Rent controls work EVERYWHERE else, its typical post-Thatcher British stupidity to assume everyone else is wrong and we are right even when the evidence is clear and unambiguous.
Oh really?
Unanimity among economists is rare but if there is one issue that unites practitioners of the dismal science, it is rent controls. Almost universally, they consider them a bad idea.
The interesting distinction between Leavers and Remainers is at the second level - control versus rights - after the main distinction of immigration and the economy. Leavers and Remainers have completely different concepts of freedom.
On topic, it seems Mrs May is feeling confident. Mind you, she was confident before the GE.
Remainers believe rights derive from the State whereas Leavers believe they are inalienable and do not require the EU to deliver them.
That word cloud suggests the opposite. Leavers see freedom in the state controlling individual behaviour. For Remainers the EU protects individual rights to do what they want from interference by the state.
Rent controls work EVERYWHERE else, its typical post-Thatcher British stupidity to assume everyone else is wrong and we are right even when the evidence is clear and unambiguous.
Oh really?
Unanimity among economists is rare but if there is one issue that unites practitioners of the dismal science, it is rent controls. Almost universally, they consider them a bad idea.
On the reshuffle. Lots of pressure on May from both wings of the party to establish control over the other wing. Surely the best way to reassert her authority is NOT to reshuffle - this is my cabinet, it like me is Strong and Stable...
On housing. Its pretty simple really. When people have minimal prospect of ever being able to afford a deposit to buy, and in many bigger cities now struggle to rent without half their salary plus going to the landlord, the system is clearly broken. Rents are high because purchasing costs are high. So build a large number of houses that aren't sold on the market, rent them at a price people can afford, the private landlords can't afford to drop rents and sell up, hey presto houses on the market with falling prices. Rent controls work EVERYWHERE else, its typical post-Thatcher British stupidity to assume everyone else is wrong and we are right even when the evidence is clear and unambiguous.
Do you want to ask Mr Rackman's tenants how rent controls works for them?
A fixed return (say inflation plus) on investment could work but absolute rent controls are a disaster over time because they eliminate the incentive to improve.
The real problem is that BTL is a really despot way to save for retirement. But because Brown messed up private pensions so much and removed trust in the system, together with yields cratering, and the British cultural fetish with property ownership too many people saw it as a way they could control their saving
Why are public schoolboys so against Grammar schools? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were a good Grammar school lad, but why was Tony Crossland so against them - the posh git.
TSE is a public schoolboy (as indeed am I though my sister went to a grammar and my cousins to comprehensives).
Grammar schools increase competition at on of Scotland
TBH, private school fees seem like a waste of money these days. Ever greater sums are spent on ever more elaborate facilities.
If you can afford to pay fees, you can certainly afford to move to places where there are good State schools.
Certainly if you can get your child into a grammar or a top Church of England Academy etc you do not really need to go private.
Most boarding schools now see the biggest growth in pupils from the Far East, as their fees are so expensive you need to either work in the City, be a celebrity or a top barrister or surgeon to afford them
For the last 20 years most people have paid school fees out of capital not income
Inheritance from grandparents or property wealth may help but most t after
They borrow it against their house
You still need to be a high earner or have a substantial inheritance to have the property wealth to borrow against to pay for expensive private school fees
Um... yes.... durrh?
It’s also worth saying that there’s a significant difference in costs and pupil-base between London commuting distance and the wider country, at least at the
In any event even at boarding schools most fees are not in the 30k range.
Your average Home Counties private day school is £11k a year.
Which you would still need to be close to the top 10% of earners to pay based on the typical calculation of fees being a quarter of salary. Though as I said day school fees are more affordable than boarding school fees and many parents do make sacrifices to educate their children privately
Absolutely. From my experience of such a school, a lot of parents made huge sacrifices to send their kids there.
Ok then. Let's not cap rents. Just force them down by having a significant investment into HA properties which have rents set at levels people can afford. Private landlords can then try and charge whatever premium they see fit - net effect will still be rents dropping.
I get the impression that some posters don't see unaffordable housing as an issue.
I don't. As I have frequently said, many people think the government is there to do things for them (and get quite upset when it doesn't), whereas I think the government is there to do things to me (and get quite pleased when it doesn't).
