Can't see Green being forced out but I spend a lot of time in Ashford and it's not fertile ground for Corbyn. London commuter down with strong anti immigration feeling, support for Brexit and neighbouring villages of mixed economic status. Think it would be a comfortable hold with a decent candidate. It's certainly nothing like neighbouring Canterbury.
Perhaps the curbs will be foussed on Buy-to-Let mortgages?
They are already being penalised by the tax code and in respect of interest relief. Its hard to work out what's drying up quicker, the supply of BTL mortgages or the demand. The deposits being required will put off all but the most well heeled of new investors.
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
Surely the true Corbynistas don't want to get on the housing ladder?
All of the Corbynistas I know do, although maybe you’re being saracastic (I’m not good at detecting sarcasm on the internet, my apologies).
I think it’s unlikely that Corbyn will go before 2022. But if it did happen, it’s very unlikely that anyone on the right of the Labour Party would take his place.
I dont want anyone on the right of the Labour party to take over. But there is a lot of territory in the middle between the extreme Corbynista hard left, and the Blairite right. A curse on both factions. I want a return to the Labour mainstream, neither Corbynista or mainstream, a leader like John Smith or Harold Wilson.
UK shadow chancellor John McDonnell is considering making mortgage lending more onerous for British banks in an effort to push them to lend more to smaller companies.
The proposals were set out in “Financing Investment”, a report commissioned by the Labour leadership and written by GFC Economics, an independent economic research firm.
The report, which was published on Monday, also suggests that the Bank of England should be moved to Birmingham.
According to GFC, British banks are “diverting resources” away from vital industries and instead focusing on unproductive lending, such as consumer credit borrowing.
The paper argues that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the BoE’s City regulator, should use existing powers to make banks hold relatively more capital against their mortgage lending. The report’s authors say this would be an “incentive to boost SME lending growth”.
It could be politically risky to implement a policy that could diminish the supply of mortgages,
The problem with a political betting site is that it leads to overspeculation based on how things look at a particular moment in time rather than cool analysis, and the greatest gains are to be made by predicting the most unlikely thing to happen.
Theresa May was never going to resign on the day after the general election. No prime minister in 400 years has ever resigned after being returned to power after a general election, and the Tories would rightly have been accused of undemocratically ditching the leader that had been chosen by the electorate as its preferred prime minister, and replacing her with one with no democratic mandate.
Damien Green might have to resign, but he is unlikely to stand down as an MP. Labour did not come a good second in 2017, it was 30 points behind the Tories in 2017. Canterbury was won because of the university students who lived there.
With regard to by elections in general, governments usually do lose them mid term. Neil Kinnock won sensational victories. in the 80s, early 90s, and was ahead in the polls for 8 out of 9 years -except at general election time. He was ahead by far more than Corbyn.
Green is unlikely to stand down as an MP, but the Tories need to lose 7 by elections to be in danger of brought down, and in 6 months there have been none. On that average it would take nearly 4 years for the Tories to be in danger.
The next election will almost certainly be in 2022. The Tories will have another leader, a better manifesto and line of attack against Labour, and those older people who did not turn out in 2017, will turn out in droves now they know that Corbyn is a threat.
A significant proportion of Tory MP’s in possibly winnable seats fpr either Labour or the LD’s were first elected in either 2010 or 2015. Assuming they were in their late 30’s/early 40’s then none of them will have yet reached 50, so, assuming no-one falls under a bus or is caught in flagrante, the possibilities of a by-election are down to someone making a different career choice. Hmmm.
The next election will almost certainly be in 2022. The Tories will have another leader, a better manifesto and line of attack against Labour, and those older people who did not turn out in 2017, will turn out in droves now they know that Corbyn is a threat.
Only part of your analysis I disagree with is that there's every chance Corbyn will be gone by 2022.
I hope Corbyn is gone. I would happily vote for someone like Emily Thornberry, or any non Corbynista leader. Corbyn is so vain however, laps up all the Stalinist adoration, I cant see him standing down.
I can imagine a field along the lines of:
Starmer Rayner Thornberry Short-Trousers
I think I've probably listed them in my order of preference.
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
Surely the true Corbynistas don't want to get on the housing ladder?
All of the Corbynistas I know do, although maybe you’re being saracastic (I’m not good at detecting sarcasm on the internet, my apologies).
We're all Thatcherites now - even the socialists.
I am being unfair. It's understandable that even the most left wing people would want to own their home given the cost of renting.
If this does not come about my faith in democracy will tumble. What's the point if child molesters get elected after it has been widely discussed ? And most of his ardent supporters are serious churchgoers.
Steady on Surbiton. There are worse things in life than kiddy-fiddlers. At least he's not a Democrat.
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
Surely the true Corbynistas don't want to get on the housing ladder?
All of the Corbynistas I know do, although maybe you’re being saracastic (I’m not good at detecting sarcasm on the internet, my apologies).
We're all Thatcherites now - even the socialists.
I am being unfair. It's understandable that even the most left wing people would want to own their home given the cost of renting.
Exactly - we selflessly own our own homes to prevent a fascist landlord from profiteering from us.
UK shadow chancellor John McDonnell is considering making mortgage lending more onerous for British banks in an effort to push them to lend more to smaller companies.
The proposals were set out in “Financing Investment”, a report commissioned by the Labour leadership and written by GFC Economics, an independent economic research firm.
The report, which was published on Monday, also suggests that the Bank of England should be moved to Birmingham.
According to GFC, British banks are “diverting resources” away from vital industries and instead focusing on unproductive lending, such as consumer credit borrowing.
The paper argues that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the BoE’s City regulator, should use existing powers to make banks hold relatively more capital against their mortgage lending. The report’s authors say this would be an “incentive to boost SME lending growth”.
It could be politically risky to implement a policy that could diminish the supply of mortgages,
So we're abandoning Basel III then?
That'll be fun...
We're abandoning many things Charles, I believe the slogan is 'Take Back Control'
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
Surely the true Corbynistas don't want to get on the housing ladder?
All of the Corbynistas I know do, although maybe you’re being saracastic (I’m not good at detecting sarcasm on the internet, my apologies).
We're all Thatcherites now - even the socialists.
I am being unfair. It's understandable that even the most left wing people would want to own their home given the cost of renting.
Exactly - we selflessly own our own homes to prevent a fascist landlord from profiteering from us.
Hopefully I'll be lodging come January. Right now I own my own home...
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
Surely the true Corbynistas don't want to get on the housing ladder?
All of the Corbynistas I know do, although maybe you’re being saracastic (I’m not good at detecting sarcasm on the internet, my apologies).
We're all Thatcherites now - even the socialists.
I am being unfair. It's understandable that even the most left wing people would want to own their home given the cost of renting.
I think there is more to being a Thatcherite than simply wanting to own your own home. You have to adopt a number of other beliefs in order to be a Thatcherite.
@JGForsyth: Anna Soubry praising Theresa May's plan and attacking Labour's position is bound to make Tory Brexiteers nervous
I'd have thought it makes those wanting to reverse Brexit more nervous. How can they manage that if May has Soubry and Grieves onside now?
I don't think there are many left now, Brom, who would like to reverse Brexit, even if it were possible. We'd suffer all the downside without the copious benefits.
UK shadow chancellor John McDonnell is considering making mortgage lending more onerous for British banks in an effort to push them to lend more to smaller companies.
The proposals were set out in “Financing Investment”, a report commissioned by the Labour leadership and written by GFC Economics, an independent economic research firm.
The report, which was published on Monday, also suggests that the Bank of England should be moved to Birmingham.
According to GFC, British banks are “diverting resources” away from vital industries and instead focusing on unproductive lending, such as consumer credit borrowing.
The paper argues that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the BoE’s City regulator, should use existing powers to make banks hold relatively more capital against their mortgage lending. The report’s authors say this would be an “incentive to boost SME lending growth”.
It could be politically risky to implement a policy that could diminish the supply of mortgages,
So we're abandoning Basel III then?
That'll be fun...
If they were promoting that with a view to increasing the amount of lending banks can do then I would be interested. The Basel process is one of the major reasons for the very slow recovery across the west from the great crash. It has persistently reduced investment and available credit. The idea of making it even worse is simply not rational.
I don't understand Ashford. It is surely an aspirational, affluent growing commuter town, with young demographics, and links to London and France. Yet there was no remain campaign there (as I understand it, stronger In had no branch there, and no notable labour leave campaign either). It voted 60% to leave. It can't be explained by the surrounding villages being stuffed with tories, a lot of these places are effectively commuter suburbs with people driving to Ashford to get HS1 to St Pancras every day.
