I am genuinely fearful for the economy should he be elected. A brain drain and capital flight seem inevitable. I actually have friends who are in Momentum (I don't talk politics IRL in general) and what some of them are saying terrifies me.
I would far rather see a sensible, centrist government with liberal economic and social values take the helm and steer us through these troubling times. However we have the choice at the moment between an increasingly authoritarian and statist Conservative party (that doesn't have an adequate answer to the current economic malaise) and an utterly terrifying Labour government led by hard left socialists (that has an entirely wrong, even disastrous attitude to our problems).
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/937248672366120960
How the likes of Osborne and Cameron used the banking crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally reform the state to suit their Thatcherite wet dream is criminal.They are the ones to blame for Brexit and Corbyn. And to see the likes of TSE constantly extol their virtues on the basis that they won a majority for the Tories quite frankly "Che fai mi cacci"....a wonderfully coarse Italian insult......
I agree that the cognitive dissonance of people who are angry at not being able to get on the property ladder voting for Corbyn is astounding. Just as the cognitive dissonance of some of my europhile friends being pro freedom of movement yet wondering why they are living in eight person house shares is just as baffling.
Even the most catastrophic economic management takes time to crash an economy. Neither Zimbabwe nor Venezuela were destroyed in a day.
Post Brexit, I am planning to spend longer out of the country. I have had enough of annual real terms pay cuts, and have maxed my pension. I will keep a base here as I have family responsibilities, but fancy some extended periods in warmer climes, a mix probably of well paid locums and unpaid work in Africa suits me. After 30 years in the NHS, I think that I have done my bit here.
The problem that I think we have is that people expect this 'sensible, centrist government' to appear but I see no basis for it to happen. The lib dems are discredited by their association with the tories, and moderates within both main parties are quitting en masse. Ironically our system is likely to deliver more and more extreme and polarising governments.
I think that once they control the NEC, they will bring in rule changes that make deselection easier.
The other side of the coin is that once Momentum control the party they will push for election losing policies: scrapping Trident, open borders, prison abolition (check out recent stuff on Guido) to name but a few.
Are you still planning to perhaps re-locate to Norwich? I don't see DyedWoolie here anymore, but after watching The Divine Comedy last night at the union I am still as loved up as ever with the place.
Pensions is IMO the only genuine commitment the UK should be paying to the EU as we leave, much as I detest the likes of Kinnock(s), Mandleson and Cathy Ashton continuing to
earnbe paid obscene amounts of money for jobs they did decades ago. Preferable would be that the UK Eurocrats’ pensions are transferred to a UK-administered scheme, at least that way we’d get 40% of it back in tax.In addition the foodbanks say that on average each of those 1.2 million households visits the foodbank twice a year.
This is not in any way to play down the problem of people being forced to use foodbanks. But Tyson doesn't help anyone by using massively inflated figures.
I have to say though that politicians are naturally drawn to junkets of any kind. Snouts and troughs and all that.
I am planning to be on the road much of the year though.
At GE2017, Corbyn was able to promise free jam for all and that someone else would pay for it. With an invisible chancellor and a Conservative party in disarray over the Dementia tax, Labour's sums went largely unchecked.
As I've said before, the message the Conservatives need to get across is that the majority will be paying for the free jam, rather than the recipients of it. That point needs to be hammered home, particularly in the marginals and, ironically, among the JAMs themselves.
Notice how one of the things that really achieved cutthrough during the campaign was Diane Abbott's repeated gaffes over numbers. If 1979 gave us "Labour isn't working" 2017 should have been "Labour can't add up".
The expansion of food banks in this context is actually a good thing, David Cameron called it The Big Society and was widely ridiculed for it, but if it means that there’s fewer baseball bats being used then that’s a good thing.
It’s something I’m genuinely interested in, and disappointed by politicians’ use of “relative poverty” statistics that meant the number dropped massively in 2009 because there were fewer bankers around.
Iain Duncan Smith and Frank Field have spent decades working on this, and I hope that the UC rollout can go more smoothly than it has so far.
Neilh is bang on I think in explaining the reasons for corbynism. The Tories tinkering around the edges is woeful.
I've been left to my own devices for a few days so will probably go to the pub for a late lunch and catch the City match. This record is very apt for those middle aged fellas who are temporarily abandoned by their partners
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QDx0G1A9Z8
It was exactly the same argument I used against the £350 million a week. It was a completely indefensible number that was instantly disproved when the real number - £288 million a week - is just as shocking but was easily defendable as a realistic measure.
"Labour’s manifesto spending plans are impossible to cost"
As to the London jobs market - how many people need to live there ? Some in the higher levels of government or finance or law and perhaps one or two other professions. But for the average person with the average job, who wants the average life and to own the average house they would be better off almost anywhere else. There's enough variety of places in Britain for almost anyone to find somewhere suitable for their requirements.
And if you want to boost wealth creation outside London the way to do that is to boost manufacturing - something governments have neglected for twenty years.
NEW THREAD