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
He is wrong, but his wrongness covers an important point. According to Carl, Dennison and Evans, the important questions were "why did UK leave instead of another EU country" and "why did UK leave now instead of earlier or later". Broadly, the UK because of various endogenous factors (including, but not limited to, insularity) never achieved sufficient EU buy-in from the population, both posh and common. So when the EU became stressed by the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing mass migration waves, the UK was unusually susceptible to leaving and unusually vulnerable to those specific stresses.
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
Little Boxes, Little Boxes, all made of ticky, tacky Little Boxes, Little Boxes and they all look just the same
Houses are being built in London - lots of them, the cranes are everywhere, the imported construction workers aren't short of work.
BUT all you see are flats, boxes, being built. Is the answer to the housing problem in London simply about building boxes in blocks on brownfield sites ? To what extent are they homes for families ?
The housing problem has many dimensions - the solution also needs many dimensions and while there has to be a place for flats that's not all the solution. Homes, like the people in them, come in all shapes and sizes.
They'd be plenty more family homes in London if all the twenty-year-olds could abandon their room share HMOs...
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
He is wrong, but his wrongness covers an important point. According to Carl, Dennison and Evans, the important questions were "why did UK leave instead of another EU country" and "why did UK leave now instead of earlier or later". Broadly, the UK because of various endogenous factors (including, but not limited to, insularity) never achieved sufficient EU buy-in from the population, both posh and common. So when the EU became stressed by the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing mass migration waves, the UK was unusually susceptible to leaving and unusually vulnerable to those specific stresses.
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
To really buy into the EU, people have to take the view that membership has civilised them. We don't take that view, but people like the Germans, Greeks, Irish, Spanish do, which is why they'll make sacrifices to remain within it.
He is wrong, but his wrongness covers an important point. According to Carl, Dennison and Evans, the important questions were "why did UK leave instead of another EU country" and "why did UK leave now instead of earlier or later". Broadly, the UK because of various endogenous factors (including, but not limited to, insularity) never achieved sufficient EU buy-in from the population, both posh and common. So when the EU became stressed by the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing mass migration waves, the UK was unusually susceptible to leaving and unusually vulnerable to those specific stresses.
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
To really buy into the EU, people have to take the view that membership has civilised them. We don't take that view, but people like the Germans, Greeks, Irish, Spanish do, which is why they'll make sacrifices to remain within it.
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
He is wrong, but his wrongness covers an important point. According to Carl, Dennison and Evans, the important questions were "why did UK leave instead of another EU country" and "why did UK leave now instead of earlier or later". Broadly, the UK because of various endogenous factors (including, but not limited to, insularity) never achieved sufficient EU buy-in from the population, both posh and common. So when the EU became stressed by the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing mass migration waves, the UK was unusually susceptible to leaving and unusually vulnerable to those specific stresses.
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
There are times when the numbers don't really give you the story you want. How has opinion changed over time? The EU is something that people talk about so rarely on a day to day basis that it is hard to get a feel for what people think about it. My impression is that back in the seventies and eighties almost all working class people were against the EU, but that they have come round to supporting it over time. But it is really hard to be sure. Likewise when UKIP started making itself felt, I was really surprised to find it appealing to erstwhile Conservatives. I'd always imagined that euroskepticism was very much a minority view amongst the better off. And yet leave has racked up pretty high votes in some pretty comfortable places. Again, it is really hard to know how representative my personal experience is. But the people who always seemed keenest to leave amongst those I know well are a couple of very left wing individuals. They had a whole set of arguments that would hardly go down well with middle class leavers. (Or anyone else at all to be honest.)
I actually wonder if anybody really knows what's going on and what will happen next.
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
He is wrong, but his wrongness covers an important point. According to Carl, Dennison and Evans, the important questions were "why did UK leave instead of another EU country" and "why did UK leave now instead of earlier or later". Broadly, the UK because of various endogenous factors (including, but not limited to, insularity) never achieved sufficient EU buy-in from the population, both posh and common. So when the EU became stressed by the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing mass migration waves, the UK was unusually susceptible to leaving and unusually vulnerable to those specific stresses.
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
To really buy into the EU, people have to take the view that membership has civilised them. We don't take that view, but people like the Germans, Greeks, Irish, Spanish do, which is why they'll make sacrifices to remain within it.