The next election will almost certainly be in 2022. The Tories will have another leader, a better manifesto and line of attack against Labour, and those older people who did not turn out in 2017, will turn out in droves now they know that Corbyn is a threat.
Only part of your analysis I disagree with is that there's every chance Corbyn will be gone by 2022.
I hope Corbyn is gone. I would happily vote for someone like Emily Thornberry, or any non Corbynista leader. Corbyn is so vain however, laps up all the Stalinist adoration, I cant see him standing down.
I can imagine a field along the lines of:
Starmer Rayner Thornberry Short-Trousers
I think I've probably listed them in my order of preference.
I like Starmer the most out of those options, but I wouldn’t have any issues voting for Rayner or Thronberry.
UK shadow chancellor John McDonnell is considering making mortgage lending more onerous for British banks in an effort to push them to lend more to smaller companies.
The proposals were set out in “Financing Investment”, a report commissioned by the Labour leadership and written by GFC Economics, an independent economic research firm.
The report, which was published on Monday, also suggests that the Bank of England should be moved to Birmingham.
According to GFC, British banks are “diverting resources” away from vital industries and instead focusing on unproductive lending, such as consumer credit borrowing.
The paper argues that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the BoE’s City regulator, should use existing powers to make banks hold relatively more capital against their mortgage lending. The report’s authors say this would be an “incentive to boost SME lending growth”.
It could be politically risky to implement a policy that could diminish the supply of mortgages,
So we're abandoning Basel III then?
That'll be fun...
If they were promoting that with a view to increasing the amount of lending banks can do then I would be interested. The Basel process is one of the major reasons for the very slow recovery across the west from the great crash. It has persistently reduced investment and available credit. The idea of making it even worse is simply not rational.
To be fair, one of the key criticisms of financial institutions during the GFC was that their risk controls were too lax. So they tighten them only to find that the complaint is that they're not taking enough risk. I'm sure that there's a sweet spot in the middle. It's just that that's perfectly identifiable only in the rear view mirror.
I don't understand Ashford. It is surely an aspirational, affluent growing commuter town, with young demographics, and links to London and France. Yet there was no remain campaign there (as I understand it, stronger In had no branch there, and no notable labour leave campaign either). It voted 60% to leave. It can't be explained by the surrounding villages being stuffed with tories, a lot of these places are effectively commuter suburbs with people driving to Ashford to get HS1 to St Pancras every day.
Probably reflects the paranoia found throughout Kent - they think that just because they're near Dover they must be overrun with foreigners.
@JGForsyth: Anna Soubry praising Theresa May's plan and attacking Labour's position is bound to make Tory Brexiteers nervous
I'd have thought it makes those wanting to reverse Brexit more nervous. How can they manage that if May has Soubry and Grieves onside now?
I don't think there are many left now, Brom, who would like to reverse Brexit, even if it were possible. We'd suffer all the downside without the copious benefits.
The two best things about EU membership are the single currency and the Schengen area. And we missed out on both. I would rather be back in in a 'full fat' EU membership than keep the status quo. I realise that I may be in a minority in this viewpoint - especially among Leavers!
The next election will almost certainly be in 2022. The Tories will have another leader, a better manifesto and line of attack against Labour, and those older people who did not turn out in 2017, will turn out in droves now they know that Corbyn is a threat.
Only part of your analysis I disagree with is that there's every chance Corbyn will be gone by 2022.
I hope Corbyn is gone. I would happily vote for someone like Emily Thornberry, or any non Corbynista leader. Corbyn is so vain however, laps up all the Stalinist adoration, I cant see him standing down.
I can imagine a field along the lines of:
Starmer Rayner Thornberry Short-Trousers
I think I've probably listed them in my order of preference.
I like Starmer the most out of those options, but I wouldn’t have any issues voting for Rayner or Thronberry.
Tories on almost 60% in Ashford in June means likely Tory hold.
Don't forget the Italian general election in May next year where 5* are ahead and the Swedish election in September where the Swedish Democrats will be watched as well as the US midterms
UK shadow chancellor John McDonnell is considering making mortgage lending more onerous for British banks in an effort to push them to lend more to smaller companies.
The proposals were set out in “Financing Investment”, a report commissioned by the Labour leadership and written by GFC Economics, an independent economic research firm.
The report, which was published on Monday, also suggests that the Bank of England should be moved to Birmingham.
According to GFC, British banks are “diverting resources” away from vital industries and instead focusing on unproductive lending, such as consumer credit borrowing.
The paper argues that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the BoE’s City regulator, should use existing powers to make banks hold relatively more capital against their mortgage lending. The report’s authors say this would be an “incentive to boost SME lending growth”.
It could be politically risky to implement a policy that could diminish the supply of mortgages,
So we're abandoning Basel III then?
That'll be fun...
If they were promoting that with a view to increasing the amount of lending banks can do then I would be interested. The Basel process is one of the major reasons for the very slow recovery across the west from the great crash. It has persistently reduced investment and available credit. The idea of making it even worse is simply not rational.
To be fair, one of the key criticisms of financial institutions during the GFC was that their risk controls were too lax. So they tighten them only to find that the complaint is that they're not taking enough risk. I'm sure that there's a sweet spot in the middle. It's just that that's perfectly identifiable only in the rear view mirror.
Oh sure, and you can fully understand why politicians of all stripes were unimpressed with the gross abuse of the taxpayer's guarantee for too big to fail banks and thought the answer was better capital buffers. But building those buffers at a time of depressed money supply came very, very close to putting us and all of the EU into deflation and a classic liquidity trap. Understandable though it may have been, it was a mistake and it has probably cost us the best part of a decade of growth.
The next election will almost certainly be in 2022. The Tories will have another leader, a better manifesto and line of attack against Labour, and those older people who did not turn out in 2017, will turn out in droves now they know that Corbyn is a threat.
Only part of your analysis I disagree with is that there's every chance Corbyn will be gone by 2022.
I hope Corbyn is gone. I would happily vote for someone like Emily Thornberry, or any non Corbynista leader. Corbyn is so vain however, laps up all the Stalinist adoration, I cant see him standing down.
I can imagine a field along the lines of:
Starmer Rayner Thornberry Short-Trousers
I think I've probably listed them in my order of preference.
Not sure both Rayner and RLB can get the backing of MPs - especially if Thornberry is in there also.
I would also have thought there would be at least one openly anti-Corbyn candidate out there.
1: He's old. There's every chance he could retire through ill health or similar - if we make it to 2022 then he'd be 73 by the election and standing to be PM until the following election presumably if he wins by which time he'd be 78. He might want either not be able to make it to the next election in full health or decide to pass the baton on to one of his acolytes before the next election.
2: The Tories recover in the polls between now and the next election, potentially following a successful Brexit. Labour divisions that existed before the election re-emerge, wondering why Labour is behind in the polls midterm and a putsch is successful.
Mr. Thompson, whilst Corbyn is old he isn't absolutely ancient. On the second point, the PLP would likely find it harder to both mount a challenge and win one than before.
1: He's old. There's every chance he could retire through ill health or similar - if we make it to 2022 then he'd be 73 by the election and standing to be PM until the following election presumably if he wins by which time he'd be 78. He might want either not be able to make it to the next election in full health or decide to pass the baton on to one of his acolytes before the next election.
2: The Tories recover in the polls between now and the next election, potentially following a successful Brexit. Labour divisions that existed before the election re-emerge, wondering why Labour is behind in the polls midterm and a putsch is successful.
Plus Len is possibly on his way out of the door at UNITE union - this might make a putsch more likely. I still see it is as highly unlikely.
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
One of the ways of bringing down house prices, without putting interest rates up is to restrict the supply of mortgages. There has been some move in this direction with BTL already..
I don't understand Ashford. It is surely an aspirational, affluent growing commuter town, with young demographics, and links to London and France. Yet there was no remain campaign there (as I understand it, stronger In had no branch there, and no notable labour leave campaign either). It voted 60% to leave. It can't be explained by the surrounding villages being stuffed with tories, a lot of these places are effectively commuter suburbs with people driving to Ashford to get HS1 to St Pancras every day.
Probably reflects the paranoia found throughout Kent - they think that just because they're near Dover they must be overrun with foreigners.
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
One of the ways of bringing down house prices, without putting interest rates up is to restrict the supply of mortgages. There has been some move in this direction with BTL already..
Falling house prices = higher deposits as buffers against the secured debt making the task of FTBs even harder. Even by Labour standards every aspect of this policy is truly imbecilic.
I don't understand Ashford. It is surely an aspirational, affluent growing commuter town, with young demographics, and links to London and France. Yet there was no remain campaign there (as I understand it, stronger In had no branch there, and no notable labour leave campaign either). It voted 60% to leave. It can't be explained by the surrounding villages being stuffed with tories, a lot of these places are effectively commuter suburbs with people driving to Ashford to get HS1 to St Pancras every day.
Probably reflects the paranoia found throughout Kent - they think that just because they're near Dover they must be overrun with foreigners.
There is a large issue with immigration, if you live round there you see a lot of immigrants by the roadside who have just arrived, also problems with lorry traffic in and out of the continent which is a problem right up the M20. A lot of people in Ashford have moved out of Greater London in the last 30 years to start families/take advantage of cheaper house prices so in that respect it has a similar outlook to parts of Essex. There are some decent grammar schools too so it's not the place you can imagine Labour getting a foothold under Jezza.
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
One of the ways of bringing down house prices, without putting interest rates up is to restrict the supply of mortgages. There has been some move in this direction with BTL already..
Falling house prices = higher deposits as buffers against the secured debt making the task of FTBs even harder. Even by Labour standards every aspect of this policy is truly imbecilic.
This is important. For all the whinging about the lack of affordability, under no circumstances can house prices falling be considered a good thing.
@SkyNewsBreak: Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson says his meetings in Tehran were "worthwhile" but he does not want to "give false hope" to dual nationals detained in Iran
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
One of the ways of bringing down house prices, without putting interest rates up is to restrict the supply of mortgages. There has been some move in this direction with BTL already..
Falling house prices = higher deposits as buffers against the secured debt making the task of FTBs even harder. Even by Labour standards every aspect of this policy is truly imbecilic.
The decline of house prices into negative equity is hardest on those who have already bought. I remember those days in the early nineties. It was part of the feel bad factor that impacted the Tories under Major, when they started going up again he recovered slightly in the polls.
Bringing down house prices is always going to be painful for some. It just depends on how it is done as to where the misery falls. One persons exorbitant asking price is another ones savings.
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
One of the ways of bringing down house prices, without putting interest rates up is to restrict the supply of mortgages. There has been some move in this direction with BTL already..
Falling house prices = higher deposits as buffers against the secured debt making the task of FTBs even harder. Even by Labour standards every aspect of this policy is truly imbecilic.
This is important. For all the whinging about the lack of affordability, under no circumstances can house prices falling be considered a good thing.
Absolutely. Not only does it make life harder for FTBs, those houses tend to be the collateral for most of the small companies that McDonnell wants to encourage.
We need to keep any steam out of the property market by gradually and slowly increasing interest rates but we absolutely do not want to crash it. JM Keynes was pretty much put in charge of UK economic policy after the great recession and he created quite rapid growth with housebuilding, easy credit and a secure property market (along with some rearming latterly). We should learn from the great man.
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
One of the ways of bringing down house prices, without putting interest rates up is to restrict the supply of mortgages. There has been some move in this direction with BTL already..
Falling house prices = higher deposits as buffers against the secured debt making the task of FTBs even harder. Even by Labour standards every aspect of this policy is truly imbecilic.
This is important. For all the whinging about the lack of affordability, under no circumstances can house prices falling be considered a good thing.
I disagree. The sooner the supply of affordable housing meets demand the better
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
One of the ways of bringing down house prices, without putting interest rates up is to restrict the supply of mortgages. There has been some move in this direction with BTL already..
Falling house prices = higher deposits as buffers against the secured debt making the task of FTBs even harder. Even by Labour standards every aspect of this policy is truly imbecilic.
The decline of house prices into negative equity is hardest on those who have already bought. I remember those days in the early nineties. It was part of the feel bad factor that impacted the Tories under Major, when they started going up again he recovered slightly in the polls.
Bringing down house prices is always going to be painful for some. It just depends on how it is done as to where the misery falls. One persons exorbitant asking price is another ones savings.
My brother's house was repossessed in the early 90s after he lost his job. He is now in his 50s and never really recovered financially. But the negative sides of falling prices greatly outweigh the positive. There is little incentive to build, to invest in repairs or improvements, to spend. Everything slows down. We want more affordable housing (I agree with BJO about that) but the best way to get that is to encourage construction with a solid market that is reliable for everyone involved.
The union Unite has been accused of “rigging” the selection for a key Labour target seat in favour of its Momentum-backed candidate, who has close ties to Jeremy Corbyn.
Local members of the Watford Constituency Labour Party (CLP) have reacted angrily after the central party overturned its selection committee’s decision not to add taxi driver and Unite member, Mike Hedges, to its parliamentary shortlist.
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
One of the ways of bringing down house prices, without putting interest rates up is to restrict the supply of mortgages. There has been some move in this direction with BTL already..
Falling house prices = higher deposits as buffers against the secured debt making the task of FTBs even harder. Even by Labour standards every aspect of this policy is truly imbecilic.
The decline of house prices into negative equity is hardest on those who have already bought. I remember those days in the early nineties. It was part of the feel bad factor that impacted the Tories under Major, when they started going up again he recovered slightly in the polls.
Bringing down house prices is always going to be painful for some. It just depends on how it is done as to where the misery falls. One persons exorbitant asking price is another ones savings.
My brother's house was repossessed in the early 90s after he lost his job. He is now in his 50s and never really recovered financially. But the negative sides of falling prices greatly outweigh the positive. There is little incentive to build, to invest in repairs or improvements, to spend. Everything slows down. We want more affordable housing (I agree with BJO about that) but the best way to get that is to encourage construction with a solid market that is reliable for everyone involved.
To see the consequences of falling prices in action, I recommend a visit to Ireland. The consequences are not as benign as some might suggest.
Reducing the number of interest only BTL mortgages isn't going to negatively effect FTBs.
I think everyone agrees on that which is why Osborne took the tax steps he did to disincentivise BTLs. I think its worked but it needs to be kept under review.
If Labour want to make it harder to get a mortgage at a time when people are struggling to get on the housing ladder then they can wave goodbye to any prospect of getting power. .
One of the ways of bringing down house prices, without putting interest rates up is to restrict the supply of mortgages. There has been some move in this direction with BTL already..
Falling house prices = higher deposits as buffers against the secured debt making the task of FTBs even harder. Even by Labour standards every aspect of this policy is truly imbecilic.
The decline of house prices into negative equity is hardest on those who have already bought. I remember those days in the early nineties. It was part of the feel bad factor that impacted the Tories under Major, when they started going up again he recovered slightly in the polls.
Bringing down house prices is always going to be painful for some. It just depends on how it is done as to where the misery falls. One persons exorbitant asking price is another ones savings.
My brother's house was repossessed in the early 90s after he lost his job. He is now in his 50s and never really recovered financially. But the negative sides of falling prices greatly outweigh the positive. There is little incentive to build, to invest in repairs or improvements, to spend. Everything slows down. We want more affordable housing (I agree with BJO about that) but the best way to get that is to encourage construction with a solid market that is reliable for everyone involved.
To see the consequences of falling prices in action, I recommend a visit to Ireland. The consequences are not as benign as some might suggest.
Or Spain or Portugal. It took them all years to recover and it only happened when prices bottomed out.
Ashford looks very Leavey. Should be safe enough for the blue team, regardless of the circumstances of any hypothetical by-election.
In a general election, yes. Not sure about by-elections , particularly, if it takes place under the circumstances we are talking about.
By-elections can create its own dynamics.
Certainly if there is a by-election and the Conservative majority is not at the very least brutally cut, it will not suggest that Labour is on its way back to power or the Liberal Democrats on the way back to relevance.
It looks like that's an internal poll done for the Junts pel Catalunya, which is Puigdemont's party. The really interesting thing, though, is that it has Ciutadans winning the most votes and seats, which would be an absolute sensation. Like all the other polls it also has the separatist bloc together on less than 50% of the vote.
Ashford looks very Leavey. Should be safe enough for the blue team, regardless of the circumstances of any hypothetical by-election.
In a general election, yes. Not sure about by-elections , particularly, if it takes place under the circumstances we are talking about.
By-elections can create its own dynamics.
Certainly if there is a by-election and the Conservative majority is not at the very least brutally cut, it will not suggest that Labour is on its way back to power or the Liberal Democrats on the way back to relevance.
The rata in laws live in the Ashford hinterlands and I'd say that is fair. Though if phase 2 is going roughly, any opposition campaigner there should certainly be pressing the button labelled Operation Stack.
Many small companies once had a flat above the business to live in.
Indeed yes. Famously so in one case.
I'm just surprised Macdonnell wants us all to be like Thatcher.
As usual, you are deliberately spinning falsehoods. All he is saying that the current relatively more restrictions that banks have to lend money to SME's compared to mortgage lending should be reduced.
Currently, banks have an incentive to lend to buy houses.