Alternatively if you believe that a larger union amplifies you. That perhaps explains the French (elite) buy in to the EU as well as the English buy in to the UK, as well as the English ambivalence to the EU. If the UK is really on its last legs, the English will need a replacement, and only the EU is capable of filling the void.
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
He is wrong, but his wrongness covers an important point. According to Carl, Dennison and Evans, the important questions were "why did UK leave instead of another EU country" and "why did UK leave now instead of earlier or later". Broadly, the UK because of various endogenous factors (including, but not limited to, insularity) never achieved sufficient EU buy-in from the population, both posh and common. So when the EU became stressed by the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing mass migration waves, the UK was unusually susceptible to leaving and unusually vulnerable to those specific stresses.
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
To really buy into the EU, people have to take the view that membership has civilised them. We don't take that view, but people like the Germans, Greeks, Irish, Spanish do, which is why they'll make sacrifices to remain within it.
Alternatively if you believe that a larger union amplifies you. That perhaps explains the French (elite) buy in to the EU as well as the English buy in to the UK, as well as the English ambivalence to the EU. If the UK is really on its last legs, the English will need a replacement, and only the EU is capable of filling the void.
I doubt if the UK is on its last legs, but even if Scotland were to break away, and Northern Ireland joined the Republic, the remaining 58m people would be unlikely to see any merit in rejoining the EU.
I don't. As I have frequently said, many people think the government is there to do things for them (and get quite upset when it doesn't), whereas I think the government is there to do things to me (and get quite pleased when it doesn't).
I absolutely agree there are exceptions (and that is why such generalisations are dangerous if one cannot subsequently refine and explain them in a receptive forum).
But I do think that the general Remainer view is one of the EU being there to prevent populism and anti-statist movements and to enforce a 'right' way of doing things. One of the most strident Remainer arguments both before and since the referendum has been that a bad consequence of leaving the EU is that it will allow the UK Government to roll back protections and 'rights' given to us by the EU.
Conversely I think many across the political spectrum both right and left who voted leave did so in the belief that decisions should be made at a more national or local level. They may have radically different ideas of what those decisions should be (Skinner vs JRM) but they both agreed that it was for the UK to decide those things for better or worse, not the EU impose them. I think to some extent this also explains the questions Recidivist was mentioning below.
The interesting distinction between Leavers and Remainers is at the second level - control versus rights - after the main distinction of immigration and the economy. Leavers and Remainers have completely different concepts of freedom.
On topic, it seems Mrs May is feeling confident. Mind you, she was confident before the GE.
Remainers believe rights derive from the State whereas Leavers believe they are inalienable and do not require the EU to deliver them.
That word cloud suggests the opposite. Leavers see freedom in the state controlling individual behaviour. For Remainers the EU protects individual rights to do what they want from interference by the state.
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
He is wrong, but his wrongness covers an important point. According to Carl, Dennison and Evans, the important questions were "why did UK leave instead of another EU country" and "why did UK leave now instead of earlier or later". Broadly, the UK because of various endogenous factors (including, but not limited to, insularity) never achieved sufficient EU buy-in from the population, both posh and common. So when the EU became stressed by the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing mass migration waves, the UK was unusually susceptible to leaving and unusually vulnerable to those specific stresses.
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
To really buy into the EU, people have to take the view that membership has civilised them. We don't take that view, but people like the Germans, Greeks, Irish, Spanish do, which is why they'll make sacrifices to remain within it.
Alternatively if you believe that a larger union amplifies you. That perhaps explains the French (elite) buy in to the EU as well as the English buy in to the UK, as well as the English ambivalence to the EU. If the UK is really on its last legs, the English will need a replacement, and only the EU is capable of filling the void.
I doubt if the UK is on its last legs, but even if Scotland were to break away, and Northern Ireland joined the Republic, the remaining 58m people would be unlikely to see any merit in rejoining the EU.
Given that both Scotland and N.Ireland were far more pro-EU than England I think you are absolutely right.
If they must do the predictable fireworks business, why can't they just crack on with it now instead of making people hang about in the cold until stupid o'clock?
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
He is wrong, but his wrongness covers an important point. According to Carl, Dennison and Evans, the important questions were "why did UK leave instead of another EU country" and "why did UK leave now instead of earlier or later". Broadly, the UK because of various endogenous factors (including, but not limited to, insularity) never achieved sufficient EU buy-in from the population, both posh and common. So when the EU became stressed by the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing mass migration waves, the UK was unusually susceptible to leaving and unusually vulnerable to those specific stresses.