@SkyNewsBreak: Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson says his meetings in Tehran were "worthwhile" but he does not want to "give false hope" to dual nationals detained in Iran
The EU could scrap a divisive scheme that compels member states to accept quotas of refugees, one of the bloc’s most senior leaders will say this week.
The president of the European council, Donald Tusk, will tell EU leaders at a summit on Thursday that mandatory quotas have been divisive and ineffective, in a clear sign that he is ready to abandon the policy that has created bitter splits across the continent.
Mr. Thompson, whilst Corbyn is old he isn't absolutely ancient. On the second point, the PLP would likely find it harder to both mount a challenge and win one than before.
Indeed but 4 and a half years are a long time for events to intervene.
Just hoping Corbyn will get too old and go away won't defeat Corbynism. In fact his replacement might not be so thick and so stubborn. McDonnell is far more dangerous for exactly those reasons.
The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster. They don't seem to grasp that normal people don't really follow things more than the odd soundbite.
Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.
Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.
@JGForsyth: Anna Soubry praising Theresa May's plan and attacking Labour's position is bound to make Tory Brexiteers nervous
I'd have thought it makes those wanting to reverse Brexit more nervous. How can they manage that if May has Soubry and Grieves onside now?
I don't think there are many left now, Brom, who would like to reverse Brexit, even if it were possible. We'd suffer all the downside without the copious benefits.
The two best things about EU membership are the single currency and the Schengen area. And we missed out on both. I would rather be back in in a 'full fat' EU membership than keep the status quo. I realise that I may be in a minority in this viewpoint - especially among Leavers!
Good evening all.
Au contraire. I have always maintained that we should either be out, or all the way in. Our semi-detached, exceptional status was sub-optimal on a number of levels.
The EU could scrap a divisive scheme that compels member states to accept quotas of refugees, one of the bloc’s most senior leaders will say this week.
The president of the European council, Donald Tusk, will tell EU leaders at a summit on Thursday that mandatory quotas have been divisive and ineffective, in a clear sign that he is ready to abandon the policy that has created bitter splits across the continent.
"Hungary and Poland have defied the rest of the EU by not taking a single refugee under the scheme, which aimed to relocate about 120,000 refugees, mainly Syrians...
...Despite the backlash against the emergency scheme, the European commission proposed making quotas a permanent feature of EU law in 2016. Under its proposal, countries that refuse to take part in a “corrective allocation mechanism” to take the pressure off member states bearing the brunt would have to pay a “solidarity contribution” of €250,000 (£220,000) per asylum seeker."
120,000 x 220,000 = 26,400,000,000
Nice to be able to put a £ figure on the Merkel madness. Now if only someone could print it on the side of a bus...
@SkyNewsBreak: Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson says his meetings in Tehran were "worthwhile" but he does not want to "give false hope" to dual nationals detained in Iran
Many small companies once had a flat above the business to live in.
Indeed yes. Famously so in one case.
I'm just surprised Macdonnell wants us all to be like Thatcher.
As usual, you are deliberately spinning falsehoods. All he is saying that the current relatively more restrictions that banks have to lend money to SME's compared to mortgage lending should be reduced.
Currently, banks have an incentive to lend to buy houses.
@JGForsyth: Anna Soubry praising Theresa May's plan and attacking Labour's position is bound to make Tory Brexiteers nervous
I'd have thought it makes those wanting to reverse Brexit more nervous. How can they manage that if May has Soubry and Grieves onside now?
I don't think there are many left now, Brom, who would like to reverse Brexit, even if it were possible. We'd suffer all the downside without the copious benefits.
The two best things about EU membership are the single currency and the Schengen area. And we missed out on both. I would rather be back in in a 'full fat' EU membership than keep the status quo. I realise that I may be in a minority in this viewpoint - especially among Leavers!
Good evening all.
Au contraire. I have always maintained that we should either be out, or all the way in. Our semi-detached, exceptional status was sub-optimal on a number of levels.
I think we will move to a much less optimal again semi-attached, exceptional status with the EU.
Just hoping Corbyn will get too old and go away won't defeat Corbynism. In fact his replacement might not be so thick and so stubborn. McDonnell is far more dangerous for exactly those reasons.
The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster.
Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.
Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.
Why would anyone under 40 who does not remember the strikes and high inflation and inefficient industries and relatively low GDP per capita of the UK in the 70s be concerned about Corbynism? After all he is offering them free tuition fees, no student debt, a big pay rise if they work in the public sector, cheaper rail tickets and electricity and housing all paid for by borrowing and the rich
Just hoping Corbyn will get too old and go away won't defeat Corbynism. In fact his replacement might not be so thick and so stubborn. McDonnell is far more dangerous for exactly those reasons.
The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster.
Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.
Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.
Why would anyone under 40 who does not remember the strikes and high inflation and inefficient industries and relatively low GDP per capita of the UK in the 70s be concerned about Corbynism? After all he is offering them free tuition fees, a big pay rise if they work in the public sector, cheaper rail tickets and electricity and housing all paid for by the rich
Perhaps they could try informing the public? Also Miliband was promising quite a few of those things (albeit more moderately as with Eddie Spheroids they tried to find measure that were workable in reality), and Team Posho went to town on the flaws.
@JGForsyth: Anna Soubry praising Theresa May's plan and attacking Labour's position is bound to make Tory Brexiteers nervous
I'd have thought it makes those wanting to reverse Brexit more nervous. How can they manage that if May has Soubry and Grieves onside now?
I don't think there are many left now, Brom, who would like to reverse Brexit, even if it were possible. We'd suffer all the downside without the copious benefits.
The two best things about EU membership are the single currency and the Schengen area. And we missed out on both. I would rather be back in in a 'full fat' EU membership than keep the status quo. I realise that I may be in a minority in this viewpoint - especially among Leavers!
Good evening all.
Au contraire. I have always maintained that we should either be out, or all the way in. Our semi-detached, exceptional status was sub-optimal on a number of levels.
I think we will move to a much less optimal again semi-attached, exceptional status with the EU.
The question is in what shape and over what timescale people reject that status.
It's possible that May's deal simply means we're looking at an orderly break up of the UK over a 10 year period.
Just hoping Corbyn will get too old and go away won't defeat Corbynism. In fact his replacement might not be so thick and so stubborn. McDonnell is far more dangerous for exactly those reasons.
The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster.
Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.
Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.
Why would anyone under 40 who does not remember the strikes and high inflation and inefficient industries and relatively low GDP per capita of the UK in the 70s be concerned about Corbynism? After all he is offering them free tuition fees, a big pay rise if they work in the public sector, cheaper rail tickets and electricity and housing all paid for by the rich
Perhaps they could try informing the public? Also Miliband was promising quite a few of those things (albeit more moderately as with Eddie Spheroids they tried to find measure that were vaguely possible in reality), and Team Posho went to town on the flaws.
A line of attack that lost a certain amount of credibility and potency after both Cameron and May adopted many of Miliband's plans.
Just hoping Corbyn will get too old and go away won't defeat Corbynism. In fact his replacement might not be so thick and so stubborn. McDonnell is far more dangerous for exactly those reasons.
The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster.
Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.
Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.
Why would anyone under 40 who does not remember the strikes and high inflation and inefficient industries and relatively low GDP per capita of the UK in the 70s be concerned about Corbynism? After all he is offering them free tuition fees, a big pay rise if they work in the public sector, cheaper rail tickets and electricity and housing all paid for by the rich
Perhaps they could try informing the public? Also Miliband was promising quite a few of those things (albeit more moderately as with Eddie Spheroids they tried to find measure that were vaguely possible in reality), and Team Posho went to town on the flaws.
A line of attack that lost a certain amount of credibility and potency after both Cameron and May adopted many of Miliband's plans.
The thing was, Cameron / Osborne machine had killed lots of Miliband ideas way before the election. May as you say has copied some and they just ceded the ground of things like free uni, re-nationalization, etc.
If Bad Al was working for the Tories (not that he would), he would have whipped up all sorts of "independent" reports and placed stories etc to highlight disasters of said policies. Would be drip drip drip drip.
The Tories just hoping Corbynism will go away, it won't. They need to fight the flawed ideas.
Reducing the number of interest only BTL mortgages isn't going to negatively effect FTBs.
I think everyone agrees on that which is why Osborne took the tax steps he did to disincentivise BTLs. I think its worked but it needs to be kept under review.
It's still in progress and not yet completed, so way too premature to say whether it has worked, or otherwise.
Incidentally, @FF43 's post from April this year after the EU's negotiating guidelines were published looks more and more prescient with each passing day.