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
To really buy into the EU, people have to take the view that membership has civilised them. We don't take that view, but people like the Germans, Greeks, Irish, Spanish do, which is why they'll make sacrifices to remain within it.
Alternatively if you believe that a larger union amplifies you. That perhaps explains the French (elite) buy in to the EU as well as the English buy in to the UK, as well as the English ambivalence to the EU. If the UK is really on its last legs, the English will need a replacement, and only the EU is capable of filling the void.
A larger union certainly amplifies you, if it speaks with your voice.
If it doesn’t speak with your voice though, it doesn’t matter how big or how influential it may be. In fact, if it’s too big and too influential and doesn’t speak with your voice, then you might want to not be involved with it any longer...
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
He is wrong, but his wrongness covers an important point. According to Carl, Dennison and Evans, the important questions were "why did UK leave instead of another EU country" and "why did UK leave now instead of earlier or later". Broadly, the UK because of various endogenous factors (including, but not limited to, insularity) never achieved sufficient EU buy-in from the population, both posh and common. So when the EU became stressed by the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing mass migration waves, the UK was unusually susceptible to leaving and unusually vulnerable to those specific stresses.
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
To really buy into the EU, people have to take the view that membership has civilised them. We don't take that view, but people like the Germans, Greeks, Irish, Spanish do, which is why they'll make sacrifices to remain within it.
Alternatively if you believe that a larger union amplifies you. That perhaps explains the French (elite) buy in to the EU as well as the English buy in to the UK, as well as the English ambivalence to the EU. If the UK is really on its last legs, the English will need a replacement, and only the EU is capable of filling the void.
A larger union certainly amplifies you, if it speaks with your voice.
If it doesn’t speak with your voice though, it doesn’t matter how big or how influential it may be. In fact, if it’s too big and too influential and doesn’t speak with your voice, then you might want to not be involved with it any longer...
Which is why it comes back to identity. People need to believe that the EU is us, not them.
Ok then. Let's not cap rents. Just force them down by having a significant investment into HA properties which have rents set at levels people can afford. Private landlords can then try and charge whatever premium they see fit - net effect will still be rents dropping.
I get the impression that some posters don't see unaffordable housing as an issue.
So you would have a two tier system, with a long waiting list for the state-subsidised first tier and people scared to ever move out from them? I'm a social democrat but rent caps or price fixing doesn't work. Want more affordable houses for renters and buyers? Build more.
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
He is wrong, but his wrongness covers an important point. According to Carl, Dennison and Evans, the important questions were "why did UK leave instead of another EU country" and "why did UK leave now instead of earlier or later". Broadly, the UK because of various endogenous factors (including, but not limited to, insularity) never achieved sufficient EU buy-in from the population, both posh and common. So when the EU became stressed by the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing mass migration waves, the UK was unusually susceptible to leaving and unusually vulnerable to those specific stresses.
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
To really buy into the EU, people have to take the view that membership has civilised them. We don't take that view, but people like the Germans, Greeks, Irish, Spanish do, which is why they'll make sacrifices to remain within it.
Alternatively if you believe that a larger union amplifies you. That perhaps explains the French (elite) buy in to the EU as well as the English buy in to the UK, as well as the English ambivalence to the EU. If the UK is really on its last legs, the English will need a replacement, and only the EU is capable of filling the void.
A larger union certainly amplifies you, if it speaks with your voice.
If it doesn’t speak with your voice though, it doesn’t matter how big or how influential it may be. In fact, if it’s too big and too influential and doesn’t speak with your voice, then you might want to not be involved with it any longer...
Which is why it comes back to identity. People need to believe that the EU is us, not them.
I salute your indefatigability Sir. Happy New Year!
He is wrong. ABs voted strongly Remain, C1s were split, C2s and DEs voted strongly Leave in large part over immigration
He is wrong, but his wrongness covers an important point. According to Carl, Dennison and Evans, the important questions were "why did UK leave instead of another EU country" and "why did UK leave now instead of earlier or later". Broadly, the UK because of various endogenous factors (including, but not limited to, insularity) never achieved sufficient EU buy-in from the population, both posh and common. So when the EU became stressed by the 2008 financial crisis and the ongoing mass migration waves, the UK was unusually susceptible to leaving and unusually vulnerable to those specific stresses.