I wonder if Eurosceptics who were incredulous at the time would care to reread it now:
As far as I can see, the EU negotiators have played this superbly from their point of view. Unless the EU mucks up (which is possible) it will be in complete control of the process for the next decade or more:
1. Get the exit stuff agreed first, including the money, which is their immediate requirement.
2. Concede the UK's requirement of discussing the long term arrangement before the actual leave date. However this is contingent on the exit stuff making "sufficient progress" first. The EU has complete discretion over when "sufficient progress" has been made.
3. Discuss broad directions for the the long term arrangement, code name Canada Plus, but the actual negotiations take place after the exit.
4. Having spent time on the exit stuff and the directions discussions, they are coming up against the Brexit deadline and haven't discussed the transition arrangement yet. Yeah, well that's going be current system continuing - payments, ECJ, FoM etc. It's only interim and Britain wouldn't want to throw away the long term outcome it wants AND at the same time go over the cliff edge.
5. Britain has now formally exited. The EU can be very leisurely about Canada Plus. After all the original "Canada deal" has taken 14 years so far and still isn't fully ratified. The EU gets the continuity it wants through the "transition arrangements", while the uncertainty is all on the UK side. Do businesses plan for Canada Plus, continuing transition or cliff edge? They will decide it's easier to be based in the rEU. The UK will also find it difficult to get trade deals through because the counter-parties don't know what the UK-EU arrangement is.
Eventually, the EU will have to agree Canada Plus and the UK will get what it originally wanted. By then it will be a very ground-down country with the oxygen sucked out of Euroscepticism. And the EU will have made its point. The UK will never be less in control than during that long transition.
@JGForsyth: Anna Soubry praising Theresa May's plan and attacking Labour's position is bound to make Tory Brexiteers nervous
I'd have thought it makes those wanting to reverse Brexit more nervous. How can they manage that if May has Soubry and Grieves onside now?
I don't think there are many left now, Brom, who would like to reverse Brexit, even if it were possible. We'd suffer all the downside without the copious benefits.
The two best things about EU membership are the single currency and the Schengen area. And we missed out on both. I would rather be back in in a 'full fat' EU membership than keep the status quo. I realise that I may be in a minority in this viewpoint - especially among Leavers!
Good evening all.
Au contraire. I have always maintained that we should either be out, or all the way in. Our semi-detached, exceptional status was sub-optimal on a number of levels.
I think we will move to a much less optimal again semi-attached, exceptional status with the EU.
The question is in what shape and over what timescale people reject that status.
It's possible that May's deal simply means we're looking at an orderly break up of the UK over a 10 year period.
Expectations of Brexit are so low that anything short of total breakdown of civil order will be seen as brilliant success. I am talking about Leavers, who are the key people here as they would need to change their minds for Brexit to be rejected. Remainers by and large have decided Brexit is on a disaster to crap spectrum.
Like all the other pollsters, the last two are showing a fall in PP support. It's interesting how the Catalonia crisis has not benefited Rajoy in the way that you might have expected. It's PSOE and Cs that are picking up support on the back of it - in Spain generally and Catalonia, too.
Just hoping Corbyn will get too old and go away won't defeat Corbynism. In fact his replacement might not be so thick and so stubborn. McDonnell is far more dangerous for exactly those reasons.
The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster.
Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.
Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.
Why would anyone under 40 who does not remember the strikes and high inflation and inefficient industries and relatively low GDP per capita of the UK in the 70s be concerned about Corbynism? After all he is offering them free tuition fees, a big pay rise if they work in the public sector, cheaper rail tickets and electricity and housing all paid for by the rich
Perhaps they could try informing the public? Also Miliband was promising quite a few of those things (albeit more moderately as with Eddie Spheroids they tried to find measure that were workable in reality), and Team Posho went to town on the flaws.
Miliband was not offering free tuition fees and cancelled student debt to attract young people like Corbyn is. Miliband was not offering an end to austerity in the sense Corbyn is to attract public sector workers. Miliband was not offering to back Brexit as Corbyn is and attracting former UKIP voters. Cameron and Osborne promised to slash inheritance tax and keep the triple lock and an asset care costs cap to attract their target vote, May offered a dementia tax and an end to the triple lock turning off the core vote.
In the 1970s, Labour had a decent leader -Harold Wilson -who had a first degree in economics. He was not on the hard left -he had contempt for Bennism -the word then for Corbynism -nor was he an early Blairite. He was mainstream. As was James Callaghan his successor. As was John Smith in the 1990s. It is to this mainstream-neither of the hard left Corbynistas, or the Blairites on the right of the party, the party of Wilson, Callaghan and Smith that Labour needs to return to. Longstanding Labour voters like me yearns for an end to the factions that Labour has been captured by since 1994.
Corbyn did not dare to present a Corbynista manifesto to voters in June 2017. Instead he stole Blair's 1997 slogan "For the Many, not the Few", made the Blairite promise that income tax and NI for 90% would not rise, and pretended that he could fund vast spending promises on a tax revenue that would be no greater than which was available to Blair and Brown.Even Corporation Tax would not rise higher than it was under Gordon Brown. Not only did he run away from his own fabled principles by not presenting a Corbynista manifesto, but he conned millions into believing in a Mr Micawber in reverse economics which suggested that you can spend ten shillings and sixpence when you only get 4 shillings and tuppence in revenue.
Now Labour is stuck with Corbyn until 2022 for his vanity loves the Stalinist adoration, the songs and poems to his name. But he is unlikely to win the 2022 election, and it would be even worse if he did because his failure would be so spectacular, he would disappoint so many expectations, his bubble would burst with such a spectacular "pop", that Labour would be out at the following election with a landslide, and out of power for a generation.
Reducing the number of interest only BTL mortgages isn't going to negatively effect FTBs.
I think everyone agrees on that which is why Osborne took the tax steps he did to disincentivise BTLs. I think its worked but it needs to be kept under review.
It's still in progress and not yet completed, so way too premature to say whether it has worked, or otherwise.
That's why it needs to be kept under review but anecdotally BTLs are coming out of the market rather than topping up with many finding that the margins are no longer there and wanting to realise profits. Certainly in Scotland the significant additional costs from new housing laws, registered agents with extensive responsibilities, maintenance obligations and the like are making many wonder if it is worth the candle.
Incidentally, @FF43 's post from April this year after the EU's negotiating guidelines were published looks more and more prescient with each passing day.
I wonder if Eurosceptics who were incredulous at the time would care to reread it now:
As far as I can see, the EU negotiators have played this superbly from their point of view. Unless the EU mucks up (which is possible) it will be in complete control of the process for the next decade or more:
1. Get the exit stuff agreed first, including the money, which is their immediate requirement.
2. Concede the UK's requirement of discussing the long term arrangement before the actual leave date. However this is contingent on the exit stuff making "sufficient progress" first. The EU has complete discretion over when "sufficient progress" has been made.
3. Discuss broad directions for the the long term arrangement, code name Canada Plus, but the actual negotiations take place after the exit.
4. Having spent time on the exit stuff and the directions discussions, they are coming up against the Brexit deadline and haven't discussed the transition arrangement yet. Yeah, well that's going be current system continuing - payments, ECJ, FoM etc. It's only interim and Britain wouldn't want to throw away the long term outcome it wants AND at the same time go over the cliff edge.
5. Britain has now formally exited. The EU can be very leisurely about Canada Plus. After all the original "Canada deal" has taken 14 years so far and still isn't fully ratified. The EU gets the continuity it wants through the "transition arrangements", while the uncertainty is all on the UK side. Do businesses plan for Canada Plus, continuing transition or cliff edge? They will decide it's easier to be based in the rEU. The UK will also find it difficult to get trade deals through because the counter-parties don't know what the UK-EU arrangement is.
Eventually, the EU will have to agree Canada Plus and the UK will get what it originally wanted. By then it will be a very ground-down country with the oxygen sucked out of Euroscepticism. And the EU will have made its point. The UK will never be less in control than during that long transition.
Just hoping Corbyn will get too old and go away won't defeat Corbynism. In fact his replacement might not be so thick and so stubborn. McDonnell is far more dangerous for exactly those reasons.
The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster.
Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.
Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.
Why would anyone under 40 who does not remember the strikes and high inflation and inefficient industries and relatively low GDP per capita of the UK in the 70s be concerned about Corbynism? After all he is offering them free tuition fees, a big pay rise if they work in the public sector, cheaper rail tickets and electricity and housing all paid for by the rich
Perhaps they could try informing the public? Also Miliband was promising quite a few of those things (albeit more moderately as with Eddie Spheroids they tried to find measure that were workable in reality), and Team Posho went to town on the flaws.