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
To really buy into the EU, people have to take the view that membership has civilised them. We don't take that view, but people like the Germans, Greeks, Irish, Spanish do, which is why they'll make sacrifices to remain within it.
Alternatively if you believe that a larger union amplifies you. That perhaps explains the French (elite) buy in to the EU as well as the English buy in to the UK, as well as the English ambivalence to the EU. If the UK is really on its last legs, the English will need a replacement, and only the EU is capable of filling the void.
A larger union certainly amplifies you, if it speaks with your voice.
If it doesn’t speak with your voice though, it doesn’t matter how big or how influential it may be. In fact, if it’s too big and too influential and doesn’t speak with your voice, then you might want to not be involved with it any longer...
Which is why it comes back to identity. People need to believe that the EU is us, not them.
Which doesn't work when our views are ignored so much. See the CAP, banking regulation, Juncker, migration etc...
11 000 houses are going to be built in Epping Forest district as part of the local plan, 40% affordable housing
Correct me if I'm wrong but it's actually 11,400 new homes by 2033.
700 new homes a year roughly - well, we have to start somewhere. I know national Government has set all District and Borough Councils some pretty ambitious targets for new homes but one of the problems is competition for land with schools needing extra capacity and requirements for extra care provision.
New homes mean more than just places to live - they need infrastructure and services. Simply throwing up blocks of boxes or identikit estates does not communities make (I'm turning into Yoda, even look a bit like him too these days). I'm sure Epping Forest recognises that - one obvious thought is reviving the Epping-Ongar line as a proper public transport route (I know the preservation society want that) linking into an improved London Underground service at Epping.
I'm sure Epping Forest recognises that - one obvious thought is reviving the Epping-Ongar line as a proper public transport route (I know the preservation society want that) linking into an improved London Underground service at Epping.
Which is why it comes back to identity. People need to believe that the EU is us, not them.
Which in turn is why you will never win. Identity is something that is built up over centuries and through shared hardship. It is the reason why Yugoslavia and the USSR never managed to create and instil loyalty except through fear. I am quite sure the EU will continue to squeeze towards their dream of ever closer union but I am also sure the majority of people in the UK will never accept it and why there are other countries in the current EU who will eventually leave for similar reasons.
Which is why it comes back to identity. People need to believe that the EU is us, not them.
Which in turn is why you will never win. Identity is something that is built up over centuries and through shared hardship. It is the reason why Yugoslavia and the USSR never managed to create and instil loyalty except through fear. I am quite sure the EU will continue to squeeze towards their dream of ever closer union but I am also sure the majority of people in the UK will never accept it and why there are other countries in the current EU who will eventually leave for similar reasons.
Though a considerable percentage of the population has considerable loyalty and feeling towards the EU, not a majority, but not insignificant when 36% favour joining the Euro. Dont project your hostility on others. All nationalities are imagined creations, and all were forged from other smaller units over surprisingly short periods of time.
Which is why it comes back to identity. People need to believe that the EU is us, not them.
Which in turn is why you will never win. Identity is something that is built up over centuries and through shared hardship. It is the reason why Yugoslavia and the USSR never managed to create and instil loyalty except through fear. I am quite sure the EU will continue to squeeze towards their dream of ever closer union but I am also sure the majority of people in the UK will never accept it and why there are other countries in the current EU who will eventually leave for similar reasons.
Though a considerable percentage of the population has considerable loyalty and feeling towards the EU, not a majority, but not insignificant when 36% favour joining the Euro. Dont project your hostility on others. All nationalities are imagined creations, and all were forged from other smaller units over surprisingly short periods of time.
It took more than a thousand years to forge the English identity. Similarly for the French, the Scots and many others. That was based upon a shared language and culture and myriad wars and challenges that bound people together. The EU cannot hope to engender that sort of feeling. They are like the USSR or Yugoslavia and as soon as they stop moving forwards they will collapse.
Which is why it comes back to identity. People need to believe that the EU is us, not them.
Which in turn is why you will never win. Identity is something that is built up over centuries and through shared hardship. It is the reason why Yugoslavia and the USSR never managed to create and instil loyalty except through fear. I am quite sure the EU will continue to squeeze towards their dream of ever closer union but I am also sure the majority of people in the UK will never accept it and why there are other countries in the current EU who will eventually leave for similar reasons.
Though a considerable percentage of the population has considerable loyalty and feeling towards the EU, not a majority, but not insignificant when 36% favour joining the Euro. Dont project your hostility on others. All nationalities are imagined creations, and all were forged from other smaller units over surprisingly short periods of time.
It took more than a thousand years to forge the English identity. Similarly for the French, the Scots and many others. That was based upon a shared language and culture and myriad wars and challenges that bound people together. The EU cannot hope to engender that sort of feeling. They are like the USSR or Yugoslavia and as soon as they stop moving forwards they will collapse.
As late as mid 19th C the majority of French couldn't speak French. Italy too was not a nation. For another day though. Happy New Year PB!
On topic: I think Boris can safely be discarded now. He's served his purpose and has amply demonstrated why he's less suited to being PM than even Corbyn. He can now go gentle into that good night of Telegraph columns, lectures to American think tanks where the audiences are paralysed on prescription opiates and possibly a pro darts career.
@skynewsniall: If the volume of “I’ve waited till midnight to make my brilliant, mahoosively important political point cos to do it before would have looked dickish” tweets is anything to go by, that hellbound handcart just got rocket boosters. Slainté.
On topic: I think Boris can safely be discarded now. He's served his purpose and has amply demonstrated why he's less suited to being PM than even Corbyn. He can now go gentle into that good night of Telegraph columns, lectures to American think tanks where the audiences are paralysed on prescription opiates and possibly a pro darts career.
Hmm. Not sure. He managed to find a way back to relevance after this interview;
On topic: I think Boris can safely be discarded now. He's served his purpose and has amply demonstrated why he's less suited to being PM than even Corbyn. He can now go gentle into that good night of Telegraph columns, lectures to American think tanks where the audiences are paralysed on prescription opiates and possibly a pro darts career.
Which is why it comes back to identity. People need to believe that the EU is us, not them.
Which in turn is why you will never win. Identity is something that is built up over centuries and through shared hardship. It is the reason why Yugoslavia and the USSR never managed to create and instil loyalty except through fear. I am quite sure the EU will continue to squeeze towards their dream of ever closer union but I am also sure the majority of people in the UK will never accept it and why there are other countries in the current EU who will eventually leave for similar reasons.
Though a considerable percentage of the population has considerable loyalty and feeling towards the EU, not a majority, but not insignificant when 36% favour joining the Euro. Dont project your hostility on others. All nationalities are imagined creations, and all were forged from other smaller units over surprisingly short periods of time.
It took more than a thousand years to forge the English identity. Similarly for the French, the Scots and many others. That was based upon a shared language and culture and myriad wars and challenges that bound people together. The EU cannot hope to engender that sort of feeling. They are like the USSR or Yugoslavia and as soon as they stop moving forwards they will collapse.
On the contrary. European identity is the basic one. We share a common culture inherited from Greece and Rome and diffused via the Christian church. Nationalities come and go. Nationalism is a very recent idea and one that has hardly shown itself to be very beneficial, and is now on the wane.
Which is why it comes back to identity. People need to believe that the EU is us, not them.
Which in turn is why you will never win. Identity is something that is built up over centuries and through shared hardship. It is the reason why Yugoslavia and the USSR never managed to create and instil loyalty except through fear. I am quite sure the EU will continue to squeeze towards their dream of ever closer union but I am also sure the majority of people in the UK will never accept it and why there are other countries in the current EU who will eventually leave for similar reasons.
Though a considerable percentage of the population has considerable loyalty and feeling towards the EU, not a majority, but not insignificant when 36% favour joining the Euro. Dont project your hostility on others. All nationalities are imagined creations, and all were forged from other smaller units over surprisingly short periods of time.
It took more than a thousand years to forge the English identity. Similarly for the French, the Scots and many others. That was based upon a shared language and culture and myriad wars and challenges that bound people together. The EU cannot hope to engender that sort of feeling. They are like the USSR or Yugoslavia and as soon as they stop moving forwards they will collapse.
On the contrary. European identity is the basic one. We share a common culture inherited from Greece and Rome and diffused via the Christian church. Nationalities come and go. Nationalism is a very recent idea and one that has hardly shown itself to be very beneficial, and is now on the wane.
Not sure this comment is much help as a guide to betting.