Miliband was not offering free tuition fees and cancelled student debt to attract young people like Corbyn is. Miliband was not offering an end to austerity in the sense Corbyn is to attract public sector workers. Miliband was not offering to back Brexit as Corbyn is and attracting former UKIP voters. Cameron and Osborne promised to slash inheritance tax and keep the triple lock and an asset care costs cap to attract their target vote, May offered a dementia tax and an end to the triple lock turning off the core vote.
EdM's policies were luke-warm Socialism - for example look at the railway policy; allow public sector bidders to bid against the private sector - what was that meant to achieve? Allows the Tories to portray it in a way that gets small c conservatives agitated, but doesn't inspire lefties.
In the 1970s, Labour had a decent leader -Harold Wilson -who had a first degree in economics. He was not on the hard left -he had contempt for Bennism -the word then for Corbynism -nor was he an early Blairite. He was mainstream. As was James Callaghan his successor. As was John Smith in the 1990s. It is to this mainstream-neither of the hard left Corbynistas, or the Blairites on the right of the party, the party of Wilson, Callaghan and Smith that Labour needs to return to. Longstanding Labour voters like me yearns for an end to the factions that Labour has been captured by since 1994.
Corbyn did not dare to present a Corbynista manifesto to voters in June 2017. Instead he stole Blair's 1997 slogan "For the Many, not the Few", made the Blairite promise that income tax and NI for 90% would not rise, and pretended that he could fund vast spending promises on a tax revenue that would be no greater than which was available to Blair and Brown.Even Corporation Tax would not rise higher than it was under Gordon Brown. Not only did he run away from his own fabled principles by not presenting a Corbynista manifesto, but he conned millions into believing in a Mr Micawber in reverse economics which suggested that you can spend ten shillings and sixpence when you only get 4 shillings and tuppence in revenue.
Now Labour is stuck with Corbyn until 2022 for his vanity loves the Stalinist adoration, the songs and poems to his name. But he is unlikely to win the 2022 election, and it would be even worse if he did because his failure would be so spectacular, he would disappoint so many expectations, his bubble would burst with such a spectacular "pop", that Labour would be out at the following election with a landslide, and out of power for a generation.
And Blue Labour will return in glory, flags, and pigs flying......
In the 1970s, Labour had a decent leader -Harold Wilson -who had a first degree in economics. He was not on the hard left -he had contempt for Bennism -the word then for Corbynism -nor was he an early Blairite. He was mainstream. As was James Callaghan his successor. As was John Smith in the 1990s. It is to this mainstream-neither of the hard left Corbynistas, or the Blairites on the right of the party, the party of Wilson, Callaghan and Smith that Labour needs to return to. Longstanding Labour voters like me yearns for an end to the factions that Labour has been captured by since 1994.
Corbyn did not dare to present a Corbynista manifesto to voters in June 2017. Instead he stole Blair's 1997 slogan "For the Many, not the Few", made the Blairite promise that income tax and NI for 90% would not rise, and pretended that he could fund vast spending promises on a tax revenue that would be no greater than which was available to Blair and Brown.Even Corporation Tax would not rise higher than it was under Gordon Brown. Not only did he run away from his own fabled principles by not presenting a Corbynista manifesto, but he conned millions into believing in a Mr Micawber in reverse economics which suggested that you can spend ten shillings and sixpence when you only get 4 shillings and tuppence in revenue.
Now Labour is stuck with Corbyn until 2022 for his vanity loves the Stalinist adoration, the songs and poems to his name. But he is unlikely to win the 2022 election, and it would be even worse if he did because his failure would be so spectacular, he would disappoint so many expectations, his bubble would burst with such a spectacular "pop", that Labour would be out at the following election with a landslide, and out of power for a generation.
And Blue Labour will return in glory, flags, and pigs flying......
Harold Wilson and John Smith were not blue Labour. If you had read my post accurately, you would have understood that I want a return to a Labour party of the mainstream, neither Blairite nor Corbynista -for Labour will die under Corbyn sooner or later.
In the 1970s, Labour had a decent leader -Harold Wilson -who had a first degree in economics. He was not on the hard left -he had contempt for Bennism -the word then for Corbynism -nor was he an early Blairite. He was mainstream. As was James Callaghan his successor. As was John Smith in the 1990s. It is to this mainstream-neither of the hard left Corbynistas, or the Blairites on the right of the party, the party of Wilson, Callaghan and Smith that Labour needs to return to. Longstanding Labour voters like me yearns for an end to the factions that Labour has been captured by since 1994.
Corbyn did not dare to present a Corbynista manifesto to voters in June 2017. Instead he stole Blair's 1997 slogan "For the Many, not the Few", made the Blairite promise that income tax and NI for 90% would not rise, and pretended that he could fund vast spending promises on a tax revenue that would be no greater than which was available to Blair and Brown.Even Corporation Tax would not rise higher than it was under Gordon Brown. Not only did he run away from his own fabled principles by not presenting a Corbynista manifesto, but he conned millions into believing in a Mr Micawber in reverse economics which suggested that you can spend ten shillings and sixpence when you only get 4 shillings and tuppence in revenue.
Now Labour is stuck with Corbyn until 2022 for his vanity loves the Stalinist adoration, the songs and poems to his name. But he is unlikely to win the 2022 election, and it would be even worse if he did because his failure would be so spectacular, he would disappoint so many expectations, his bubble would burst with such a spectacular "pop", that Labour would be out at the following election with a landslide, and out of power for a generation.
Not just a decent leader. Denis Healy, Roy Mason, Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, Barbara Castle, Tony Crosland, Peter Shore, David Owen, Richard Crossman, Michael Foot, it was a party full of talent and ideas, some barmy but most pretty mainstream and focussed on the people they were wanting to serve. The comparison with the current shadow cabinet (or even the present cabinet) is pretty painful. Public service no longer attracts the talent it did.
In the 1970s, Labour had a decent leader -Harold Wilson -who had a first degree in economics. He was not on the hard left -he had contempt for Bennism -the word then for Corbynism -nor was he an early Blairite. He was mainstream. As was James Callaghan his successor. As was John Smith in the 1990s. It is to this mainstream-neither of the hard left Corbynistas, or the Blairites on the right of the party, the party of Wilson, Callaghan and Smith that Labour needs to return to. Longstanding Labour voters like me yearns for an end to the factions that Labour has been captured by since 1994.
Corbyn did not dare to present a Corbynista manifesto to voters in June 2017. Instead he stole Blair's 1997 slogan "For the Many, not the Few", made the Blairite promise that income tax and NI for 90% would not rise, and pretended that he could fund vast spending promises on a tax revenue that would be no greater than which was available to Blair and Brown.Even Corporation Tax would not rise higher than it was under Gordon Brown. Not only did he run away from his own fabled principles by not presenting a Corbynista manifesto, but he conned millions into believing in a Mr Micawber in reverse economics which suggested that you can spend ten shillings and sixpence when you only get 4 shillings and tuppence in revenue.
Now Labour is stuck with Corbyn until 2022 for his vanity loves the Stalinist adoration, the songs and poems to his name. But he is unlikely to win the 2022 election, and it would be even worse if he did because his failure would be so spectacular, he would disappoint so many expectations, his bubble would burst with such a spectacular "pop", that Labour would be out at the following election with a landslide, and out of power for a generation.
Not just a decent leader. Denis Healy, Roy Mason, Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, Barbara Castle, Tony Crosland, Peter Shore, David Owen, Richard Crossman, Michael Foot, it was a party full of talent and ideas, some barmy but most pretty mainstream and focussed on the people they were wanting to serve. The comparison with the current shadow cabinet (or even the present cabinet) is pretty painful. Public service no longer attracts the talent it did.
It was just such a shame such 'talent' made such a mess of the economy in the 1970s
In the 1970s, Labour had a decent leader -Harold Wilson -who had a first degree in economics. He was not on the hard left -he had contempt for Bennism -the word then for Corbynism -nor was he an early Blairite. He was mainstream. As was James Callaghan his successor. As was John Smith in the 1990s. It is to this mainstream-neither of the hard left Corbynistas, or the Blairites on the right of the party, the party of Wilson, Callaghan and Smith that Labour needs to return to. Longstanding Labour voters like me yearns for an end to the factions that Labour has been captured by since 1994.
Corbyn did not dare to present a Corbynista manifesto to voters in June 2017. Instead he stole Blair's 1997 slogan "For the Many, not the Few", made the Blairite promise that income tax and NI for 90% would not rise, and pretended that he could fund vast spending promises on a tax revenue that would be no greater than which was available to Blair and Brown.Even Corporation Tax would not rise higher than it was under Gordon Brown. Not only did he run away from his own fabled principles by not presenting a Corbynista manifesto, but he conned millions into believing in a Mr Micawber in reverse economics which suggested that you can spend ten shillings and sixpence when you only get 4 shillings and tuppence in revenue.