Which is why it comes back to identity. People need to believe that the EU is us, not them.
Which in turn is why you will never win. Identity is something that is built up over centuries and through shared hardship. It is the reason why Yugoslavia and the USSR never managed to create and instil loyalty except through fear. I am quite sure the EU will continue to squeeze towards their dream of ever closer union but I am also sure the majority of people in the UK will never accept it and why there are other countries in the current EU who will eventually leave for similar reasons.
Though a considerable percentage of the population has considerable loyalty and feeling towards the EU, not a majority, but not insignificant when 36% favour joining the Euro. Dont project your hostility on others. All nationalities are imagined creations, and all were forged from other smaller units over surprisingly short periods of time.
It took more than a thousand years to forge the English identity. Similarly for the French, the Scots and many others. That was based upon a shared language and culture and myriad wars and challenges that bound people together. The EU cannot hope to engender that sort of feeling. They are like the USSR or Yugoslavia and as soon as they stop moving forwards they will collapse.
On the contrary. European identity is the basic one. We share a common culture inherited from Greece and Rome and diffused via the Christian church. Nationalities come and go. Nationalism is a very recent idea and one that has hardly shown itself to be very beneficial, and is now on the wane.
From Professor Wikipedia on Ancient Nationalism:
"Examples of nationalist movements can be found throughout history, from the Jewish revolts of the 2nd century, to the re-emergence of Persian culture during the Sasanid period of Persia, to the re-emergence of Latin culture in the Western Roman Empire during the 4th and 5th centuries, as well as many others."
Little Boxes, Little Boxes, all made of ticky, tacky Little Boxes, Little Boxes and they all look just the same
Houses are being built in London - lots of them, the cranes are everywhere, the imported construction workers aren't short of work.
BUT all you see are flats, boxes, being built. Is the answer to the housing problem in London simply about building boxes in blocks on brownfield sites ? To what extent are they homes for families ?
The housing problem has many dimensions - the solution also needs many dimensions and while there has to be a place for flats that's not all the solution. Homes, like the people in them, come in all shapes and sizes.
They'd be plenty more family homes in London if all the twenty-year-olds could abandon their room share HMOs...
They tend not to be shared rooms, but shared houses. Nothing whatsoever wrong with house shares - I lived in a few myself.
But the 20 year olds will live ... where?
If you want to see a real long-term housing cockup, try Oxford over the last decade. Made it very difficult for house shares, and hence for further loft conversions etc, and then they ended up demanding to be able to build on the Green Belts of other Councils.
No idea if they have stopped walking into walls yet.
Which is why it comes back to identity. People need to believe that the EU is us, not them.
Which in turn is why you will never win. Identity is something that is built up over centuries and through shared hardship. It is the reason why Yugoslavia and the USSR never managed to create and instil loyalty except through fear. I am quite sure the EU will continue to squeeze towards their dream of ever closer union but I am also sure the majority of people in the UK will never accept it and why there are other countries in the current EU who will eventually leave for similar reasons.
Though a considerable percentage of the population has considerable loyalty and feeling towards the EU, not a majority, but not insignificant when 36% favour joining the Euro. Dont project your hostility on others. All nationalities are imagined creations, and all were forged from other smaller units over surprisingly short periods of time.
It took more than a thousand years to forge the English identity. Similarly for the French, the Scots and many others. That was based upon a shared language and culture and myriad wars and challenges that bound people together. The EU cannot hope to engender that sort of feeling. They are like the USSR or Yugoslavia and as soon as they stop moving forwards they will collapse.
On the contrary. European identity is the basic one. We share a common culture inherited from Greece and Rome and diffused via the Christian church. Nationalities come and go. Nationalism is a very recent idea and one that has hardly shown itself to be very beneficial, and is now on the wane.
From Professor Wikipedia on Ancient Nationalism:
"Examples of nationalist movements can be found throughout history, from the Jewish revolts of the 2nd century, to the re-emergence of Persian culture during the Sasanid period of Persia, to the re-emergence of Latin culture in the Western Roman Empire during the 4th and 5th centuries, as well as many others."
Athens vs Sparta? Greece vs Persia?
BTW Happy New Year to everyone.
Latin culture re-emerged in the 4th and 5th centuries? Where had been before that?