Now Labour is stuck with Corbyn until 2022 for his vanity loves the Stalinist adoration, the songs and poems to his name. But he is unlikely to win the 2022 election, and it would be even worse if he did because his failure would be so spectacular, he would disappoint so many expectations, his bubble would burst with such a spectacular "pop", that Labour would be out at the following election with a landslide, and out of power for a generation.
Not just a decent leader. Denis Healy, Roy Mason, Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, Barbara Castle, Tony Crosland, Peter Shore, David Owen, Richard Crossman, Michael Foot, it was a party full of talent and ideas, some barmy but most pretty mainstream and focussed on the people they were wanting to serve. The comparison with the current shadow cabinet (or even the present cabinet) is pretty painful. Public service no longer attracts the talent it did.
It was just such a shame such 'talent' made such a mess of the economy in the 1970s
It doesn't give you a lot of hope for the present bunch on either side (but particularly Labour)does it?
Mr. Eagles, what's so bad about that specific instance of social media?
I would argue that it's misleading, because it ignores the international courts that we do subscribe to, and which we are treaty bound to accept the rulings of.
We cannot pass a law, for example, changing how phone numbers in the UK work. (UK Telecoms, Numbering Systems Act 2018). Why? Because doing so would put us in breach of our treaty obligations to the International Telecoms Union, and their court (technically tribunal) could rule our new numbering system illegal.
We also accept, for example, decisions of the NATO Court. And we are treaty bound to accept the decisions of various ISDS tribunals, under limited circumstances.
So it's not really true to say that we are now free to legislate whatever we want, because we continue to be bound by treaties we have signed
However, what is fundamentally different about the ECJ relative to (for example) the ITU Tribunal is the extent to which it affects UK law.
Just hoping Corbyn will get too old and go away won't defeat Corbynism. In fact his replacement might not be so thick and so stubborn. McDonnell is far more dangerous for exactly those reasons.
The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster.
Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.
Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.
Why would anyone under 40 who does not remember the strikes and high inflation and inefficient industries and relatively low GDP per capita of the UK in the 70s be concerned about Corbynism? After all he is offering them free tuition fees, a big pay rise if they work in the public sector, cheaper rail tickets and electricity and housing all paid for by the rich
Perhaps they could try informing the public? Also Miliband was promising quite a few of those things (albeit more moderately as with Eddie Spheroids they tried to find measure that were workable in reality), and Team Posho went to town on the flaws.
Miliband was not offering free tuition fees and cancelled student debt to attract young people like Corbyn is. Miliband was not offering an end to austerity in the sense Corbyn is to attract public sector workers. Miliband was not offering to back Brexit as Corbyn is and attracting former UKIP voters. Cameron and Osborne promised to slash inheritance tax and keep the triple lock and an asset care costs cap to attract their target vote, May offered a dementia tax and an end to the triple lock turning off the core vote.
EdM's policies were luke-warm Socialism - for example look at the railway policy; allow public sector bidders to bid against the private sector - what was that meant to achieve? Allows the Tories to portray it in a way that gets small c conservatives agitated, but doesn't inspire lefties.
Exactly while Corbyn is offering full nationalisation. Miliband and May were arguably offering policies in the longer term interests of the country but Corbyn and Cameron were offering policies that appealed more to their target voters
Just hoping Corbyn will get too old and go away won't defeat Corbynism. In fact his replacement might not be so thick and so stubborn. McDonnell is far more dangerous for exactly those reasons.
The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster.
Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.
Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.
Why would anyone under 40 who does not remember the strikes and high inflation and inefficient industries and relatively low GDP per capita of the UK in the 70s be concerned about Corbynism? After all he is offering them free tuition fees, a big pay rise if they work in the public sector, cheaper rail tickets and electricity and housing all paid for by the rich
Perhaps they could try informing the public? Also Miliband was promising quite a few of those things (albeit more moderately as with Eddie Spheroids they tried to find measure that were vaguely possible in reality), and Team Posho went to town on the flaws.
A line of attack that lost a certain amount of credibility and potency after both Cameron and May adopted many of Miliband's plans.
The thing was, Cameron / Osborne machine had killed lots of Miliband ideas way before the election. May as you say has copied some and they just ceded the ground of things like free uni, re-nationalization, etc.
If Bad Al was working for the Tories (not that he would), he would have whipped up all sorts of "independent" reports and placed stories etc to highlight disasters of said policies. Would be drip drip drip drip.
The Tories just hoping Corbynism will go away, it won't. They need to fight the flawed ideas.
Some ideas of their own would be a start. All we have had is T May standing on the steps of No. 10 demonstrating that she understood the problem, and then..... nothing.
Mr. Eagles, what's so bad about that specific instance of social media?
I would argue that it's misleading, because it ignores the international courts that we do subscribe to, and which we are treaty bound to accept the rulings of.
We cannot pass a law, for example, changing how phone numbers in the UK work. (UK Telecoms, Numbering Systems Act 2018). Why? Because doing so would put us in breach of our treaty obligations to the International Telecoms Union, and their court (technically tribunal) could rule our new numbering system illegal.
We also accept, for example, decisions of the NATO Court. And we are treaty bound to accept the decisions of various ISDS tribunals, under limited circumstances.
So it's not really true to say that we are now free to legislate whatever we want, because we continue to be bound by treaties we have signed
However, what is fundamentally different about the ECJ relative to (for example) the ITU Tribunal is the extent to which it affects UK law.
And the extent to which they can extend their jurisdiction into areas not previously agreed.
Experience tells me you should assume nothing about a by-election until it happens.
On the issue of the Labour Party, it is what it is and what has become. It's entirely possible after a dozen years in Government and even with different leaders, the mood for a change will be strong enough to put Labour in. It might have happened in 1992 under other circumstances.
Though I'm no supporter, I don't have the visceral fear or loathing of a Corbyn Government that some on here have. Every Labour leader since MacDonald has faced this undercurrent from the other side. Whether they are a prisoner of the Unions or Moscow or just plain naive, Wilson, Blair and all the others have had to deal with the attacks on character, association etc.
As to the policies, we'll see what is actually offered in the 2022 Manifesto. I do think the initial push by May into Labour territory (workers on boards etc) wrong footed Corbyn and McDonnell and they made the classic mistake of tacking away to the extreme just as the Conservatives did under Hague and IDS in the face of Blairite social democracy.
For the many who are struggling economically, a positive message will resonate far more than simply being told "there's no alternative" or "the country can't afford to give you a pay rise". Will people sign up to another decade of going nowhere slowly (or fast) or will the blandishments of a well-narrated alternative prove irresistible ?
Mr. Eagles, what's so bad about that specific instance of social media?
I would argue that it's misleading, because it ignores the international courts that we do subscribe to, and which we are treaty bound to accept the rulings of.
We cannot pass a law, for example, changing how phone numbers in the UK work. (UK Telecoms, Numbering Systems Act 2018). Why? Because doing so would put us in breach of our treaty obligations to the International Telecoms Union, and their court (technically tribunal) could rule our new numbering system illegal.
We also accept, for example, decisions of the NATO Court. And we are treaty bound to accept the decisions of various ISDS tribunals, under limited circumstances.
So it's not really true to say that we are now free to legislate whatever we want, because we continue to be bound by treaties we have signed
However, what is fundamentally different about the ECJ relative to (for example) the ITU Tribunal is the extent to which it affects UK law.
And the extent to which they can extend their jurisdiction into areas not previously agreed.
Experience tells me you should assume nothing about a by-election until it happens.
On the issue of the Labour Party, it is what it is and what has become. It's entirely possible after a dozen years in Government and even with different leaders, the mood for a change will be strong enough to put Labour in. It might have happened in 1992 under other circumstances.
Though I'm no supporter, I don't have the visceral fear or loathing of a Corbyn Government that some on here have. Every Labour leader since MacDonald has faced this undercurrent from the other side. Whether they are a prisoner of the Unions or Moscow or just plain naive, Wilson, Blair and all the others have had to deal with the attacks on character, association etc.
As to the policies, we'll see what is actually offered in the 2022 Manifesto. I do think the initial push by May into Labour territory (workers on boards etc) wrong footed Corbyn and McDonnell and they made the classic mistake of tacking away to the extreme just as the Conservatives did under Hague and IDS in the face of Blairite social democracy.
For the many who are struggling economically, a positive message will resonate far more than simply being told "there's no alternative" or "the country can't afford to give you a pay rise". Will people sign up to another decade of going nowhere slowly (or fast) or will the blandishments of a well-narrated alternative prove irresistible ?
Tories recently have seemed keen to outbid Labour in the crazy ideology department, JRM4PM for example. We will see if Mays recent pragmatism over Brexit sticks or whether they revert to clear blue water.
Just hoping Corbyn will get too old and go away won't defeat Corbynism. In fact his replacement might not be so thick and so stubborn. McDonnell is far more dangerous for exactly those reasons.
The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster.
Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.
Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.
Why would anyone under 40 who does not remember the strikes and high inflation and inefficient industries and relatively low GDP per capita of the UK in the 70s be concerned about Corbynism? After all he is offering them free tuition fees, a big pay rise if they work in the public sector, cheaper rail tickets and electricity and housing all paid for by the rich
Perhaps they could try informing the public? Also Miliband was promising quite a few of those things (albeit more moderately as with Eddie Spheroids they tried to find measure that were vaguely possible in reality), and Team Posho went to town on the flaws.
A line of attack that lost a certain amount of credibility and potency after both Cameron and May adopted many of Miliband's plans.
The thing was, Cameron / Osborne machine had killed lots of Miliband ideas way before the election. May as you say has copied some and they just ceded the ground of things like free uni, re-nationalization, etc.
If Bad Al was working for the Tories (not that he would), he would have whipped up all sorts of "independent" reports and placed stories etc to highlight disasters of said policies. Would be drip drip drip drip.
The Tories just hoping Corbynism will go away, it won't. They need to fight the flawed ideas.
Some ideas of their own would be a start. All we have had is T May standing on the steps of No. 10 demonstrating that she understood the problem, and then..... nothing.
Right.
Actually the world works far better when you have competing ideas, people debate them, etc etc etc. The Tories at the moment are devoid of any ideas. The budget being a good example. Not all ideas have to cost money.
Comments
That'll be fun...
Hmmm.
Starmer
Rayner
Thornberry
Short-Trousers
I think I've probably listed them in my order of preference.
I am being unfair. It's understandable that even the most left wing people would want to own their home given the cost of renting.
It can't be explained by the surrounding villages being stuffed with tories, a lot of these places are effectively commuter suburbs with people driving to Ashford to get HS1 to St Pancras every day.
Who is Short-Trousers, though?
It could reduce construction - although counter-intuitively slowing price rises could actually speed up construction.
(*) Slowlllllllllllllyyyyyy..
Don't forget the Italian general election in May next year where 5* are ahead and the Swedish election in September where the Swedish Democrats will be watched as well as the US midterms
I would also have thought there would be at least one openly anti-Corbyn candidate out there.
1: He's old. There's every chance he could retire through ill health or similar - if we make it to 2022 then he'd be 73 by the election and standing to be PM until the following election presumably if he wins by which time he'd be 78. He might want either not be able to make it to the next election in full health or decide to pass the baton on to one of his acolytes before the next election.
2: The Tories recover in the polls between now and the next election, potentially following a successful Brexit. Labour divisions that existed before the election re-emerge, wondering why Labour is behind in the polls midterm and a putsch is successful.
Bringing down house prices is always going to be painful for some. It just depends on how it is done as to where the misery falls. One persons exorbitant asking price is another ones savings.
We need to keep any steam out of the property market by gradually and slowly increasing interest rates but we absolutely do not want to crash it. JM Keynes was pretty much put in charge of UK economic policy after the great recession and he created quite rapid growth with housebuilding, easy credit and a secure property market (along with some rearming latterly). We should learn from the great man.
http://www.rac1.cat/programes/el-mon/20171211/433564130750/la-llista-de-puigdemont-passa-per-davant-derc-segons-una-enquesta-de-jxcat.html
Local members of the Watford Constituency Labour Party (CLP) have reacted angrily after the central party overturned its selection committee’s decision not to add taxi driver and Unite member, Mike Hedges, to its parliamentary shortlist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/11/unite-union-accused-rigging-selection-jeremy-corbyn-allyin-labour/
I'm just surprised Macdonnell wants us all to be like Thatcher.
By-elections can create its own dynamics.
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/940273438723276801
Currently, banks have an incentive to lend to buy houses.
The president of the European council, Donald Tusk, will tell EU leaders at a summit on Thursday that mandatory quotas have been divisive and ineffective, in a clear sign that he is ready to abandon the policy that has created bitter splits across the continent.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/11/eu-may-scrap-refugee-quota-scheme-donald-tusk
There is the third possibility of mortality too.
The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster. They don't seem to grasp that normal people don't really follow things more than the odd soundbite.
Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.
Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.
Au contraire. I have always maintained that we should either be out, or all the way in. Our semi-detached, exceptional status was sub-optimal on a number of levels.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election
...Despite the backlash against the emergency scheme, the European commission proposed making quotas a permanent feature of EU law in 2016. Under its proposal, countries that refuse to take part in a “corrective allocation mechanism” to take the pressure off member states bearing the brunt would have to pay a “solidarity contribution” of €250,000 (£220,000) per asylum seeker."
120,000 x 220,000 = 26,400,000,000
Nice to be able to put a £ figure on the Merkel madness. Now if only someone could print it on the side of a bus...
It's all over, bar the negotiating, I guess!
It's possible that May's deal simply means we're looking at an orderly break up of the UK over a 10 year period.
If Bad Al was working for the Tories (not that he would), he would have whipped up all sorts of "independent" reports and placed stories etc to highlight disasters of said policies. Would be drip drip drip drip.
The Tories just hoping Corbynism will go away, it won't. They need to fight the flawed ideas.
I wonder if Eurosceptics who were incredulous at the time would care to reread it now:
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1492490/#Comment_1492490
Corbyn did not dare to present a Corbynista manifesto to voters in June 2017. Instead he stole Blair's 1997 slogan "For the Many, not the Few", made the Blairite promise that income tax and NI for 90% would not rise, and pretended that he could fund vast spending promises on a tax revenue that would be no greater than which was available to Blair and Brown.Even Corporation Tax would not rise higher than it was under Gordon Brown. Not only did he run away from his own fabled principles by not presenting a Corbynista manifesto, but he conned millions into believing in a Mr Micawber in reverse economics which suggested that you can spend ten shillings and sixpence when you only get 4 shillings and tuppence in revenue.
Now Labour is stuck with Corbyn until 2022 for his vanity loves the Stalinist adoration, the songs and poems to his name. But he is unlikely to win the 2022 election, and it would be even worse if he did because his failure would be so spectacular, he would disappoint so many expectations, his bubble would burst with such a spectacular "pop", that Labour would be out at the following election with a landslide, and out of power for a generation.
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/940286483243720704
We cannot pass a law, for example, changing how phone numbers in the UK work. (UK Telecoms, Numbering Systems Act 2018). Why? Because doing so would put us in breach of our treaty obligations to the International Telecoms Union, and their court (technically tribunal) could rule our new numbering system illegal.
We also accept, for example, decisions of the NATO Court. And we are treaty bound to accept the decisions of various ISDS tribunals, under limited circumstances.
So it's not really true to say that we are now free to legislate whatever we want, because we continue to be bound by treaties we have signed
However, what is fundamentally different about the ECJ relative to (for example) the ITU Tribunal is the extent to which it affects UK law.
Experience tells me you should assume nothing about a by-election until it happens.
On the issue of the Labour Party, it is what it is and what has become. It's entirely possible after a dozen years in Government and even with different leaders, the mood for a change will be strong enough to put Labour in. It might have happened in 1992 under other circumstances.
Though I'm no supporter, I don't have the visceral fear or loathing of a Corbyn Government that some on here have. Every Labour leader since MacDonald has faced this undercurrent from the other side. Whether they are a prisoner of the Unions or Moscow or just plain naive, Wilson, Blair and all the others have had to deal with the attacks on character, association etc.
As to the policies, we'll see what is actually offered in the 2022 Manifesto. I do think the initial push by May into Labour territory (workers on boards etc) wrong footed Corbyn and McDonnell and they made the classic mistake of tacking away to the extreme just as the Conservatives did under Hague and IDS in the face of Blairite social democracy.
For the many who are struggling economically, a positive message will resonate far more than simply being told "there's no alternative" or "the country can't afford to give you a pay rise". Will people sign up to another decade of going nowhere slowly (or fast) or will the blandishments of a well-narrated alternative prove irresistible ?
Berlin echoes to the cry of Death to Jews
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article171493329/Die-Hilflosigkeit-der-Polizei-bei-Tod-den-Juden-Rufen.html
Actually the world works far better when you have competing ideas, people debate them, etc etc etc. The Tories at the moment are devoid of any ideas. The budget being a good example. Not all ideas have to cost money.