Comments
Unanimity among economists is rare but if there is one issue that unites practitioners of the dismal science, it is rent controls. Almost universally, they consider them a bad idea.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-rent-controls-have-failed-around-world-corbyn-8spsjq5fl
Bloody experts....
Hopefully we'll see a new transport secretary who can make some coherent decisions regarding the railways.
A fixed return (say inflation plus) on investment could work but absolute rent controls are a disaster over time because they eliminate the incentive to improve.
The real problem is that BTL is a really despot way to save for retirement. But because Brown messed up private pensions so much and removed trust in the system, together with yields cratering, and the British cultural fetish with property ownership too many people saw it as a way they could control their saving
I get the impression that some posters don't see unaffordable housing as an issue.
'Roses need manure to prosper. The Yorkshire rose is fertilised by Bradford.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack-rent
The point, which O'Brien misses, is not just that this was a working-class LEAVE, but that the elites were not united sufficiently pro-EU to override them. Somebody (you? @Casino_Royale?) points out that this is the first election to be won by the working-class contra the middle-class since the 70's. PB tends to celebrate/condemn that point without understanding how unusual it is.
Further reading:
* http://www.academia.edu/34108891/AN_EXPLANATION_FOR_BREXIT
* http://www.academia.edu/29503724/EUROPEAN_BUT_NOT_EUROPEAN_ENOUGH_THE_CAUSES_AND_CONSEQUENCES_OF_BREXIT
May the new year have health, love and winnings
To really buy into the EU, people have to take the view that membership has civilised them. We don't take that view, but people like the Germans, Greeks, Irish, Spanish do, which is why they'll make sacrifices to remain within it.
I actually wonder if anybody really knows what's going on and what will happen next.
But I do think that the general Remainer view is one of the EU being there to prevent populism and anti-statist movements and to enforce a 'right' way of doing things. One of the most strident Remainer arguments both before and since the referendum has been that a bad consequence of leaving the EU is that it will allow the UK Government to roll back protections and 'rights' given to us by the EU.
Conversely I think many across the political spectrum both right and left who voted leave did so in the belief that decisions should be made at a more national or local level. They may have radically different ideas of what those decisions should be (Skinner vs JRM) but they both agreed that it was for the UK to decide those things for better or worse, not the EU impose them. I think to some extent this also explains the questions Recidivist was mentioning below.
I wish all PBers Happy New Year and successful punts.
If it doesn’t speak with your voice though, it doesn’t matter how big or how influential it may be. In fact, if it’s too big and too influential and doesn’t speak with your voice, then you might want to not be involved with it any longer...
700 new homes a year roughly - well, we have to start somewhere. I know national Government has set all District and Borough Councils some pretty ambitious targets for new homes but one of the problems is competition for land with schools needing extra capacity and requirements for extra care provision.
New homes mean more than just places to live - they need infrastructure and services. Simply throwing up blocks of boxes or identikit estates does not communities make (I'm turning into Yoda, even look a bit like him too these days). I'm sure Epping Forest recognises that - one obvious thought is reviving the Epping-Ongar line as a proper public transport route (I know the preservation society want that) linking into an improved London Underground service at Epping.
What about improving links to Roydon and Harlow ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/7n8jt5/only_british_people_will_understand/
Or was it first of 2018?
HNY!
Happy New Year
Hope it is a profitable one!
One solution - Resolution!
On topic: I think Boris can safely be discarded now. He's served his purpose and has amply demonstrated why he's less suited to being PM than even Corbyn. He can now go gentle into that good night of Telegraph columns, lectures to American think tanks where the audiences are paralysed on prescription opiates and possibly a pro darts career.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2013/mar/24/boris-johnson-accused-nasty-video
Which would have sunk pretty much anyone else. I recon he’s still a buy for next PM >20/1 when available.
"Examples of nationalist movements can be found throughout history, from the Jewish revolts of the 2nd century, to the re-emergence of Persian culture during the Sasanid period of Persia, to the re-emergence of Latin culture in the Western Roman Empire during the 4th and 5th centuries, as well as many others."
Athens vs Sparta? Greece vs Persia?
BTW Happy New Year to everyone.
But the 20 year olds will live ... where?
If you want to see a real long-term housing cockup, try Oxford over the last decade. Made it very difficult for house shares, and hence for further loft conversions etc, and then they ended up demanding to be able to build on the Green Belts of other Councils.
No idea if they have stopped walking into walls yet.